I mean what I say: I don't think he can possibly be as naive as this piece suggests, and I don't think any of the plausible alternatives interpretations (e.g., incredibly negligent, corrupt, a fool) is better than this babe-in-the-woods confection.

If you'd like to assert that he's really this naive, feel free to make a case for it. Or if you have some interpretation that's better, I'd be glad to read that as well.