Gary Crooks: Smart bombs

When we first heard of Anne Kirkpatrick, it was when she became one of five finalists for the police chief job in Spokane. She attended public forums and answered the media’s questions. By the time she was hired, her story was well-known. None of the other candidates was fired for seeking the Spokane job.

When we first heard of Rodolfo Arevalo, it was when he became one of three announced finalists for the president’s job at Eastern Washington University. Two months later, he was selected. The other candidates were not fired for seeking the same job.

When Stephen Jordan was named president of Eastern Washington in 1998, he was one of four candidates. Before his selection, he visited campus and attended a public forum, as did his rivals. None of the others were fired for seeking the job.

Before Lane Rawlins became president of Washington State University, he visited with students, staff and professors on campus. Would he have been punished by Memphis University had he not taken the job in Pullman? A celebration would’ve been more likely.

By contrast, the first we heard of Elson Floyd was after he was named president of Washington State University. That caused some grumbling on campus, because many top administrators and faculty members had yet to meet him.

The rationale for this speedy, secretive hire is that no leaders worth having would subject themselves to a public process. You have to grab them before another school does. There’s a limited supply. Publicizing the pursuit is deemed inappropriate, because it could put a superstar in a bind if he or she is not selected – though it’s not clear why an institution would exact revenge on such a precious commodity. Anyway, that’s just the way things are done in these rarified circles.

Do you buy it? And why didn’t it play out that way for leaders such as Kirkpatrick, Arevalo, Jordan and Rawlins?

Will Congress cut and run? In looking for a “new way forward” in Iraq, it might be best for the nation if President Bush moves to the background.

All the major polls say Americans want Congress to take the lead on the major issues facing the country. Americans overwhelming disapprove of the way the president has handled the war and they are pessimistic about his chances for finding a way out.

That probably stems from the president’s unrealistic appraisal of what would be deemed a victory or a defeat. After meeting with senior military leaders this week, he noted that some of their ideas “would lead to defeat.” He also reiterated his pledge to keep troops in Iraq and not leave “before the job is done.”

Of course, the whole debate is over what that job should be and how it should be accomplished. That the president is still wedded to simplistic notions of victory and defeat, even after the Iraq Study Group’s considerable efforts, shows that he is too inflexible to be effective.

The public is imploring Congress to take charge. It’s one thing to complain about a president’s leadership; it’s quite another to show your own. Is Congress up to the task?