Trust me – you delegated, why not carry through?

The idea that the President should be trusted in his nomination choices has be derided and ridiculed by those who detest the Miers nomination. The use of destructive tactics should be a sufficient indicator that a great deal of skepticism is needed in evaluating their views.

DJ Drummond describes the scene:

The assumption that Bush chose Harriet Miers simply because he knows her work and character, is an insult not only to Miers and Bush, but shows that some on the Right have bought into the ‘Chimpy McHitler’ caricature the Left has sold all these years; it’s simply foolhardy to ignore Bush’s record of picks. It’s simply laughable, to claim that President Bush made the choice without considering what was required for the job, without thinking in the long term, or that he refused to listen to anyone else. It wasn’t true in 2001, and it is still not true.

disrespecting him on the basis of a decision which value and consequence you have nothing but assumption, shows how thin the layer of consensus our party has built thus far, and so verifies the President’s own caution.

Even those who lose the election are obligation through what is known as the duty of loyalty to accept the outcome. Recently we have seen election losers eschew this duty. A Gore is the latest example when he trashed his country in a European speech.

As anyone who supervises others and delegates tasks to others knows, one of the best ways to destroy productivity and to assure unsatisfactory results is the act of micromanagement based on a lack of trust or the appearance of a lack of trust. There are more effective ways to make sure that those delegated to act do so in the ‘proper’ way. Beating until morale improves is not one of them.

Comments are closed.