Pssst! Joe! If Your Goal Is To Not Be Petty and Juvenile Like Trump, This Isn’t How To Do It…

What’s going on here? I honestly have no idea, but I do know it’s idiotic. The Council is the ultimate non-partisan body. For the President to boot two celebrities, one from sports, another from TV, off the Council as some kind of political strike can only look bad. Both are also “of color”—Joe knows that if Trump did this, he’d be called a racist. But he’d also be called a petulant child, and rightly so.

Who in the White House thought this was a good idea? It does not fill me with faith in the quality of Biden’s advisors.

Oz, like Walker, says he won’t resign. I wouldn’t either. For a President, this is the essence of punching down.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

17 thoughts on “Pssst! Joe! If Your Goal Is To Not Be Petty and Juvenile Like Trump, This Isn’t How To Do It…

  1. The Biden administration’s motto seems to be, “Stupid, desperate times call for stupid, desperate leadership.”

  2. The goal is to wipe the administration clean of Trump appointees, even unpaid ones. The cleansing must go on so they can continue to appeal to their most deranged supporters. Is it petty? Sure. Is it juvenile? Of course. But, to them, acting like Trump isn’t acting like Trump. It isn’t what it is, remember? They have the media to make sure everyone knows that they are fighting literal Nazis here.

    • The actual Nazis used to aspire to a status called “judenrein,” which meant “Jew free,” a time when there would be no more Jews, or at least no more Jews in the area under their control. The Catholic Kings and the Perject Prince wanted a totally Catholic Iberia, where there would be no Jews or Muslims. Oh yes, and the Young Turks wanted a totally Turkish homeland where there would be no one who was not a Turk or a Muslim. Let’s not forget the French revolutionaries, headed by the bloodthirsty Robespierre and the insane Marat, who spoke of the day when the last king would be hung by the entrails of the last priest. I am not sure there is a word for what the Democratic Party wants, but here goes, the Democratic Party wants a future that is ECORG (pronounced EEE-korg). That stands for Every Conservative Or Republican Gone. Few say it, openly, but around the last election a few were saying it out loud, witness Jennifer Rubin and AOC talking about making lists of who to ban from public life and witness Leonard Pitts’ hateful editorial in the Houston Chronicle on or about October 25, 2020, in which he basically said “you conservatives, Republicans, and Trumpers, better hide, because we’re coming for you.” You can deflect, dodge, and gaslight all you want, but the fact is that the Democratic Party is an inch away from becoming the new totalitarian party.

      • Si, si, si.

        “Let’s face it: Republicans are inherently evil, and Democrats are inherently morally superior simply by virtue of their not being Republicans. When Dems say they want Democracy and “Democracy is at risk” or words to that effect, what they are saying is they want single party Democratic party rule and complete social hegemony. Anything short of that is an existential threat to Democracy. Any non-Democrat Supreme Court justice is an existential threat to Democracy, as they define it. Compromise is surrender and defeat.”

        I think this started in the ‘sixties. All my contemporaries who were anti-war radicals turned into Democrats and turned the Democrat party into a radical, intolerant hate group. Ironic, non? Co-Exist? Give peace a chance? Imagine world peace? Hah. Only on our terms!


  3. Why is a Trump comparison warranted? Many find him objectionable and many do not. Using him to describe petty behavior by Biden seems to me to be just as petty. Trump is no longer in office and was no more petty and narcissistic than his predecessor. The only difference is that every time Trump made a statement the press could twist they did. It made no difference if he said or did something inconsequential or not his detractors jump on it.

    Neither Trump nor Biden need to be compared to anyone for abhorrent behaviors. If it was a petty and juvenile it is petty and juvenile. There is no need bring Trump into the equation. Doing so is simply a means to take a cheap shots at someone who is not a member in “good standing” within someone’s societal group.

  4. What is going on here?

    You do realize that both of these guys are running for office as Republicans, right?

    That’s not sarcasm; it’s an honest question. I believe Walker is running for the Senate in Georgia and Oz is running in Pennsylvania. I did not see any mention of that in the post, but I think it is relevant.

    Walker is a huge Trump supporter; not sure about Oz. So, it’s political.


    • Yet irrelevant to the purpose of the panel. That’s what the whole “non-partisan” and volunteer parts are supposed to mean. Clinton had “Ahnold” on the same board.The reason why Biden is being petty and stupid doesn’t make it any less petty or stupid, no?

      • The Democrat meaning of “non-partisan” is: “Republicans thinking and acting as if they are members of the Democrat party.” Anything short of that is an existential threat to democracy. They are relentless.

      • Sure, it may be irrelevant to the purpose of the panel, but crucial to the basis for the demand to withdraw. That was my point.


      • Is it irrelevant, or did you just not know about it?

        You did ask “What’s going on here?” and then said “I honestly have no idea.” But you easily could have checked before writing the article; every media outlet that has reported on the story that I’ve seen explains the stated reason for the requests that they resign. Here’s from Fox News:

        “People who serve on the Council on Sports, Fitness & Nutrition are considered special government employees and are not permitted to engage in partisan election activities under the Hatch Act.”

        You can dispute this official explanation, but not even mentioning it (if you were aware) while accusing Biden of more nefarious motives strikes me as sloppy work.

        • You’re wrong, and you are the one who didn’t do the research. The letters demandin Walker and Oz resign didn’t mention the Hatch Act, and here’s why: The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations makes it clear that a special government employee may indeed run for partisan political office.

          “An employee who works on an irregular or occasional basis or is a special government employee as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a) is subject to the provisions of the applicable subpart of this part when he or she is on duty.”

          An SGE is a person who is “retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with or without compensation, for not to exceed one hundred and thirty days during any period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive days, temporary duties.”

          It this covers appointments to presidential councils and commissions, and the code goes on to cite the exact situation of Oz and Walker as an example of what those people can do when they are not on duty. An appointee to a special commission or task force who does not have a regular tour of duty may run as a partisan political candidate, but may actively campaign only when he or she is not on duty.

          This means volunteers can run for office and otherwise engage in partisan political activity. The Hatch Act restrictions [on political activity] apply only during the period of any day in which the SGE actually is performing government business. For example, if one attends an advisory committee meeting from 8:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m., the appointee could attend a political fundraiser at 3:00 p.m. and even solicit political contributions from the attendees.

          The council, in normal years, meets only once.

          Apology accepted.

          • Thanks, Jack! I should have known better than to rely on a Fox News article.

            That was interesting information you provided, and it seems like the kind of thing that you should have put in the article; it’s a much stronger counter-argument to Biden’s actions than anything in the original article, which did not even mention his administration’s justification.

            • Thanks for raising it. And I’ll highlight it later today. I approached the issue by checking to see if any previous President had fired an appointed member of the Council, and found no example, That was enough to convince me that this was partisan pettiness. I checked the Hatch Act angle, which I was aware of, later.

              • Ah. Fair enough!

                Another article I read didn’t mention the Hatch Act angle at all, but said it was an administration policy, so it looks like both I and Fox News are wrong. I’d be curious to see when this policy was implemented.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.