this blog develops the idea that a theory of man in history can be worked out around the theme that man's self expression in culture and society is motivated by the desire to find meaning in man's existence. i proceed by summarizing seminal works that provide insights into the dynamics of this process, with the view that the culmination of this exploration was reached with god's self revelation in jesus. i'll hopefully also explore the developments that followed this event.
Media promptly asks DC Democrat poohbahs if these actions are an impeachable offense in...3...2...1...
(It doesn't matter that it doesn't rise to that level--neither did the just dismissed impeachment.)
How soon before media makes a reference to Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"?
(These fired persons aren't anywhere close to the hierarchical level in the food chain, but as above, details and precision don't matter when you're out to get Trump.)
Sunday gabfests are bound to be consumed by this, revisiting Vindman's and Sonderland's assertions.
(Again, as someone elsewhere postulated, media needs Trump--especially now that football season is over.)
Sondland is the personification of oleaginous. Throughout his testimony, when he slithered this way and that, never stating the brief truth about what the President had told him to say to Zelensky, I wanted to smack him. A very dangerous goofball.
Interesting to observe the same clowns who are in high dudgeon over Vindman being reassigned for 3 months are essentially the same folks who cheered wildly when Gen. Flynn was forced to resign and prosecuted for a crime he never committed, but they never said "Booo!" when Obama sacked Gen. McCrystal for criticizing the POTUS' policies.
It is with good reason that, if you look in a dictionary under "hypocrisy," there are several photos of these pundits.
Unlike Nancy Pelosi, I actually do 'pray' for President Trump. Not in any formal, religious sense, I just hope he avoids his worst instincts and continues to focus on doing the right things for the country...without blowing things up.
I worry that his combativeness, his counterpunching instinct, so crucial to his ability to confront and vanquish his enemies, will also trigger a confrontation that escalates uncontrollably. I suspect diplomacy was invented to avoid just this risk.
Since he is incontrovertibly an egoist, I think one of his greatest weaknesses is in his people skills. I thought his joking introductions of the House Members who helped him in the impeachment defense were often superficial and too often focussed on their 'looks'. I'm thinking of his descriptions of Ratcliffe, Scalise and Jordan.
Looks aside, he has made some disastrous personnel choices, and putting Gordon Sondland in a position of responsibility ranks near the top. But there have been many many other bad people choices, such as Anthony Scaramucci and Omarosa Manigault Newman. Even more damaging have been some of his choices at State, Justice and the NSC: Sessions, Tillerson, Rosenstein, Wray, Mattis, McMaster, Bolton?
It is undoubtedly difficult to smoke out a swamp creature in an interview, and who knew how dangerous they would be, but the buck stops with the President. At the end of the day, however, he, and he alone, is responsible for his choices and the consequences of his choices.
Quite frankly, I've often wondered how he achieved the successes he has while making such terrible personnel decisions. I suspect, when all is said and done, what has saved him has been whoever got McGahn into his closest legal circle. McGahn was key not only in the judicial picks that were so important, but also ultimately in getting Barr to join the administration--which has provided so much stability.
Cassander--All true. It was the (unseen/unknown) trade-off made when electing a non-politician to the presidency. Trump had no bench, so to speak, he had no political intimates. Everyone who works, and has worked, for him is a contractor--a free agent--at arm's length. It works well in the RE development biz--not so well in political government.
But I think it has been worth it because we're discovering just how vast and deep is the partisanship of the administrative state, and the sheer influence of the Deep State. Trump has the ability to cause these swamp creatures to reveal themselves like never before.
It's important to remember that the phenomena of Trump occurred due to the swamp--he didn't cause it. Trump appeared as a kind of antidote to the underlying disease of the Deep State. And it's clear that he, alone, can't vanquish what has festered and arisen over decades. Most of DC are parasites that feed off it.
But knowing you have a debilitating condition is the first step to eradication.
It would be interesting to learn which appointments were recommended by which advisers--and which decided upon by Trump personally.
Trump, to his credit, has taken responsibility for the Sessions and Bolton appointments--both disastrous.
Some of the most successful appointments have come through Don McGahn and his successor, Pat Cipollone. One assumes that the Barr appointment came through McGahn, and may have involved a package deal of sorts. What connections brought these guys into the Trump camp? At that level there had to be some personal influence.
A fixture as a political adviser has been Kellyanne Conway--she has been remarkably long lived in her adviser role. Her fingerprints are on some of Trump's most successful policy initiatives. But we also know that personnel is policy. She recommended Pence, but has she recommended others? I'm sure she was totally on board with the legal guys mentioned above.
There's an important book yet to be written in all that.
Let's not forget Trump has only a small group of available folks that he could pick from. Very few people have the guts to offer themselves to be on his team, knowing that the media will try to destroy them.
I read some time ago that PDJT’s appointments of Mattis, Tillerson and McMaster came courtesy of recommendations by Condi Rice.
I think Sessions may have been a softhearted pick after Sessions went all out to campaign for him. Those who did that were few and far between at the time.
Bolton? Anybody’s guess. But he has turned out to be a major disappointment to many...
But ask yourself, why take advice from Condi when the Bush FP was the opposite of what Trump said he wanted to do? Frustrating. Did he think leopards would change their spots if he asked them to? Seemingly so.
Mark--I can't remember the McGahn connection. He spoke to the Federalist Society shortly after the election--I think he was the keynote at their annual dinner event (it's probably on their website). He explained how it came about--his background is campaign finance and election law and Trump was looking for an election lawyer. I don't remember the rest, but a very engaging guy.
The people who last with Trump (like Kellyanne) are those that can keep their ego in-check, i.e. they don't compete with him, they serve him--as it should be with the president. Thick skin and a sense of humor seems to help.
I did look McGahn up at Wiki and saw that he was an election expert, but he clearly became much more than that. Obviously there's a very tight network for anything legal related, but not so much for other areas of the admin. Trump is surrounded by conservative Catholic lawyers who have served him well--McGahn, Leo, Flood, Cipollone, Barr, and more. Kellyanne is another, and she has ties to Trump going back at least to 2013.
Some Reasons Trump has headaches filling positions:
Diplomad commented he would love another position, but hinted at somehow being blocked...
NSA fired Trump supporters.
Trump appointees have been vilified and even protested at their house. See Ajit Pai. Protesters in restaurants, etc. Kavanaugh was smeared during his hearing. And after Working for Trump, who would hire them?
Senate Intelligence Committee has screened appointees.
Senate has not allowed recess appointments.
Democratic Senators are slow walking confirmations. 1200 of them require senate confirmation. I have not seen a site that tracks them, unlike judicial nominations.
GOP establishment types refused to work with Trump, and many signed a letter against him.
Hostile workplace that lives to embarrass Trump appointees through leaks.
Senate that won’t confirm people that are too Pro Trump, or too anti chamber of commerce.
Fear of being dragged into ongoing hostile investigations first by Mueller, and now the house.
Legal bills racked up by Trump supporters. Flynn is a poster child for this, but there have been others. Democrats provide A+ lawyers for their supporters, such as the Aswan Brothers, Republican Party don’t, the gop is afraid of being tarred with guilt by association.
Based on the above facts, it’s amazing anyone would work for Trump!
All this is true, but it simply magnifies the importance of getting nominations right when they do go through. It doesn't help when Trump repeatedly scores own goals. "Sessions said he'd only accept AG, and he was an early supporter." "Bolton begged me for the job." And there are more.
"Senate Intelligence Committee has screened appointees.... has not allowed recess appointments.... won’t confirm people that are too Pro Trump, or too anti chamber of commerce."
It's complicated. Mitch isn't a dictator. He needs to save the leverage he has for times when he really needs it--key nominations to the SCOTUS, impeachment, etc. He also has his own agenda, which isn't necessarily always the same as Trump's. He stays on Trump's good side--which he needs to do--with his handling of judicial nominees, which makes Trump look good. It's complicated. Lots of variables.
The two areas I wish Trump would focus his attention on:
1. Legal Fees - the GOP Not paying the legal fees of Trump supporters that get sucked into various investigations is a betrayal of trust. Democrats do. The fact the gop does not astonishes me.
2. Going after the intimidation and violent actions of Democratic supporters. Tar the Democrats with the actions of them. Force the Democrats to denounce those actions. Trump can use his bully pulpit to do this. Death threats against Trump are not acceptable. The shooting of Steve Scalise by a Bernie Bro. What’s project Veritas is unearthing on Bernie supporters. The smearing of Kavanaugh. These should not be memory holed.
My guess on #2 is Trump does not see this as a major priority yet, and has focused his messaging in other areas such as defeating the a Mueller investigation, and later the impeachment debacle. Trump can only do so much and has to prioritize.
Jim Hanson: "In case anyone needs a refresher on why Vindman deserved to be sacked & should face UCMJ action too ... [Vindman] believes the permanent bureaucracy should reign supreme, and if some elected politician gets crosswise with the solons of the state, then they must act ... as he detailed in his prepared statement and testimony to Congress ... 'In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.' There is a lot of wrong in those two sentences, which profoundly illustrate the fundamental flaw Vindman and his fellow Deep Staters operate under. The interagency he mentions is a collection of staff from the major agencies like the State Department, Department of Defense, and intelligence agencies, who meet to coordinate and plan implementation of policy. They most certainly are not supposed to decide what policy the United States will follow. That is 100 percent the purview of the president."
Well worth a full read. Hanson virtually rips the robes off the Deep State and its media minions and leaves them running naked in the street:
Let me suggest a reason why Vindman was sent to the War College rather than to, say, Afghanistan, and why it's unlikely that he'll face UCMJ charges. The reason is simple: For some decades now the military has been making policy, and they like doing that. They're not about to prosecute someone for holding the same views they hold of themselves as policy makers, not just policy implementers. Trump will need to dismantle most of the military at this point.
I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
In favor of your argument, Mark, is the fact that the military seems to have predominated in policy discussions regarding the Middle East War for over 15 years without being able to deliver a clear victory.
If memory serves this is one of Andrew Bacevich's main arguments: that elected officials (Presidents, Congress) have ceded policy making to the military with disastrous results.
And when someone like Flynn even sets a foot off the reservation, the others go for him. Hey, the GWOT has also been extremely beneficial to the entire IC from the standpoint of budget and staffing. And, as we all know from Yes, Minister, budget and staffing is the usual standard for measuring bureaucratic success.
As long as they can focus attention on low intensity and Spec. Ops. they don't have to answer tough questions about how to deal with China or why NATO even should exist.
The firing may actually be doing a favor for Sonderland...
ReplyDeleteFrankly, he seemed like a goofball to me.
DeleteMedia promptly asks DC Democrat poohbahs if these actions are an impeachable offense in...3...2...1...
ReplyDelete(It doesn't matter that it doesn't rise to that level--neither did the just dismissed impeachment.)
How soon before media makes a reference to Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"?
(These fired persons aren't anywhere close to the hierarchical level in the food chain, but as above, details and precision don't matter when you're out to get Trump.)
Sunday gabfests are bound to be consumed by this, revisiting Vindman's and Sonderland's assertions.
(Again, as someone elsewhere postulated, media needs Trump--especially now that football season is over.)
The reaction has been predictably hilarious. Granny Winebox: I'm gonna talk to my peeps! He--the CinC--is interfering in the military!
DeleteSondland is the personification of oleaginous. Throughout his testimony, when he slithered this way and that, never stating the brief truth about what the President had told him to say to Zelensky, I wanted to smack him. A very dangerous goofball.
DeleteMark - shouldn't that be "Granny Whinebox"?
DeleteTom S.
Ah, took me a sec to get that!
DeleteInteresting to observe the same clowns who are in high dudgeon over Vindman being reassigned for 3 months are essentially the same folks who cheered wildly when Gen. Flynn was forced to resign and prosecuted for a crime he never committed, but they never said "Booo!" when Obama sacked Gen. McCrystal for criticizing the POTUS' policies.
ReplyDeleteIt is with good reason that, if you look in a dictionary under "hypocrisy," there are several photos of these pundits.
Unlike Nancy Pelosi, I actually do 'pray' for President Trump. Not in any formal, religious sense, I just hope he avoids his worst instincts and continues to focus on doing the right things for the country...without blowing things up.
ReplyDeleteI worry that his combativeness, his counterpunching instinct, so crucial to his ability to confront and vanquish his enemies, will also trigger a confrontation that escalates uncontrollably. I suspect diplomacy was invented to avoid just this risk.
Since he is incontrovertibly an egoist, I think one of his greatest weaknesses is in his people skills. I thought his joking introductions of the House Members who helped him in the impeachment defense were often superficial and too often focussed on their 'looks'. I'm thinking of his descriptions of Ratcliffe, Scalise and Jordan.
Looks aside, he has made some disastrous personnel choices, and putting Gordon Sondland in a position of responsibility ranks near the top. But there have been many many other bad people choices, such as Anthony Scaramucci and Omarosa Manigault Newman. Even more damaging have been some of his choices at State, Justice and the NSC: Sessions, Tillerson, Rosenstein, Wray, Mattis, McMaster, Bolton?
It is undoubtedly difficult to smoke out a swamp creature in an interview, and who knew how dangerous they would be, but the buck stops with the President. At the end of the day, however, he, and he alone, is responsible for his choices and the consequences of his choices.
Quite frankly, I've often wondered how he achieved the successes he has while making such terrible personnel decisions. I suspect, when all is said and done, what has saved him has been whoever got McGahn into his closest legal circle. McGahn was key not only in the judicial picks that were so important, but also ultimately in getting Barr to join the administration--which has provided so much stability.
DeleteCassander--All true. It was the (unseen/unknown) trade-off made when electing a non-politician to the presidency. Trump had no bench, so to speak, he had no political intimates. Everyone who works, and has worked, for him is a contractor--a free agent--at arm's length. It works well in the RE development biz--not so well in political government.
DeleteBut I think it has been worth it because we're discovering just how vast and deep is the partisanship of the administrative state, and the sheer influence of the Deep State. Trump has the ability to cause these swamp creatures to reveal themselves like never before.
It's important to remember that the phenomena of Trump occurred due to the swamp--he didn't cause it. Trump appeared as a kind of antidote to the underlying disease of the Deep State. And it's clear that he, alone, can't vanquish what has festered and arisen over decades. Most of DC are parasites that feed off it.
But knowing you have a debilitating condition is the first step to eradication.
It would be interesting to learn which appointments were recommended by which advisers--and which decided upon by Trump personally.
DeleteTrump, to his credit, has taken responsibility for the Sessions and Bolton appointments--both disastrous.
Some of the most successful appointments have come through Don McGahn and his successor, Pat Cipollone. One assumes that the Barr appointment came through McGahn, and may have involved a package deal of sorts. What connections brought these guys into the Trump camp? At that level there had to be some personal influence.
A fixture as a political adviser has been Kellyanne Conway--she has been remarkably long lived in her adviser role. Her fingerprints are on some of Trump's most successful policy initiatives. But we also know that personnel is policy. She recommended Pence, but has she recommended others? I'm sure she was totally on board with the legal guys mentioned above.
There's an important book yet to be written in all that.
Let's not forget Trump has only a small group of available folks that he could pick from. Very few people have the guts to offer themselves to be on his team, knowing that the media will try to destroy them.
DeleteI read some time ago that PDJT’s appointments of Mattis, Tillerson and McMaster came courtesy of recommendations by Condi Rice.
DeleteI think Sessions may have been a softhearted pick after Sessions went all out to campaign for him. Those who did that were few and far between at the time.
Bolton? Anybody’s guess. But he has turned out to be a major disappointment to many...
But ask yourself, why take advice from Condi when the Bush FP was the opposite of what Trump said he wanted to do? Frustrating. Did he think leopards would change their spots if he asked them to? Seemingly so.
DeleteMark--I can't remember the McGahn connection. He spoke to the Federalist Society shortly after the election--I think he was the keynote at their annual dinner event (it's probably on their website). He explained how it came about--his background is campaign finance and election law and Trump was looking for an election lawyer. I don't remember the rest, but a very engaging guy.
DeleteThe people who last with Trump (like Kellyanne) are those that can keep their ego in-check, i.e. they don't compete with him, they serve him--as it should be with the president. Thick skin and a sense of humor seems to help.
I did look McGahn up at Wiki and saw that he was an election expert, but he clearly became much more than that. Obviously there's a very tight network for anything legal related, but not so much for other areas of the admin. Trump is surrounded by conservative Catholic lawyers who have served him well--McGahn, Leo, Flood, Cipollone, Barr, and more. Kellyanne is another, and she has ties to Trump going back at least to 2013.
DeleteSome Reasons Trump has headaches filling positions:
ReplyDeleteDiplomad commented he would love another position, but hinted at somehow being blocked...
NSA fired Trump supporters.
Trump appointees have been vilified and even protested at their house. See Ajit Pai. Protesters in restaurants, etc. Kavanaugh was smeared during his hearing. And after Working for Trump, who would hire them?
Senate Intelligence Committee has screened appointees.
Senate has not allowed recess appointments.
Democratic Senators are slow walking confirmations. 1200 of them require senate confirmation. I have not seen a site that tracks them, unlike judicial nominations.
GOP establishment types refused to work with Trump, and many signed a letter against him.
Hostile workplace that lives to embarrass Trump appointees through leaks.
Senate that won’t confirm people that are too Pro Trump, or too anti chamber of commerce.
Fear of being dragged into ongoing hostile investigations first by Mueller, and now the house.
Legal bills racked up by Trump supporters. Flynn is a poster child for this, but there have been others. Democrats provide A+ lawyers for their supporters, such as the Aswan Brothers, Republican Party don’t, the gop is afraid of being tarred with guilt by association.
Based on the above facts, it’s amazing anyone would work for Trump!
All this is true, but it simply magnifies the importance of getting nominations right when they do go through. It doesn't help when Trump repeatedly scores own goals. "Sessions said he'd only accept AG, and he was an early supporter." "Bolton begged me for the job." And there are more.
Delete"Senate Intelligence Committee has screened appointees.... has not allowed recess appointments.... won’t confirm people that are too Pro Trump, or too anti chamber of commerce."
DeleteAnd Mitch can't slow or stop this crap?
It's complicated. Mitch isn't a dictator. He needs to save the leverage he has for times when he really needs it--key nominations to the SCOTUS, impeachment, etc. He also has his own agenda, which isn't necessarily always the same as Trump's. He stays on Trump's good side--which he needs to do--with his handling of judicial nominees, which makes Trump look good. It's complicated. Lots of variables.
DeleteThe two areas I wish Trump would focus his attention on:
ReplyDelete1. Legal Fees - the GOP Not paying the legal fees of Trump supporters that get sucked into various investigations is a betrayal of trust. Democrats do. The fact the gop does not astonishes me.
2. Going after the intimidation and violent actions of Democratic supporters. Tar the Democrats with the actions of them. Force the Democrats to denounce those actions. Trump can use his bully pulpit to do this. Death threats against Trump are not acceptable. The shooting of Steve Scalise by a Bernie Bro. What’s project Veritas is unearthing on Bernie supporters. The smearing of Kavanaugh. These should not be memory holed.
My guess on #2 is Trump does not see this as a major priority yet, and has focused his messaging in other areas such as defeating the a Mueller investigation, and later the impeachment debacle. Trump can only do so much and has to prioritize.
I agree, Ray.
DeleteJim Hanson: "In case anyone needs a refresher on why Vindman deserved to be sacked & should face UCMJ action too ... [Vindman] believes the permanent bureaucracy should reign supreme, and if some elected politician gets crosswise with the solons of the state, then they must act ... as he detailed in his prepared statement and testimony to Congress ... 'In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.' There is a lot of wrong in those two sentences, which profoundly illustrate the fundamental flaw Vindman and his fellow Deep Staters operate under. The interagency he mentions is a collection of staff from the major agencies like the State Department, Department of Defense, and intelligence agencies, who meet to coordinate and plan implementation of policy. They most certainly are not supposed to decide what policy the United States will follow. That is 100 percent the purview of the president."
ReplyDeleteWell worth a full read. Hanson virtually rips the robes off the Deep State and its media minions and leaves them running naked in the street:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/12/alex-vindman-is-living-breathing-proof-that-the-deep-state-exists-and-it-is-corrupt/
Let me suggest a reason why Vindman was sent to the War College rather than to, say, Afghanistan, and why it's unlikely that he'll face UCMJ charges. The reason is simple: For some decades now the military has been making policy, and they like doing that. They're not about to prosecute someone for holding the same views they hold of themselves as policy makers, not just policy implementers. Trump will need to dismantle most of the military at this point.
DeleteI'll be happy to be proved wrong, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Yes, The fact that he has not been Art, 32'd is telling. Too many are too comfortable with the status quo.
DeleteTom S. cynical Boomer Rube.
In favor of your argument, Mark, is the fact that the military seems to have predominated in policy discussions regarding the Middle East War for over 15 years without being able to deliver a clear victory.
ReplyDeleteIf memory serves this is one of Andrew Bacevich's main arguments: that elected officials (Presidents, Congress) have ceded policy making to the military with disastrous results.
And when someone like Flynn even sets a foot off the reservation, the others go for him. Hey, the GWOT has also been extremely beneficial to the entire IC from the standpoint of budget and staffing. And, as we all know from Yes, Minister, budget and staffing is the usual standard for measuring bureaucratic success.
DeleteAs long as they can focus attention on low intensity and Spec. Ops. they don't have to answer tough questions about how to deal with China or why NATO even should exist.
Delete