I am referring, of course, to President Donald Trump firing Anthony Scaramucci as his Communications Director today.
For the first time, President Trump has given future Presidents a positive role model to emulate. Almost no Presidents, indeed, almost no executives anywhere, have the guts and competence to do this. Of course, I don’t know if any President has made as unbelievably bad an appointment before. Lincoln appointing George McClellan as his top general for the second time comes close.
Donald Trump seldom admits mistakes. There is no other way to interpret this stunning act (I first saw it in a comment on Ethics Alarms, and I thought it was satire), no matter what the President says, other than “I screwed up big time, and I had to fix it.” Neither Obama, nor Clinton, nor either Bush, nor Reagan were ever willing to do this hardest and most humbling of management acts.
Apparently General Kelly told the President that “Mooch” had to go, and he went. This is excellent news on multiple fronts. I assumed that Kelly would eventually demand loose-cannon Scaramucci’s head—it was so, so obvious that he was a walking, talking pathogen in an already sick White House culture. I did not think Kelly would act so quickly. This speaks very well for him: Davy Crockett would have approved too. Davy’s ethics formula was “Be sure you are right, and then go ahead.” Kelly was sure, and saw no reason to wait. There was none. Every second Scaramucci remained wild and free was a second closer to the next crisis.
It is also a wonderful sign that the President took his new Chief of Staff’s advice. Wow. I now have hope that he may be persuaded to give up stream-of-consciousness tweeting.
We can use this event as yet another test to assess just how biased various pundits are. How many will have the integrity to say, as I do, that firing a Scaramucci as soon as possible is a competent and courageous example of good management, even if it was made imperative by the President’s own head-explodingly terrible, incompetent and irresponsible decision? My guess is very few. What they want to do is bash Donald Trump, and this certainly gives them ammunition.
I would ask them this, however: how often have you hesitated to admit a mistake and fix it, waiting and hoping that somehow it would work out, only having to fix the problem later after the predictable catastrophe occurred? And you weren’t doing this in front of the whole nation, with a pack of hateful journalists just waiting to heap ridicule and abuse on you for doing the right thing?
President Trump deserves praise for this. And if his example is followed by managers everywhere, it will be a better world in too many ways to count.
[I thought this was over-kill, however…]
Ethics Alarms 
What a relief. Scaramucci reminded me of Anthony Weiner.
Wait…HOW did he remind you of him, madam?????
His brashness, his arrogance, his refusal to listen or even shut up when other people are talking, his sureness that he has access to the reins of power, his dismissive contempt for people he works with, just his whole persona.
You missed my joke! Come on. What is it that most people identify with Mr. Weiner? What would cause someone to say, “he reminds me of Weiner”???
My bad. I used to be better at this.
“he reminds me of Weiner”
…at least he is not bald, so he has that going for him…
…that was a rash post. I did not intend disrespect to bald people, or chronic sexting offenders, or loudmouth braggarts.
No offense taken 🙂
wait… you are a chronic sexting offender, Charles?
Both of them have behaved badly enough for their spouses to ask for divorce?
Boy do I feel this one, I made numerous mistakes in hiring, mostly because I was desperate for help. But most of those employees who my mother dubbed the three stooges, which was appropriate because I kept replacing one till I got rid of the other two. So I ended up with six in all never more then three in a row. I have since found a staff that works. That said they are loyal and actually do the work I require instead of the shenanigans I was putting up with. My problem is I felt indebted to the stooges for agreeing to work for me in first place. While they had no loyalty in return. Finally I fixed it but I waited to long. I wish I had done it sooner. Well done Mr. President now fire the anti LGBT crowd and we can proceed!
As the head of the anti LGBT crowd is the VP, getting rid of it isn’t gonna happen. They’re far too deeply embedded at all levels. Get rid of them, and there’s almost nothing left.
Putting the FRC in charge of selecting Team Trump made this inevitable.
I don’t know. It might be great if an arsonist has a change of heart and decide to put out the house fire he was adding gasoline to only a few seconds before. But even if he did so in a spectacular manner, I still couldn’t give him the Firefighter of the Year award, or even fawn over his fire suppressing skills. It’s the least he could do.
Bingo.
That’s because arson is a crime, not a mistake. You and Charles are living down to my worst predictions. Can’t get your mind around the fact that even this President is doing his best as he sees it, not trying to do harm, like an arsonist, for example, but trying to make things work.
Nor does an arsonist work in public, with critics watching his every move. But if that’s the best you can do to argue that Trump following one of the ethics imperatives, “fix the problem” despite knowing that he would be criticized anyway, is somehow not worthy of recognition,so be it. Noted!
. Good experiment: hate and contempt swallow integrity and the ability to honestly accept reality. Depressing result, though.
“even this President is doing his best as he sees it…”
I guess my issue is that, even if he’s doing his best, his ability to correctly see what’s actually best is terribly flawed.
Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while.
He is, as you have said elsewhere, an idiot. Tonight’s news is telling; apparently his idea of “doing his best” also included sticking his own hand in to dictate a misleading memo for his son. What fool does stuff like that!?
Doing the occasional right thing is NOT evidence that he did it thoughtfully, and for the right reasons. He just stumbles along, occasionally doing things that are right, just as often doing things that are stupid an awful. I don’t see the case for him thoughtfully doing something right.
Deflecting, Charles. Blind pigs don’t do symbolic and important things. The post is about a very unusual and courageous management act. “But look at what he did here!” isn’t dealing with the issue. The post was about one well-executed management decision. Idiots still can be net winners, if they have the right support. The Presidency has never correlated success with intelligence: look at Carter, Obama, Taft, Wilson, Nixon.
My favorite example of reversing a bad decision was when Hal Prince realized just before opening “Merrily We Role Along” that his whole concept was wrong, He killed a many hundreds thousand dollars costume plot and turned the show upside down, took full responsibility, and a tremendous risk, He lost his partnership with Sondheim. The show still flopped. But it was the most impressive and admirable conduct by a director I’ve ever seen.
Prince is a genius, but he still took flack. But the conduct was the same. The fact that it was done in this case by an idiot doesn’t make it less significant, less impressive, or any less the right thing to do.
charlesgreen wrote, “Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while.”
That’s all sorts of wrong, Charles. No pig can’t find a damn thing when there are hungry dogs biting at their heels trying to drag them into the slaughter house. Why don’t you and other Liberal Progressives make a concerted effort to call off the the left wing attack dogs and let the pig, oops the man, do some work. 🙂
“hate and contempt swallow integrity and the ability to honestly accept reality”
Not as a guaranteed predictor though…not without qualifiers.
Deep, bottomless wells of hate and contempt will always swallow integrity and realism (especially if the latter two are shallow pools themselves).
That is to say, if the source of integrity and realism are just as deep or deeper than the hate and contempt, you might get honest responses there.
Oh for f%*#cks sake Jack! The man is a complete idiot and he is our President. You’ve just set the bar so low for Trump that you needed to excavate a 100 foot hole to place it first. If my 8 year-old were running the country she would make specacular mistakes too — but we wouldn’t praise her if she occassionally listened to mommy and daddy.
This is an exact example of what I mentioned at the end. These are Facts:
1. He made a high profile and much criticized decision, appointing Mooch.
2. Mooch engaged in unprofessional conduct almost immediately.
3. Trump took responsibility for the mistake and
4. Fixed it immediately, know ith that his detractors would use THAT as a syck to beat him with.
He’s a President and by definition a leadership model. He modeled conduct that most managers and leaders typically don’t. Yes, once is excellent, twice is better, every time is best of all. Not the point. Yes, the original decision was extremely bad. Not relevant: he didn’t think it was bad. Yes, he’s an idiot. But he still was modeling ethical leadership behavior.
And this is conduct that, for example, Obama, “brilliant” as he was (he issn’t brilliant) was incapable of, even once.
I think most people are questioning #3 and #4 of your analysis:
3. Trump took responsibility for the mistake and
4. Fixed it immediately, know ith that his detractors would use THAT as a syck to beat him with.
When did Trump “take responsibility”? He has not issued any personal statements in the subject, and is actually being rather quiet, for him.
And for #4, by all accounts, it was his soon to be ex new chief of staff Kelley, who insisted that the Mooch had to go, immediately. He made it conditional in agreeing to the chief of staff position in the first place. It’s great that Trump acquiesced to that condition, but it’s sad that it had to be at someone else’s insistence. A good manager that was capable of taking responsibility would have seen the need immediately, without being forced into doing the right thing by someone else.
As Ben Shapiro guesses: Kelly is in a catch 22 situation.
The more he gets Trump’s staff in line the more the media (knowing precisely what it’s doing to actively undermine Trump) will start flowing over Kelly’s guidance knowing it will grate on Trump’s nerves until Trump fires Kelly.
As for thinking managers have to have the right decisions all the time on their own.
You’re a moron.
As for thinking managers have to have the right decisions all the time on their own.
You’re a moron.
As I’ve stated no such thing, you would be the moron here, thanks.
“As Ben Shapiro guesses: Kelly is in a catch 22 situation.
“The more he gets Trump’s staff in line the more the media (knowing precisely what it’s doing to actively undermine Trump) will start flowing over Kelly’s guidance knowing it will grate on Trump’s nerves until Trump fires Kelly.”
All the more reason to give the puppy a treat.
If people wanted Trump to be competent, they would be hailing him as a genius and God’s gift to politics right now. Allow that if he actually does something intelligent (possibly involving listening to Kelly) he’ll be praised and celebrated. Because right now, according to how Trump thinks, what’s the point? He’s damned in the press either way.
All the more reason to give the puppy a treat.
If people wanted Trump to be competent, they would be hailing him as a genius and God’s gift to politics right now. Allow that if he actually does something intelligent (possibly involving listening to Kelly) he’ll be praised and celebrated. Because right now, according to how Trump thinks, what’s the point? He’s damned in the press either way.
Boy, that’s depressing. If Trump so much as ties his shoes correctly in the morning, we must give him effusive praise, to encourage him so he doesn’t do anything else stupid!
I don’t patronize my least capable students this badly. We can’t possible be expected to give our president such kid glove treatment. If he’s this incompetent and overly sensitive, he needs to resign.
Something tells me you completely missed Emily’s point because you misread her use of hyperbole.
“As for thinking managers have to have the right decisions all the time on their own.”
Okay, I agree with that statement in isolation. But appointing Scaramuci in the first place demonstrates poor management. It’s not as if he were a questionable hire that didn’t play out, the man probably was one of the worst choices for any public facing role ever. Two minutes with the man demonstrates that. It’s not as if the guy looked good on paper, had a great interview, and just couldn’t perform as expected.
Good for Trump if he is starting to listen to some of his more competent advisors, but that doesn’t change the fact that I have less faith in the man with each passing day.
“But appointing Scaramuci in the first place demonstrates poor management.”
Yeah… But no one is saying otherwise. As someone in management, I can assure you that there are all kinds of calculus that go into decisions, especially HR decisions, and sometimes we make mistakes. Heck, some of us make a whole lot of mistakes…. But what’s important isn’t avoiding the mistakes, it’s recognizing you’ve made a mistake, fixing it, and moving forward in such a way as to try to avoid the same mistake in the future.
This is something I railed at Obama about for years… The man had a learning curve so flat NASA could have used it for theory testing… Time after time after time he rushed headfirst into the same situation, the same way, expecting a different outcome, to the cheers of partisan idiots.
Now I don’t know if Trump actually recognized his mistake, or if he was just embarrassed by Mooch’s phone call, and reacted. I also don’t know if he has the self awareness to understand exactly why Mooch was a mistake, and to avoid it in the future.
But seeing as I don’t want to see the world burn out of partisan spite, I’m willing to stand back and say… “Hey, in this case, this was the right thing to do… Good job.” If for no other reason than the message doing anything else sends. Remember that calculus I was talking about? Public reaction to a decision is part of it. What if Trump started to think” “Why bother fixing my mistakes? People will not only criticize my decision, but they’ll criticize when I correct it. It might be more politically expedient to suffer the ongoing consequences of my mistake than to suffer the headlines incurred in fixing it.”
I hear your plea for reasonableness, and that is in fact reasonable (and I agree).
But I have yet to see any evidence that Trump actually MADE A DECISION here. The alternative explanation, which I find more reasonable, is that he had a decision forced on him, to which he had no alternative but to accede; and even then, he said nothing about it.
For passively acceding, he should not get the credit being suggested here.
And you’ve already been shown that this is no standard. So I wonder why you keep bleating on about it?
Scaramucci was fired. Trump was the only one with the authority to fire him.
The math is pretty simple, regardless of how pressured Trump was: leaders receive dozens of lines of input all often wildly conflicting…
You should know this…you are a management adviser, are you not?
Now, Trump is notorious for more heavily relying on the advice of the most recent person to talk to him. Yet, he is still the one who decides.
Yeah…. But even a forced decision is still a decision. I’ve never seen a man more willing to break his nose to spite his face than I think Trump is, and so in cases where the power to either do or not do a thing rests solely in his hands, and in this case it did…. He could have just told everyone else to pound sand, and stranger things have happened, so I have to assume that he in fact weighed the options and made the choice.
And whether he in fact made the choice, or someone pulled the strings, I think it’s just awful optics for people like you to throw yourselves into conniptions even when Trump does something you admit is good. You admit that firing Mooch was good, right?
You’re hollowing out your ability to signal what it is that you actually care about. If you’re going to react the same way to Trump hiring Mooch (which I assume you didn’t like) to when Trump fires Mooch (Which I assume you at least condone)… How the fuck is anyone supposed to tell what you actually think is a good thing? And if you’re going to react the same way to every stimulus, you explain to me why anyone should care about your opinion?
“if you’re going to react the same way to every stimulus, you explain to me why anyone should care about your opinion?”
This is a good point, Charles… unless you do not fall into the framework HT set up? You generally look for reasonable, rational paths out of problems, judging by your posts here (when TDS is not flooding everything out) so why chose this hill to die on?
Even I admitted that Obama can deliver a great speech, and is a snazzy dresser… /snark
You are right, not a hill to die on…I’m on a mostly off day, at the beach, and small minds like mine easily fall prey to small distractions. I will take your well-stated advice and thank you
I’m jealous. Have fun!
You had SO much to begin with…
Jack:
These are Facts:
1. He made a high profile and much criticized decision, appointing Mooch.
2. Mooch engaged in unprofessional conduct almost immediately.
3. Trump took responsibility for the mistake and
4. Fixed it immediately, know ith that his detractors would use THAT as a syck to beat him with.
deery:
I think most people are questioning #3 and #4 of your analysis:
Oh, I’m not questioning them. I’m saying they are absolutely false. They are non-facts. They are fake news. They did not happen. There is not even a way to argue that they happened.
3. Trump took responsibility for the mistake and
4. Fixed it immediately, knowing that his detractors would use THAT as a stick to beat him with.
These are absolutely facts, and deery, and apparently you, are putting your fingers in your ears and saying “NANANANA”!
If a President dismisses an appointee almost immediately after the appointment, that is taking responsibility for the mistake, because undoing any act is an admission that an act was wrong or not working. And of course he knew that the decision to fire the jerk would be used to ridicule him. I knew it. Everything, good or bad, that Trump does is treated that way.
Jack, I’m with Chris solidly on this one.
Trump has nowhere yet said it was a mistake. (In fact, his first reaction was “right on.”)
“Immediately” would not be four days; four days is not “immediate.”
Trump didn’t even make the decision himself, he simply neglected to try and fight the decision made by Kelly.
Again: how is this “an epic example” of how to “do the right thing as soon as… “?
I totally do not see it.
Instead, I see headlines saying “after four days, Kelly decided to reverse Trump’s decision.”
How that squares with your headline is beyond me.
“Trump has nowhere yet said it was a mistake.”
Would you like to show me where Obama routinely admitted his mistakes?
This wasn’t directed at me, but here’s a few examples I found Googling.
Obama admits rollout of ACA websites was a mistake:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/21/obama_admits_mistakes_but_remains_uncowed_121031.html
Obama says going into Libya without a solid plan for aftermath was a mistake:
http://www.thedailystar.net/world/obama-admits-libya-was-worst-mistake-1207510
Obama says some of his 2012 campaign ads contained mistakes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unaired-excerpts-from-the-obama-romney-interviews/
Obama says he made mistakes in his choice of words regarding the Gates arrest:
https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/obama-expresses-his-regrets-on-gates-incident/
I just called Charles on this. The Post is about quickly reversing a bad decision, not admitting a mistake. Moving the goalposts, and blatantly.
I never said Obama routinely admitted mistakes; I simply offered up counterexamples.
Which I wuold suggest are far harder to find for Trump than for Obama. For example: can you show where he ever admitted a mistake regarding hiring Scaramucci? Or in the birther absurdity? Or calling the President of Mesico? Or mis-estimating crowd sizes? Or any one of hundreds of idiocies that he’s committed?
Can you give just one counter-esxample, as I gave for Obama?
Come on, Charles. Firing a hire in less than a week is per se an admission that the hiring was a mistake. He doesn’t have to say, “It was a mistake.”
If a reporter asked Trump “Did you make a mistake by hiring Scaramucci,” what do you think Trump would say?
“Can you give just one counter-esxample, as I gave for Obama?”
Yup. First line Googling ‘Trump admitting a mistake’
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/11/trump-admits-to-mistake-during-obamacare-repeal-report/22081738/
“”There was a mistake. We set a date,” said Trump in a recent interview with TIME, referring to the first mid-March deadline that was set for getting a vote on the floor.
“And when we didn’t vote, everyone says, ‘Trump fails on health care,'” he continued.”
Bonus Round!
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275085-cruz-on-trump-saying-he-made-a-mistake-i-suppose-miracles
“Trump has admitted he made a mistake in retweeting a side-by-side photo last month of Melania Trump and Heidi Cruz, The Daily Caller reported.”
I wasn’t responding to your post there, Jack, just to slickwilly’s request. I agree that “admitting mistakes” and “quickly reversing a bad decision” are two separate things. (I also don’t think his firing of Scaramucci was quick enough.)
Thanks for the clarification. The discussion has been creeping into that territory.
The discussion wasn’t creeping in that direction… it was firmly in that territory because one of the knee jerk attacks on Trump’s firing of Scaramucci was that he did not *verbally* admit the mistake.
You know that Kelly could not reverse Trump’s decision. He could only do so as Trump’s agent. The responsibility is Trump’s, 100%.
Trump took responsibility for the mistake and
4. Fixed it immediately, knowing that his detractors would use THAT as a stick to beat him with.
These are absolutely facts, and deery, and apparently you, are putting your fingers in your ears and saying “NANANANA”!
No, I explained quite clearly that “four days” is not “immediately.”
Trump fired Priebus–one of the main targets of Scaramucci’s unhinged rant–the next day, three days before firing Scaramucci. Why didn’t he fire both right away? Regardless of whether he had valid reasons to fire Priebus, this made it look like he was rewarding a bully and targeting a victim. Terrible optics.
I can see the argument for 3, though I’d need to know more about Trump’s state of mind. Do you really believe he sees himself as responsible for a mistake in firing Scaramucci? Perhaps he’s capable of more internal self-reflection than he’s demonstrated in public…but I’m just basing my conclusion on his public behavior, because that’s all I have. Absent a public statement taking responsibility, I don’t know if we can say he sees himself as responsible for a mistake here. But I’ll grant that your number 3 is a valid interpretation.
4, though, is completely false. Trump did not fire Scaramucci “immediately.”
If a President dismisses an appointee almost immediately after the appointment, that is taking responsibility for the mistake, because undoing any act is an admission that an act was wrong or not working. And of course he knew that the decision to fire the jerk would be used to ridicule him.
Well, it’s a ridiculous situation. A White House Communications Director getting fired ten days into the job (technically before his official start date) is worthy of ridicule. That Trump really had no choice but to fire him because of his public behavior and the insistence of his new COS doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. Trump picked an incompetent Comms Director, and the Comms Director proved that indisputably within ten days. What’s not to ridicule here? I will say that firing him was better than keeping him on. I will also say that this was clear on Thursday, meaning that I’m not willing to give Trump a whole lotta credit for figuring it out Monday.
You’re ridiculous on this. He hired a new Chief of Staff, and gave him the chance to assess the situation, as I would have. Priebus was fired for leaking, as well as being a weenie. He had to fire him to hire the kind of COS that I and many others had said was essential since February. Having hired him, the new hire had to be given a chance to assess those who reported to him. Presumably, if Kelly had said, “I can control this guy, but we need to read him the riot act,” Trump would have agreed with that, too.
Trump has failed to clear low bars before. He cleared this one though. Definitely a good start…. If that’s what it is. Time will tell.
That’s far from a low bar. Eric Holder proved repeatedly that he was incompetent and hurting the nation. Did Obama fix the problem?There were a hundred mistakes he never admitted or addressed, in part because he knew he was insulated from criticism. I’m a stage director: you know waht the #1 mistake directors make? Refusing to change a concept or casting mistake the second they know there is one. Seems easy, isn’t. Not a low bar.
Just to make sure I’m interpreting you correctly..
You’re now saying that firing Scaramucci was not a “low bar to clear”?
Of course not. He just hired him.How much clearer do I have to make it? It’s a low bar to someone who would have never hired him in the first place, obviously.But that individual would have never had to fire him. Chuck Hagel proved himself to be little more than a dummy at his confirmation hearings. Did Obama have the guts to decide he had made a mistake? James Clapper lied to Congress. Did Obama have the courage to fire him? Firing subordinates is never a low bar. Very few executives do it in a timely and competent manner.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, hold on a minute.
You think this is an example of the Trumpster realizing he made a mistake and forthrightly correcting it?
I HAVE A BRIDGE TO SELL YOU.
When has The Donald EVER owned up to a mistake? I cannot offhand recall a single one–and I don’t mean not admitting to one, I mean actually FIXING it.
Let me offer what i think is a far more reasonable explanation.
He did a Stupid Thing. Then rejoiced in it, as the Mooch uttered his profanity-laced Trump imitation.
Then he finally got John Kelly to join him in the job he originally wanted him for.
Kelly said yes, but Mr Trump, you’ve got to give me complete report-to authority.
And because Trump thinks a nano-second ahead of time, that sounded like a good idea (just like the Mooch did). So he said sure, no problem.
Now, I don’t know if Kelly connected the dots for him and said “first thing I’m going to do is get rid of Mooch” or not, but it doesn’t matter. Why should Trump give a damn about Mooch? All he did was miss his son’s birth anyway. Toss him under the bus like everyone else, what’s the big deal.
Trump’s whole life has been based on one tactical self-serving decision after another. I don’t see how the concept of “Oops I made a mistake” in any way enters into it: he saw at the moment that Kelly would be an improvement, which was true, so he took it.
How is this remotely an “epic example of doing the right thing?”
Gee, I dunno…Because he did the right thing? I described what happened pretty accurately, Charles. It’s stubborn, don’t you think, to say “he never owns up to a mistake” when he just owned up to a mistake? What else would you call it? Kelly can’t fire Mooch—he reports to Trump. You’re a management consultant: you should embrace this. It’s a perfect example of a gutsy reversal. I didn’t think I was describing you as one of those critics who wouldn’t be able to give Trump props for doing the something right.
(He also did what I wrote he had to do, after doing what I had said he also had to do since February: appoint a serious, experienced manager.)
You also write as if Kelly and Mooch had the same job. They didn’t. I really don’t understand your analysis. It seems to be one more example of “it’s wrong because Trump did it.”
A view from overseas…
That was where I was on November 9. Is everyone finally catching up?
Maybe. It sounds like what everybody wants is a President who is predictable. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
Predictably professional, rational, ethical, honest, competent, civil, honorable, fair, respectable and courageous.
As opposed to predictably unprofessional, irrational, unethical, dishonest, incompetent, boorish, dishonorable, unfair, shady, and cowardly?
I’m not sure Trump is predictably cowardly. As for the rest, yes, easy to predict. Clinton wasn’t, sometimes she’d surprise you by not being 100% corrupt in every dealing. Well, it was always a surprise to me on the occasions when she wasn’t.
No matter. I’m more concerned about items like Browder’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Why? The news media is pretending to be shocked–SHOCKED!—at how he described Russia and Putin. Funny–“House of Cards” had it about right. Who didn’t know that? Other than Obama, that is?
…trustworthy, loyal,helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, reverent… and bathes regularly (clean)
I still hold out for bathes regularly, sans evidence otherwise. 🙂
““We don’t have a say in who the Americans elect as their President or who he hires as his communications director or who he fires or what his communications director says to journalists when he thinks he’s off the record. Those things are all interesting. But at the end of the day our responsibility… is to make the best of this situation. We want the Americans to be rational and stable and to the extent we can help them be that, that is what we should be looking to do, but establishing and maintaining our own relationships as well.””
I think I know a certain political party that probably wouldn’t mind the international community getting directly involved in our election to “ensure” the process…if the idea were casually floated…
Hell, we already have has ‘election observers’ in Texas from foreign countries (invited by Hillary Clinton as SecState in 2012) an a intentional insult.
The Russians also had the chutzpah to offer to monitor elections here as well in 2016… since they have such a good record of democratic voting.
That is a bit funny, given the general hubbub about Russians since. If Texas HAD allowed the monitoring, would it be viewed as ‘proof’ how the Russians interfered with the Presidential election?
The more any process gets muddied, the more easily one can manufacture ANY useful narrative one wants to manufacture to justify a conclusion about that process.
It now appears what was reasonable all along, that this was not Trump’s decision at all – it was Kelly’s. Here’s what Politico is reporting now:
“President Donald Trump has removed Anthony Scaramucci as communications director, a little more than a week after the former financier was named to the post, the White House said on Monday.
The change came at the request of new chief of staff John Kelly, who started Monday, two White House officials said.”
For “at the request of,” we might very well read “at the unconditional insistence of.”
No way this was a courageous decision by Trump, his hand was forced.
Anything right?
I mean, Trump could push YOU out of the way of a runaway bus about to obliterate you at an intersection and you’d credit the bus driver for setting up the situation. And then blame Trump for being too rough about it.
It is still Trump’s ego on the line. He could have told General Kelly to shove it. That would have been far more cowardly, as he’d be hiding behind his office to get away with that.
Appointing Kelly, with that condition, is still an admission that Trump and his staff have been less than effective. It is that admission, and nothing more, that is to Trump’s credit.
That’s not especially admirable: many, many Presidents have done that. No President have allowed such a figure to demand that he undo a high profile appointment in a manner that screams, “oops” and “my bad.”
I don’t know why this is such a hard concept to convey. Leaders and Managers screw themselves and their organizations over constantly by not being able to do this. Trump’s example is a beacon of ethical management, whether he is personally ethical or not.
“It now appears what was reasonable all along, that this was not Trump’s decision at all – it was Kelly’s.”
I would guess 75% or more of Presidential decisions are based on what advisors or subordinates recommend. They are all still the President’s decisions, as long as he can say “no.”
This is leadership/management/history 101. We have been told about how Cheney pushed this, and Jarret pushed that, and how Nancy and Michelle or Hillary called the shots. It doesn’t matter. The President is the decision-maker no matter whose advice he takes.
Of course. The arguments against the post and the headline give off the sound of fish flopping desperately in a deck.
Charles, Jack’s protectionism is wearing thin. Did you watch today’s White House Press Briefing? You could cut the tension with a knife.
First strike on N. Korea?
Trump apology for so-called joke in speech to police?
Trump (allegedly) dictating Junior’s misleading statement regarding Russia meet?
So many questions from Jack’s fake news journalists… and so little given in return by Sarah Sanders. Well, like Trump would say, “So sad.”
We can use this event as yet another test to assess just how biased various pundits are. How many will have the integrity to say, as I do, that firing a Scaramucci as soon as possible is a competent and courageous example of good management, even if it was made imperative by the President’s own head-explodingly terrible, incompetent and irresponsible decision?
Wait…why would they say that? Trump did NOT fire Scaramucci “as soon as possible.” He waited four days, and then only fired Scaramucci because Kelly forced his hand.
Had he fired Scaramucci Friday morning, he’d deserve credit. Now? No. Absolutely not.
Remember this analysis when we’re discussing Wasserman Schultz or any other politician who delays doing the right thing until they’re forced into it.
Or not doing it at all.
When Obama saw the final bill for the AFA and realized that it would not, in fact, allow citizens to keep their health care plans, he did not have the guts to say, “Hey! This wasn’t what I was promised. I’ve been telling the public something else. Sorry, I can’t sign it.”
” he did not have the guts to say…”
” [Obama] did not have the guts to say…”
What about:
– grab ’em by the pussy
– punch ’em in the face, I’ll pay the lawyers’ bills
– Obama was born in Kenya
– Hillary started the birther rumor
– my crowds were the biggest ever
– I saw thousands cheering on TV
– I won the popular vote except for the millions of illegal votes
And I could go on, and on, and on….
I think your brain just got up on the wrong side of the bed on this one, or got led down a blind path, or some such. Not only should Trump not get much credit for a random got-it-right decision, but your whole point is premissed on the idea that he actually MADE the decision himself.
I see no evidence that this was even Trump’s decision. In fact, what we DO know is that Kelly took the job at 9AM, and fired the Mooch at about 9:30. Doesn’t that seem a little bit curious? Like maybe they’re connected?
Rather than assuming that TRUMP decided to fire the Mooch (do you actually think he said, “John, the first thing I want you to do is fire the Mooch”?), I think it’s far more likely that Kelly said, “I’m telling you, the first thing I’m going to do is fire Scaramucci,” or even, “I’m not even taking the job unless you agree the Mooch is out – first thing I do.”
In either case, it was Kelly who made the right decision, not Trump. I don’t know if we’ll find out exactly what happened, but in the meantime I find it much more likely that Trump was backed into a corner on this one, rather than that he made an “epic” courageous decision.
Quick, here’s an easy one:
Eisenhower’s 2nd in Command says “hey sir, I strongly recommend that you invade at Normandy on the 6th of June”
Eisenhower then says to the Army “guys, invade Normandy on the 6th of June”
Who made the decision?
Ok good. Now apply what you’ve learned here.
Excellent point. Along similar lines, if it comes out that, say, Ivanka insisted he hire Scaramucci in the first place, would that make it not his fault?
An executive has to decide who to listen to. Kelly was saying Scaramucci had to go. I’m sure Scaramucci, at least, was insisting he had to stay. Trump made the right choice, for once.
“if it comes out that, say, Ivanka insisted he hire Scaramucci in the first place, would that make it not his fault?”
Well of course!
Because for the Left, accountability and good leadership isn’t the driving force here. (Except in Spartan’s case).
The primary driving force is “We hate Trump for breakfast, We hate Trump for lunch, and we hate Trump for dinner. We’re going to go to bed hating Trump and we’re going to wake up hating Trump. We ran the one of the two worst candidates in the history of American elections and she lost to Trump, who though ideologically similar to us, became the personification of all we hate, and because our candidate lost to him, our only ability to lick our wounds (as opposed to fixing our internal problems) is to hate Trump 24 hours a day and pounce on his every move….even made up ones.”
For all the criticism of Jack on this one, you know the one thing nobody has said? Hey, Jack, here is another example or two or three of when a President made a dumb decision and reversed himself in days. That’s kind of the point.
Wrong again. There are plenty of examples, here’s just one.
It took Obama only a few days to say he regretted his initial comments about Henry Louis Gates’ arrest in Cambridge, which then resulted in the “beer summit.” A few days.
Where is Trump’s statement about regretting the Scaramucci appointment? Where is Trump’s statement about regretting anything, for that matter?
Try Googling “Trump…’regret saying'” The only thing that remotely comes up is a YouTube video of an August 2016 speech where he said “I regret sometimes saying the wrong thing.”
And again: this whole thread rests on Jack’s claim that it was a decision Trump made, freely and under no duress. Thus far, all the evidence is it was forced on him; realistically he had no choice whatsoever. Does somewhat get credit for making a “decision” with a gun to their head?
“And again: this whole thread rests on Jack’s claim that it was a decision Trump made, freely and under no duress. Thus far, all the evidence is it was forced on him; realistically he had no choice whatsoever. Does somewhat get credit for making a “decision” with a gun to their head?”
Did you even read Jack’s post?
Do you even know anything about teams and management and decision making?
By your own standard, Obama’s ‘regret’ over his race-grievance comments with Henry Louis Gates don’t pass muster…because it was after much criticism by opposition.
And I don’t think for a minute that if Trump had made a verbal statement of ‘regret’ for bringing Scaramucci on board, that you wouldn’t just attack Trump for wearing an inappropriate color of tie for the announcement, or for using words that you don’t prefer be used.
Your hate-driven blinders have you wandering lost on this, charles.
I’m glad you mentioned the Gates’ episode. The childish buffoonery in which Obama engaged in, sticking his nose into local business followed by race-grievance pandering, followed by the world’s dumbest attempt at a President playing parent in breaking up a fight between the youngins at the “beer summit”.
If Trump even did one of these things, you’d be demanding his head for the blithering silliness of the entire thing and the media would probably be apoplectic.
You conveniently forget that “the Gates episode” was a counter-example to your false claim that no other president has expressed regret.
Who claimed that, charles?
I just ran a search, you’re the only one harping on about verbalizing regret…the only other mention of it is my response to you.
“Who claimed that, Charles?”
Here’s from Jack’s original post:
“There is no other way to interpret this stunning act…other than “I screwed up big time, and I had to fix it.” Neither Obama, nor Clinton, nor either Bush, nor Reagan were ever willing to do this hardest and most humbling of management acts.”
That’s who.
As to “what happens when unbridled hatred and bias cloud your judgment,” I leave it to others to judge who’s beclouded here.
So in other words, you probably ought to backtrack your comment: “…your false claim…”
And, I’ll leave up to Jack to argue, but it would seem Jack is discussing this in the context of hiring a colossal boob and then firing him…not necessarily in the realm of other instances.
Texagg, I think you’re a bit out of control here.
You say “Obama’s ‘regret’ over his race-grievance comments with Henry Louis Gates don’t pass muster…because it was after much criticism by opposition.”
Much opposition? Did you not notice the firestorm that attended Mooch’s major league meltdown of profanity and idiocy? And let’s not forget that Trump’s FIRST REACTION to Mooch was that he LIKED THE GUY, thought it was GOOD that he was speaking up, that that’s why he hired the guy.
In other words, his judgment was not only wrong in the first place, it was wrong AGAIN – STILL – after The Mooch revealed himself to be an idiot.
And even aft4er that firestorm, have we YET to hear any expression of regret?
For all we know, Trump STILL TODAY thinks Mooch is a stand up guy, right up there with Flynn and Putin, because guess what – he STILL has yet to utter a word of criticism or regret about any of them.
How you can figure that being forced to agree to a demand to let Mooch go is in any way a remote indication of managerial competence is beyond me. It is nothing more than yet another example of Trump’s being forced to back down when his own stupidity backs him into a corner. Nothing more.
Fellow readers, this is a great example of someone who, when their argument is bunk, uses a strawman to divert attention from them. charles, here, has quietly inserted the notion that Jack or I have been arguing that Trump is a competent manager based solely on our objective ability to identify when Trump has done something good. We’ve made no such claim, but charles’ argument desperately relies on that.
Additionally, charles continues to hang his hat on Trump not verbalizing some sort of regret over hiring Scaramucci, with no real argument of why that’s necessary.
Additionally, charles continues to argue a double standard based on his claim that Obama, expressed regret during the Gates’ episode. He doesn’t realize that Obama made his turn around after much criticism, which charles claims undermines Trump’s turn-around. This is a double standard. And when called out on it, charles response is essentially “It’s not the same thing”.
Fellow readers, this is what happens when unbridled hatred and bias cloud your judgment.
Yeah… Charles… I think you really need to evaluate what you think is a good behavior, or a bad behavior, divorced from the paradigm of good people and bad people.
IS apologizing under fire good or bad? Because you seem to think that in Obama’s case it’s an example of a good thing, but that it somehow degrades Trump’s correction.
The second thing I need to say is that in Trump’s case, he’s fired someone incompetent. In Obama’s case, he expressed regret. Quite frankly… You aren’t comparing apples to apples… Talk is cheap, after expressing that regret, he went on to exhibit the same behavior time and time again. To compare apples to apples… Obama stocked his administration full of ineffective cronies, much like Trump has, and then refused to shitcan any of them, even in the face of massive scandals (Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Doug Shulman, Lois Lerner… The list basically writes itself.) which, in the very narrow field of therapeutic shitcannery, makes Trump better than Obama.
tex:
Fellow readers, this is a great example of someone who, when their argument is bunk, uses a strawman to divert attention from them. charles, here, has quietly inserted the notion that Jack or I have been arguing that Trump is a competent manager based solely on our objective ability to identify when Trump has done something good. We’ve made no such claim, but charles’ argument desperately relies on that.
Jack didn’t go quite as far as declaring Trump a “competent manager,” but he also went a lot further than “Trump has done something good.” Some excerpts:
For the first time, President Trump has given future Presidents a positive role model to emulate. Almost no Presidents, indeed, almost no executives anywhere, have the guts and competence to do this…
Donald Trump seldom admits mistakes. There is no other way to interpret this stunning act (I first saw it in a comment on Ethics Alarms, and I thought it was satire), no matter what the President says, other than “I screwed up big time, and I had to fix it.” Neither Obama, nor Clinton, nor either Bush, nor Reagan were ever willing to do this hardest and most humbling of management acts….
It is also a wonderful sign that the President took his new Chief of Staff’s advice. Wow. I now have hope that he may be persuaded to give up stream-of-consciousness tweeting.
We can use this event as yet another test to assess just how biased various pundits are. How many will have the integrity to say, as I do, that firing a Scaramucci as soon as possible is a competent and courageous example of good management, even if it was made imperative by the President’s own head-explodingly terrible, incompetent and irresponsible decision? My guess is very few. What they want to do is bash Donald Trump, and this certainly gives them ammunition.
I would ask them this, however: how often have you hesitated to admit a mistake and fix it, waiting and hoping that somehow it would work out, only having to fix the problem later after the predictable catastrophe occurred? And you weren’t doing this in front of the whole nation, with a pack of hateful journalists just waiting to heap ridicule and abuse on you for doing the right thing?
President Trump deserves praise for this. And if his example is followed by managers everywhere, it will be a better world in too many ways to count.
Now, as charles has already pointed out, much of this analysis is not just flawed, but untrue. Other presidents have admitted mistakes. Trump did not fire the Mooch “as soon as possible.”
Sure, give Trump some credit for listening to a competent subordinate and doing the right thing, even if he should have done it earlier, and of his own volition. But the above is effusive, and demands effusiveness from the media. There are too many mitigating circumstances here to warrant this type of praise. The “right thing” would have been to fire the Mooch on Thursday, before even hiring Kelly on. At other points in this thread, Jack even refers to the firing as “courageous!” But it was no such thing; he had to go, and anyone who gave such an interview would have been immediately shitcanned by any other president.
Moving the goalposts, Charles. A leader’s statements and off the cuff remarks are not decisions. I neither said nor suggested that no President has never quickly regretted a misstatement or an impulsive comment. Happens all the time.
The post was not about “admitting mistakes,” but rather fixing mistaken actions. As the comment clearly stated: stupid comments don’t “work out.” The mistake of not reversing bad decisions can only apply to actual conduct, like hiring an idiot.
I’m giving up two things here.
First, I give up on Jack’s judgment regarding Trump’s fitness to hold the presidency.
And second, I give up on Jack ever actually playing chess with me.
I think I’ll stick to cooking.
Hey! This fellow reader opines lunacy runs amok here. Methinks Jack is practicing mind control. Thank heavens at least some of us appear immune.
Problem is, the lunacy is causing me to reach for the tequila like RIGHT NOW.
So what part of this is lunacy:
Trump firing Scaramucci is a good thing.
Good bad good bad good bad TrumpLand good bad good bad good bad forever and ever good bad good bad good bad (get my drift?)…
In all fairness, this is how most of my discussions with true anarchists end up anyway…
Trump firing Scaramucci is a good thing.
No one is arguing that it isn’t a “good thing.” Again, Jack’s post went a lot further than that, and we’re arguing the degree to which Trump should get credit for it. Jack’s stance appears to be “A lot, because no other past president has done this!” which isn’t even true. deery’s stance appears to be “none,” which was mine originally as well. I’m willing to settle on “a little, but only slightly more credit than he should get for washing his hands after going to the bathroom.”
Wonderful closing line, Chris. My wife taught me to wash my hands after using the bathroom. So I do, even when she’s not home, I do!
Which is a completely counter-factual and biased conclusion, which you, deery, Charles and Spartan all, depressingly, defaulted to.
Explain how it’s “counterfactual.” Specifically, explain how it’s more counterfactual than your claim that Trump fired Scaramucci “immediately” after he publicly motherfucked the rest of the White House staff to death in an on-the-record interview, when in reality he waited four days.
Six days after an appointment is, in practical terms, immediate. Nobody hires someone and fires them, say, the same day. The guy left his job, accepted, just got started, his wife divorced him, he gave a stupid interview, and after a couple of days, was fired. Jeez, have you ever worked in an organization or a bureaucracy? High level executives are never fired literally immediately after being hired, short of committing a crime. In the government, they are seldom fired at all.
You are, absurdly, basing your refusal to call a lightening quick reversal of a bad decision a responsible management act based on three or four days. Quibbling of the worst kind.
Charles, by the way, NEVER cited an analogous Presidential reversal, and you flatly said my statement was “untrue” without citing an example either.
It is rare, extremely, if not completely unprecedented.
It is an example of good management that most managers and leaders refuse to engage in.
It is a lesson for all leaders: “Fix the problem, as soon as possible,” and no, unless the problem is rabid and running around biting people, a couple days one way or the other doesn’t change anything.
Jack, this is what you said in your original Scaramucci post:
If I were Scaramucci’s superior, he would find his possessions in a cardboard box on the White House lawn and his office door bolted with a Marine in front of it today.
Trump won’t do any of this, of course.
I would have done the same thing, and that’s what I would call “immediately.” Now you are saying that waiting a few days is “immediate.” I don’t agree. What we do agree on: Trump firing Scaramucci after four days is better than not firing him at all. It’s a good thing he fired him. It’s not a model of responsible leadership. A model of responsible leadership would be what you say you would have done.
Desperate and irrelevant, Charles. This isn’t a contest. The post is about one perfect example of a leader quickly reversing a decision that was wrong, and taking the heat for it.
(Hillary did start the birther rumors.)
Both these responses are deflections. Keeping on DWS was unethical. “If you like your plan…” was unethical, and I suspect it was deception, not something Obama suddenly “realized” wasn’t possible. How do either invalidate my point that doing the right thing way too late, when one is backed into a corner, doesn’t deserve the same amount of credit as doing the right thing in a timely manner of one’s own volition?
Yes, Trump could have told Kelly “No,” but the fact that we even have reason to suspect he wanted to speaks badly enough. Do you really believe the Obama administration would have kept Scaramucci on for four days after an interview like that? It defies belief.
You’re kidding! Obama kept on the incompetent Sec.who oversaw that embarrassing Obamacare website fiasco a lot longer than four days! He allowed the Secret Service Director and VA chief to hang around long after it was obvious they should be fired! Holder should have been fired for his handling of Fast and Furious. Obama was one of the worst ever regarding accountability. He fired a General for a stupid Rolling Stone interview that hurt his feelings. That was the fasted he ever acted on a personnel matter.
NOBODY acts that fast. It’s not four days after an offense, it’s six days after the appointment! You are avoiding what was remarkable to spin the story.
That doesn’t answer my question: would Obama have fired Scaramucci the day after that interview?
You can’t *answer* that question the way you want it. You can’t answer it with anything other than evaluating Obama’s track record of holding his people accountable. Jack has done this for you.
“Therapeutic shitcannery.”
Awesome.
From the NYT reporting of Tuesday on this epic ethical decision by the President:
“Mr. Trump was initially pleased by Mr. Scaramucci’s harsh remarks, directed at Mr. Priebus as well as Mr. Bannon. But that view seemed to change as people around Mr. Trump told him that Mr. Scaramucci’s over-the-top performances were not well received.
In addition, Mr. Scaramucci seemed to be, at least for the moment, overshadowing him — a fact that Breitbart News, which Mr. Bannon used to run, pointed out in a headline describing Mr. Trump as second fiddle to his communications director.
Over the weekend, after speaking with his family and Mr. Kelly — who refused to even consider retaining Mr. Scaramucci — the president began to see the brash actions of his newly high-profile subordinate as a political liability, according to three people familiar with his thinking.”
The only decision I see here was not to allow General Kelly to resign before starting by making an issue of The Mooch. So he did nothing. Which was the right thing to do, but I don’t get how it was all that praiseworthy–more like a fait accompli which he wisely chose not to fight.
If anyone wants a better example of spin, look no further.
Firing Scaramucci isn’t ‘doing nothing’.
Fellow readers, charles how now adjusted the standard of managerial leadership to one in which a leader agreeing with and acting on the advice of a subordinate “doesn’t count”.
Last paragraphs can be summarized:
Trump didn’t choose to the right thing! He chose not to do the wrong thing!
Phenomenal charles.
Phenomenal.
Hold charles’ feet to the fire on this idiotic standard, because it will bite him in the future.
charles’, is this how you advise those who consult with your firm?
First paragraphs can be summarized as thus:
Reality star Trump delighted that subordinate behaves like reality star.
Politician Trump was reminded that polls reflected negatively on this. Politician and Leader Trump adjusted his attitude accordingly.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/07/31/an-epic-and-unexpected-example-of-how-the-right-thing-to-do-is-to-undo-a-bad-decision-as-soon-as-you-realize-that-it-was-a-mistake-and-not-worry-about-how-anyone-reacts-who-says-i-told-you-do-who-s/comment-page-1/#comment-459061
Fellow reader here. Fellow reader tired bullshit here. Fellow reader say Trump mind control control Jack fan club. No worry, fellow reader sure Trump one day unwittingly supply antidote, free affected brains. See Creature With The Atom Brain details.
Fatty’s snark is my spirit animal.
Utter spin, Charles, and those details do not change anything about my correct conclusion. Trump made a bad decision. TRUE. Once he realized it was a bad decision, he had the courage and integrity to fix it. TRUE. It is ultimately his decision, whoever he delegates to. TRUE. This is something managers and leaders seldom have the guts to do, because it is an admission of a bad mistake. TRUE. This should be a model for any manager. TRUE.
Trump’s intractable foes are, it seems, incapable of separating the man from the conduct, and this disqualifies them as credible critics.
Geez, Charles. Trump initially liked the comments – he thought about it and talked it over with others and changed his mind. See what a bad guy he is? Really?
Trump has, and will continue, to make egregious errors. This isn’t one of them.
I simply disagree with describing this as an “Epic Example of Doing the Right Thing,” Jack’s words.
Crap….somehow this:
”
Fellow readers, charles how now adjusted the standard of managerial leadership to one in which a leader agreeing with and acting on the advice of a subordinate “doesn’t count”.
“Last paragraphs can be summarized:
Trump didn’t choose to the right thing! He chose not to do the wrong thing!
Phenomenal charles.
Phenomenal.”
Which was supposed to be at the end of the response ended up in the middle by some Internet magic.
Jack, feel free to strike this post. I be drinking, and I am now in self promotion territory. Still, I’ve watched it several times and it always makes me happy. Maybe it’s the kids.
I want everyone to take a giant step back and let this country wedding just around the corner from my house soothe your soul.
View at Medium.com
Fatty, you know your excellent posts and thoughtful posts are always welcome here. WordPress doesn’t even flag them!
Thanks!
Anyone seen this? I asked 12 legal experts if the latest Trump-Russia news showed obstruction of justice https://www.vox.com/2017/8/2/16075404/donald-trump-jr-russia-investigation-mueller-obstruction
Not only did I see it, I commented on the same Vox stunt when they tried it before. I haven’t checked to see if its the same experts. Vox cheery-picks experts who gave them the answer they want.. No Turley; no Dershowitz. That’s pretty damning, since a) those profs are more prominent than the ones Vox asked 2) they are outspoken liberals, and c) they have strongly written that the obstruction claim is partisan and laughable.
It’s a classic example of biased professionals abusing their expertise, probably sincerely, but bias makes them stupid. And Vox doesn’t even try to be fair, most of the time.
I’ll go with your answer because, well, I didn’t even bother to read it, I’ve got too many tabs open and I’m trying to eat and read at the same time.
What I’m reading…
COMPANION ROBOTS ARE HERE. JUST DON’T FALL IN LOVE WITH THEM
Boomer parents: ‘One day, this will all be yours.’ Grown children: ‘Noooo!’
How is the sun completely blocked in an eclipse? from the NASA Space Place for Kids (this is for Stella who teachers middle school science)
Complex-PTSD makes Individuation Difficult – Showdown with the Shadow
Well, I have the courtesy and respect to read your responses. It is increasingly clear that you just want to proclaim without accepting the responsibility of doing so logically or fairly.
Not good.
Wait! Hold up, Jack. I said I’d go with your answer, meaning I trust your judgment concerning the article in question because you have a good handle on the political leanings of attorneys of note.
The only reason I posted it was I found the headline compelling enough to ask if anyone here had seen it. Nothing more than that.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Being flip has its perils, as I often learn myself.
Now, about that chess thing…
Just finished watching another agonizing White House Press Briefing. I thought yesterday’s was rough, but today’s far eclipsed it.
Stephen Miller learned a life lesson, NEVER EVER TAKE JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.
As poor Sarah (yes, I’m starting to feel sorry for her, you can see the strain she’s under at the podium) was exiting the room a reporter shouted out, “Did the President call the White House a dump?” Oh how I wish that question had been asked during the presser. I bet it will be asked if there’s one tomorrow. Oh God, please let it be an on-camera presser.
Back to Miller… I’m not going to comment, just want to say I’ve done a bit of reading about him the last 20 minutes and, well, unless the articles are full of shit I’m beginning to think he’s not a very nice man. That’s putting it politely. (Oops, sorry, I did comment, didn’t I?)