calpundit explains it all
Kevin Drum has an excellent analysis of Bush's poor management style.
[A] hallmark of good managers is that they are willing to look at real-world data honestly and eventually adjust their thinking if the data requires it, even if it's painful or embarrassing to do so — which it usually is. In my business, that means cancelling a product that was your idea in the first place, or admitting that sales was right about that trade show you made them go to. If you're the president of the United States, it might mean reconsidering the notion that bankrupting the country is a good idea.
Bad managers are either unwilling or afraid to do this. They either insulate themselves, or ignore the data when it's given to them, or deliberately choose to interpret the data in perverse ways. This is how George Bush strikes me. He simply doesn't care about whether things really work or not, or what the true effect of his plans is going to be, or what the data says. He just charges ahead because he's absolutely sure that his instincts are all he needs.
But there's more to the article Brad De Long's cited post links to -- not only is accurate information appearently unwelcome if it contradicts the Bush' perceptions, but even more disturbing, there's apparently little consequence for "misinforming" the President as long as it's what Bush wants to hear anyway. It's more telling that Condi Rice still has her job than that Zinni doesn't.
Bush speaks with great conviction, and the appearance of sincerity lends him credibility he doesn't deserve. That's why, as Steve Soto has suggested, the Democrats need to hammer Bush on his growing disconnect with reality.