About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

U.S. News: Bush's "hands-off" management style "worked for him as an oilman"

March 28, 2006 11:52 am ET
image

SUMMARY: U.S. News & World Report featured an article on how "George Bush wants to run his presidency like a business," which noted that Bush, according to White House insiders, "is applying the hands-off style he learned at Harvard Business School ... and also the methods that worked for him as an oilman." U.S. News never explained what exactly the "methods that worked" for Bush in the oil industry were, but according to news reports, they appear to have involved using his family's connections and influence to keep his failing oil venture afloat.

19 Comments

An article in the April 3 edition of U.S. News & World Report examined how "George Bush wants to run his presidency like a business," noting that Bush, according to White House insiders, "is applying the hands-off style he learned at Harvard Business School, where he earned a master's degree in business administration in 1975, and also the methods that worked for him as an oilman, as managing partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and, later, as governor of Texas." U.S. News never explained what exactly the "methods that worked" for Bush in the oil industry were; according to news reports, they appear to have involved using his family's connections and influence to keep his failing oil venture afloat.

From the article, "Falling Stock" by Kenneth T. Walsh, in the April 3 edition of U.S. News:

More than 60 percent of Americans now say the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, and 58 percent disapprove of Bush's job performance. He has begun an aggressive PR campaign to boost support for the war, which is the biggest drag on his presidency, and is considering adding a veteran Washington insider to bolster his staff.

Despite the problems, Bush is hanging tough. "I have not seen a change in the president's leadership style and the management tools he uses," [White House chief of staff Andrew] Card told U.S. News. Card and other Bush confidants say the chief executive is applying the hands-off style he learned at Harvard Business School, where he earned a master's degree in business administration in 1975, and also the methods that worked for him as an oilman, as managing partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and, later, as governor of Texas.

A May 8, 1999, New York Times profile of Bush's business ventures prior to his election as governor of Texas in 1994 noted: "Ultimately, oil made Mr. Bush a millionaire, and he used his profits to build an even larger fortune in baseball. But his success in oil had far more to do with mergers than with gushers." According to the Times, Arbusto Energy Inc., the oil company Bush founded in 1977 in Midland, Texas, had "wealthy and prominent friends of the Bush family" on its list of original investors, and such a "list was remarkable for a young company owned by a man of 32 with scant experience and virtually no track record." One of the original investors, a "corporate headhunter" named Russell S. Reynolds Jr., was quoted in the Times as saying: "The bottom line is it didn't work out very well with Arbusto. ... In fact, George Bush called it 'I busted.' I think we ended up getting 20 cents on the dollar."

The Times went on to report:

In each of the first three years, Mr. Bush managed to increase the amount invested in his oil funds, from $565,000 in 1979 to $1.7 million in 1981. But eager to grow faster, he switched strategies in 1982.

First he shored up his company's cash flow by selling 10 percent of its stock to a New York investor, Philip A. Uzielli, for the highly speculative price of $1 million. Mr. Uzielli, who declined to be interviewed, was a Princeton classmate and longtime friend of James A. Baker 3d, who was serving at the time as chief of staff in the Reagan-Bush White House. George W. Bush said he met Mr. Uzielli through another Arbusto investor, George L. Ohrstrom, and only later learned of Mr. Uzielli's relationship with Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker and Mr. Ohrstrom did not return calls.

Next, with his company regularly mocked as "Ar-bust-o" and his father serving as Vice President, Mr. Bush changed the firm's name to Bush Exploration. Then, in the biggest miscalculation of his business career, he decided to sell public shares in his 1982 oil-drilling fund rather than rely solely on private investments. The offering failed dismally, with Mr. Bush securing only $1.14 million of the $6 million he had sought to raise.

[...]

Over the years, the company had average luck in its drilling ventures, but never made a major discovery.

"We went about it the right way," said K. Michael Conaway, the company's treasurer, "made very cautious decisions. But we just didn't find enough oil and gas in the ground to be rousingly successful."

The Times went on to note that after Bush Exploration merged with Harken Energy Corp., Bush sold off his company stock for nearly $850,000 just eight days before the company announced a quarterly loss of over $23 million and its stock lost nearly 50 percent of its value. According to the Times:

Mr. Bush realized quickly that the stock's slide would raise concerns that he had sold with insider knowledge of the yet-to-be-reported loss. Although an outside director, he sat on an audit committee that regularly reviewed the company's financial practices. The suspicions were compounded when the Securities and Exchange Commission discovered it did not have a form from Mr. Bush that insiders must file when they sell stock, although Mr. Bush previously filed a different form that had disclosed his intent to sell.

Mr. Bush maintained that he had filed the missing disclosure form. But the commission investigated the transaction anyway. Mr. Bush's lawyer, Robert W. Jordan, defended him by arguing that he had not known about the impending loss when he sold his stock and that he had thought he was selling into the anticipated good news that the Basses [a prominent Texas family] were underwriting the Bahrain project [an oil-drilling venture Harken was involved with].

His ethical intent, Mr. Jordan said, was demonstrated by his decision to seek the clearance of a Harken lawyer before making the sale. Furthermore, the lawyer said, Mr. Bush did not seek a buyer for his stock but was solicited by a Los Angeles broker. The broker, Ralph D. Smith, now retired from Sutro & Company, confirmed that account.

"Listen, I was the son of a President," Mr. Bush said. "I was very sensitive to the scrutiny. I felt like liquidating the stock for personal reasons but I was also fully aware that any deal I did was going to be fully scrutinized."

The commission investigators were apparently convinced by Mr. Bush's explanation, particularly his consultation with counsel, said officials familiar with the investigation. In 1993, as Mr. Bush prepared to run for governor, the agency sent a letter at Mr. Jordan's request advising that "the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and that, at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated."

Mr. Bush's opponent in the campaign, the incumbent, Gov. Ann W. Richards, suggested that the investigation had been a political whitewash overseen by commission officials appointed by Mr. Bush's father. But commission officials have denied any political pressure, and noted that commission leaders with direct ties to the Bushes had been screened out of the investigation.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by cantseefade (March 28, 2006 12:00 pm ET)
         

      So Bush ran the company into the ground and bailed leaving the shareholders holding the bag and this is his successful "hands off" style? As a correction, oil did not make Dubya a millionaire, his daddy did. Unfortunately, his "hands-off" style is an accurate characterization of his presidency. Bush was like the dopey trojan horse that working class people elected because he sounded like one of them. Once elected, the neocons sprung out of his empty head and have been in power ever since.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Intergalatic Purveyor (March 28, 2006 2:15 pm ET)
           

        What really got him his dough from what I know about Bush was when some friends of his daddy helped him get some money so he could buy into the Texas Rangers. He made over 10 million when it was sold at a later date.

        As Molly Ivins likes to say " he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple".

        Report Abuse
        • Author by left of center (March 28, 2006 4:11 pm ET)
             

          Between her and Lou Dubose, they've got some beautiful phrases to describe the shrubster.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Slade (March 28, 2006 12:10 pm ET)
         

      It appears as though USN&WR is quoting "Washington Insiders". If so, it's the "Washington Insiders" who are concluding these methods worked for Bush as an oilman. I don't think USN&WR is concluding that. Unless I'm reading this incorrectly.

      But still, USN&WR shouldn't let something like that pass.

      BTW, I get USN&WR. It leans right, but is a pretty good mag.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nukeboot (March 28, 2006 12:15 pm ET)
         

      Shortly after George W. Bush announced that he was running for President, the Washington Post ran a six part series that traced W's life to the present. His string of failures was remarkable for a Presidential candidate.

      His "successful" stints as part owner of the Rangers and as Texas Governer were both positions in which he was a figurehead, not an active chief executive.

      I remember thinking to myself that there was no way this guy was going to get the nomination let alone be elected. In part I blame the Clinton administration. Clinton as voters were intensely interested in the ABC (anyone but Clinton) candidate. But then this guy gets re-elected?

      Will this country make a better choice in '08? I sure hope so.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Slade (March 28, 2006 12:19 pm ET)
           

        got Bush elected. Yes, he won. I'm not disputing that.

        But I do take some cold comfort in knowing that Bush lost popular vote to Gore by over 500,000 votes and it would have been much more without Nadar. In fact, without Nadar, we're not in the mess we are now.

        Oh well. If, If, If. If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's butt when it hopped.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by guy (March 28, 2006 4:42 pm ET)
             

          The votes weren't recounted.

          People were prevented from voting.

          People tried to vote for Gore but were given a misleading ballot.

          Different voting machines were given to different districts, so that Republican districts were more likely to have their votes counted.

          Bu$h stole the election fair and square; it wasn't the will of the people of Florida to elect him.

          And none of that has anything to do with Nader. And by the way -- Lieberman was Gore's VP pick. And that had nothing to do with Nader either. People who whine about Nader need to wake up and smell the coffee.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Yellow Bird (March 28, 2006 12:51 pm ET)
           

        is the name coming into my head.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (March 28, 2006 12:19 pm ET)
         

      Even before he completes his second term, Duhhbya should be inducted into the Blamers Hall of Fame, with his bust placed prominently at the entrance to the The Dog Ate My Homework wing.

      From " liquidating the stock for personal reasons " to "intelligence failures", he has compiled a long list of they-did-its and really should have a solid gold plaque on his desk that reads: "The Buck, What Buck? I Haven't Seen a Buck. I Think Someone Else Has the Buck. "

      Oh, he's a something-off alright, but it ain't "hands."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dr Zaius (March 28, 2006 12:22 pm ET)
         

      In his press conference, Bush said it would be up to another president to get us out. It's typical of his track record. Take control of some enterprise, totally screw it up, bail out and let someone else fix it. What a loser.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ChristianDemocrat (March 28, 2006 12:51 pm ET)
         

      I guess it's considered a success when, despite total incompetence, you're able to walk away with the money, if even through corrupt means. MMFA doesn't cover the Rangers period, but that's a great example of how to use government for personal gain.

      These anonymous insiders are a laugh too. Naturally, who would ever admit to such a outrageous claims?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 28, 2006 1:12 pm ET)
         

      He kept his hands off everything except the profits. He never had a grip on his responsibilities.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Yellow Bird (March 28, 2006 1:26 pm ET)
         

      I was just thinking that perhaps the U.S. News & World Report has another definition of succes.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (March 28, 2006 1:27 pm ET)
         

      Bush's millions are the result of three things:

      1. Nepotism.

      2. Imminent domain/government condemning private property (for private profit).

      3. TAX DOLLARS.

      W. Bush was an abject failure as an "oil man".

      Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (March 28, 2006 2:24 pm ET)
         

      Let us take a look at the Iraq debacle as a business enterprise. This leaves out the expenditure of American and Iraqi and other nations' blood and treasure - a glaring and obvious omission, of course.

      Iraq was a hostile takeover financed by a leveraged buyout. We invaded the country - this is the hostile take-over part. The effort was to be financed with Iraq's oil - this is the leveraged buyout part. Finance the acquisition with the acquisition's existing assets.

      How does this look for a strictly business standpoint? We don't have control of the acquisition target and rather than finance the transaction with the target's assets we have spent billions of our own money.

      Dismal failure. Or, in business terms, a BK that makes Enron look like the failure of a corner dime store.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by holly (March 28, 2006 2:33 pm ET)
         

      Quote: "Despite the problems, Bush is hanging tough. "I have not seen a change in the president's leadership style and the management tools he uses," [White House chief of staff Andrew] Card told U.S. News. "

      That isn't hanging tough. That's hanging stupid. You either adapt or die. Bush isn't adapting. Thus, is power is dying.

      As regards his "hands-off" management style, I suspect he's opening that others will make it all better. That "style" worked well so far for him.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ChristianDemocrat (March 28, 2006 3:18 pm ET)
         

      ...when he tried to use a hammer on the Gulf Coast.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (March 28, 2006 4:22 pm ET)
         

      George Bush is proof positive that anyone can get ahead in America so long as their dad is a powerful businessman, President, has stacks of cash, rich oil barons for friends, and the evil genius that is Karl Rove.

      Horatio Alger would be proud.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Uosdwis (March 28, 2006 5:35 pm ET)
         

      He's a combination of all the pious evilness of J.R. and the incompetence/alcoholism of Cliff Barnes!

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • U.S. News & World Report
    (202) 955-2000
    U.S.News & World Report
    1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20007

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace