Mr. Trump’s interview style... is direct but conversational, according to people who have sat opposite him. He did not take notes or appear to refer to a set list of questions, but he did have dossiers on his visitors and often displayed intricate knowledge of their backgrounds and experience...Trump interviews multiple candidates for the same job and presses them on what they will do to solve problems. Obama only saw people after they'd been selected and only for the purpose of getting them to accept him. As if he were the interviewee! So the question is: Who chose those people that were brought in to work with Obama?
“If you filibuster, he’ll cut you off,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who was initially in the running to be Mr. Trump’s secretary of state but has since said he is not interested in a cabinet post. “He wants to know what you can do for him.”...
President Obama... interviewed a single finalist for each post in most cases, usually in a one-on-one discussion meant to confirm an already well-established conclusion that the candidate would be right for the job, said Dan Pfeiffer, a senior transition official in 2008.
“In some cases, he knew who he wanted and it was a question of convincing them to do it,” Mr. Pfeiffer said, citing examples like Hillary Clinton, who became Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, and Robert M. Gates, whom he persuaded to stay on as defense secretary....
December 8, 2016
Interviewing for a job with Trump, compared to interviewing for a job with Obama.
An interesting contrast slips out in this NYT article "What It’s Like to Apply for a Job in Donald Trump’s White House"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
107 comments:
Valerie Jarrett.
End of thread.
Obama dint want nobody that nobody sent. Valerie sent 'em, he interviewed 'em.
Because Obama had zero experience interviewing people as a hiring manager. Zero Nada. Zip.
We all look to Obama, but he was the face of a team that pushed him forward. He didn't assemble them. They selected him.
Obama only saw people after they'd been selected and only for the purpose of getting them to accept him.
Everyone Obama interviewed would have been his superior under normal circumstances.
The unwritten story is that Val Jarrett was the secret President. The historic first Black woman unelected President. And the MSM thought Dick Cheney was in charge.
If you read the Podesta emails, you know a guy at Citibank pretty much told Obama who he wanted in each position.
Who chose those people that were brought in to work with Obama?
Very good question.
MayBee has it exactly right.
https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton
I am sure Unknown will be around though, shortly, to tell us all about how Trump is in thrall to the very bankers who seem to have been in on choosing Obama's cabinet.
It certainly goes a long way toward explaining why so many in the Obama administration were so bad at their jobs. They weren't selected for demonstrating superior abilities to other candidates, but for their connections or for having name recognition.
Rather like government -- no competitive framework to separate the winners from the losers. They're just sort of chosen at random, or by luck. Since exception people are rare (by definition) this means a bunch of losers end up in the final cut.
Off topic: I am impressed with the tight confidentiality the Trump organization has been able to keep during the selection process so far. As good as the Vatican.
Different situation: Much of the Republican establishment were anti-Trump,and Trump's knowledge of available candidates is limited. Note his most extensive interviewing is for State, where he knows nothing and nobody. All the Democratic establishment supported Obama (after he persuaded Hillary to come on board). Gates and GEithner were obvious choices.
All the Democratic establishment supported Obama (after he persuaded Hillary to come on board). Gates and GEithner were obvious choices.
Yes Bill, so obvious that Citibank knew just about everyone an month before the election:
Michael Froman, who is now U.S. trade representative but at the time was an executive at Citigroup, wrote an email to Podesta on October 6, 2008, with the subject “Lists.” Froman used a Citigroup email address. He attached three documents: a list of women for top administration jobs, a list of non-white candidates, and a sample outline of 31 cabinet-level positions and who would fill them. “The lists will continue to grow,” Froman wrote to Podesta, “but these are the names to date that seem to be coming up as recommended by various sources for senior level jobs.”
The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner. - The New Republic
So it would seem that the answer to Althouse's question is "various sources."
"various sources" = "the oligarchy"
@tim Thanks for that link.
I was amused by:
"If the 2008 Podesta emails are any indication, the next four years of public policy are being hashed out right now, behind closed doors. And if liberals want to have an impact on that process, waiting until after the election will be too late. Who gets these cabinet-level and West Wing advisory jobs matters as much as policy papers or legislative initiatives. It will inform executive branch priorities and responses to crises. It will dictate the level of enforcement of existing laws. It will establish the point of view of an administration and the advice Hillary Clinton will receive. Its importance cannot be stressed enough, and the process has already begun...."
Good thing they got all those unhatched chickens counted.
I hope at some point we find out what all those policy details and names are so we can see just how bad a Clinton administration would have been (beyond the obvious)
Cacimbo got here first. Nailed it. She's the one keeping that column from falling on the other grumps.
I'll put my money on Citibank. But not in Citibank.
We all look to Obama, but he was the face of a team that pushed him forward.
I agree. Someday we may learn who he really is. I don't mean as a conspiracy but the guy is a mystery. How did he get into Harvard Law School. Why was he "President" of the Law Review, never having written anything for it ?
The original Birth Certificate might turn up someday and we might find out why the new one was produced.
He really is an empty suit. No record of any positive accomplishment. Even professional politicians have a period as staff members.
I also agree on Jarrett. Iran's mole in the White House.
Yep, only VJ
C'mon, Althouse; do you think Donald Trump had any freaking idea who Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was, two months ago?
Pruitt was "all in for Jeb."
http://www.muskogeepolitico.com/2015/09/scott-pruitt-im-all-in-for-jeb.html
Mind you, I'm delighted with the Pruitt nomination. And I am sure that you are not trying to tell us that Trump is picking his cabinet without any help. Just as Obama didn't pick a cabinet on his own. I'm not sure I now know any better, how the 44th or 45th presidents picked each cabinet member. But what the hell, it's just a blog, and we're just sitting around chatting and typing.
Good thing they got all those unhatched chickens counted
LOL, but what I thought was funny about the story was the acceptance that this is how it is done, the acceptance that Citibank executives were among the real players in this process, which I thought was the "real story" here. No, the "real story" is "This is how it is boys and girls, nothing you can do to change it with your Bernie fantasies, so you better get yourself a job as a senior executive at one of the big banks if you want to exert a liberal influence on policies!"
OK, I might have paraphrased a little bit.
Managing people is a skill, like politicking, that relies on innate talent combined with a wide array of experiences, and a firm grasp of what motivates action. This is why in discussions running up to this election I stressed the lack of management skills evident in HRC -- the same as for Obama. Neither one has shown any evidence of holding the people who report to them accountable for results.
It starts with naming lousy people as VP (for Obama) and continues through their terms as more and more (choose one) corruption/malfeasance/incompetence is evident among the staff and yet not one person gets fired. AG in contempt of Congress for lying and refusing to do his job, Lerner in the IRS, Koskinen in the IRS, Hillary violating her "promise" to Obama to forego foreign cash, playing loose with security. When there are so many instances of bad acting going unpunished, one can conclude that the guy in charge either approves, doesn't care, or has no clue or a mishmash of all three (which fits Obama IMHO).
Bad managers have chaotic terms that result in few measurable positive outcomes. Good managers start with a plan and follow it, revising as needed. Bad managers just seem to let their staff run wild. Good managers organize to accomplish goals. Bad managers put people in positions of protecting turf and settling scores. Outcomes depend on inputs.
All of this gives me hope for the Trump admin. If you build giant structures for a living and a hallmark of your company's projects is (as the new DC hotel is) "on time and under budget" then that is a sign of a good executive who knows how to manager people.
I do not know about "left" and "right," but there is going to be a sharp tack away from Obama-thought across the board. Trump is looking for people who are in line with his way of thinking.
Because Obama had zero experience interviewing people as a hiring manager. Zero Nada. Zip.
I expect that nails it. Trump has been filling important jobs in his organizations for decades now, on a routine basis, and even had a TV reality show about hiring people. On the flip side, before Obama's successful run for the Presidency, he had never hired more than a handful of people a year, and much of that was low level. Moreover, Trump probably got some training in it at Wharton, while there is absolutely no training for much of anything useful in this area at Harvard Law (except to convince its grads that they are potentially experts at anything they want to be). One is a top professional in this area, and the other was a rank amateur, who didn't have a clue as to what he didn't know.
Doh! Should be, "knows how to MANAGE people."
The narrative now developing among the Enemymedia is that Pence has picked all of Trump's appointments, and this is why they are all rigid, hard core, ideological true believing, warlike, far right wingers.
In other words, they are reality based proven leaders.
Obama only saw people after they'd been selected and only for the purpose of getting them to accept him.
--
“I Can Do Any Job Better Than the People I Hire to Do It”
First rate leaders hire first rate staff. They know that getting the best people possible on the team increases the chances of success. Second rate leaders hire third rate staff because they don't want anyone to outshine them. It isn't hard to figure out who is the first rate leader and who was second rate. Hint: second rate leaders like to believe they're the smartest person in any room.
Reading all of the anti-Obama posts above; do any of them apply, or even survive, Obama's re-nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense?
I'm not saying that as a fan of Obama, because I am not one. I am suggesting it as someone who likes tweaking the unthinking Trump loyalists.
I think Obama, especially in the beginning and maybe the whole way through, really believed that the only candidate that mattered had already been hired (him). Everyone else was a prop.
And does anyone really believe that Hillary was reluctant to become Secretary of State and had to be wooed?
I am suggesting it as someone who likes tweaking the unthinking Trump loyalists.
How long are you going to chew that cud of bitter gall, Life-Long Republican Chuck?
Michael K said... How did he get into Harvard Law School.
--
I saw a glowing biography of O back in '08 that said "he arrived at Harvard".
I thought the exact same thing as the #1 post posited. I believe "Confidence Men" detailed a lot of the process behind the Obama Admin construction. Hopefully Trumps inner circle won't be nearly as dysfunctional as the early Obama Whitehouse. And hopefully Trump tweaked Rahm E to the fullest extent in his visit to the golden tower.
One thing for sure.
The lefts panties are in a major wad over Scott Pruitt..delicious
"do any of them apply, or even survive, Obama's re-nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense?"
Have you read Gates' book ? I have. He was appointed by Bush and was ready to retire and go back to Texas A&M which he really liked.
Obama probably (dimly) recognized that he was completely at sea in military matters and had a war going on. He asked Gates to stay on and Gates agreed as a matter of "Duty Calls." Gates reports that he often clashed with Obama's staff but he is quite polite about Obama and Hillary in the book.
"How long are you going to chew that cud of bitter gall, Life-Long Republican Chuck?"
Yes.
"The lefts panties are in a major wad over Scott Pruitt..delicious"
Too bad they can't do anything about it.
Heckuva job, Harry!
tim in vermont said...
I am suggesting it as someone who likes tweaking the unthinking Trump loyalists.
How long are you going to chew that cud of bitter gall, Life-Long Republican Chuck?
Until Trump implodes. But I don't see myself in such an uncomfortable position. We've got both houses of Congress. Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. A possible Bill Pryor nomination to the Supreme Court, and then such a fierce confirmation fight that we'll go nuclear and confirm the new Associate Justice 51-50, with Senate President Mike Pence casting the deciding vote.
This administration, in practice, is going to look like a cross between a President Rick Santorum and a President Ted Cruz.
My feelings toward Trump are just personal. It's not business, Sonny; it's just personal.
Anyone have eyes on Algore? Will his head actually explode due to Pruitt nom and Dem invoked precedent of the nuclear option? Fun stuff.
Chuck said...
"I'm not saying that as a fan of Obama, because I am not one. I am suggesting it as someone who likes tweaking the unthinking Trump loyalists."
Chuckles, I'm old enough to remember when your complaint, endlessly repeated, was that Donald Trump was going to lose an easily winnable election. You were wrong about that, but you don't seem to have learned anything from the experience. Now you are intent upon making the case that Donald Trump will be a poor President. I am sure your reasoning is just as sound as it ever was.
Not surprised about Obama--regardless of politics I always saw one of his faults was that he came in with so little experience he delegated so much to other advisers and allies (Rahm, Reid and Pelosi) and took a sort of passive role. I could see his advisers deciding who to pick based on a vague thing he says (e.g., "get someone in there who's more of a dove") and him just ratifying the choice or selling it to the nominee so they accept. Micromanagers like Jimmy Carter weren't any better, but if you over-delegate you really can get screwed over by an incompetent or disloyal adviser.
"Who chose those people that were brought in to work with Obama?" OK, fellow bloggers covered that above. But apart from the pre-selection by the oligarchy and O's utter lack of experience, the striking thing about that process was the lack of probing by the MSM. The real behind-the-scenes process, though obviously suspected by the cynics among us, only came out via Wikileaks. Trump has already faced more scrutiny in his first weeks than O in his first years.
Jupiter said...
...
Chuckles, I'm old enough to remember when your complaint, endlessly repeated, was that Donald Trump was going to lose an easily winnable election. You were wrong about that, but you don't seem to have learned anything from the experience. Now you are intent upon making the case that Donald Trump will be a poor President. I am sure your reasoning is just as sound as it ever was.
I was indeed wrong about Trump. I thought that he would lose. I was right about thinking what a tragedy it was, if Trump got the nomination, in that Hillary Clinton was the worst Democrat nominee since Al Smith.
But I am not making the case that Trump will be a bad president at all. I think that four years of Trump will be just fine, thanks to Republicans in Congress, and Trump being trained to pursue settled Republican policies.
It's a win-win for Chuck. If Trump implodes he was a profit predicting the inevitable doom. If he's wrong the economy improves, we gain some semblance of control over our government, and the MSM is diminished even further in scope and importance.
By the way; Robert Reich should be relieved now as well. He thought Ted Cruz would be worse than Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W5e7AwqksU
Will the "unthinking Trump loyalists" please self-identify? I've never seen one and I have some questions.
Maybe a better question is why Chuck thinks that people who favored Trump over the most corrupt and ill-prepared candidate ever to run for president while under FBI investigation for violating national security might be "unthinking" in their choice? I mean why, other than Chuck's personal arrogance and superior attitude, would he think that?
Trump has already faced more scrutiny in his first weeks than O ever did.
FIFY Sebastian!
How long are you going to chew that cud of bitter gall, Life-Long Republican Chuck?
Chuck: Until Trump implodes.
12/8/16, 9:16 AM
Chuck: ...I am not making the case that Trump will be a bad president at all.
12/8/16, 9:29 AM
Of course, because all the best presidents eventually implode, right?
My God that description makes Obama sound weak and stupid. I know that wasn't the intent.
Chuck said...
And I am sure that you are not trying to tell us that Trump is picking his cabinet without any help. Just as Obama didn't pick a cabinet on his own.
The implication isn't that Trump has no help in staffing his administration, it's that Obama was helpless in staffing his.
Trump actually seems able to come up with multiple possible choices for a position and then delves deeper to figure out who would be best. (I recall seeing him do something like that on TV a few times.) Whether those options come from him or, more likely, recommendations from others he is open to them.
I'm not sure if the takeaway with Obama should be that he had no idea who to pick and just went along with whatever one or two advisers (read: Jarrett) recommended to him, or he just filled out the list himself like he does his NCAA brackets. Either way, to not explore and weigh alternatives suggests an acute lack of curiosity in the qualities and fitness of the individuals selected.
Blogger walter said...
Anyone have eyes on Algore? Will his head actually explode due to Pruitt nom and Dem invoked precedent of the nuclear option? Fun stuff.
12/8/16, 9:16 AM
Heh...Your comment made me think about the optics of having Algore in to see trump and then turning around and nominating Pruitt. Greatness..
So much winning..
Who chose those people that were brought in to work with Obama?
President Valerie Jarrett, that's who.
It would not be out of character for Obama to simply assume the brilliance of his own picks before even meeting the person and talking to them. That tracks with the description of his process.
Now that I think of it, I don't recall there ever being any shuffling and speculation over Obama's potential appointments. Whenever it was "rumored" that he was considering someone for a cabinet post, it almost always turned out that person was the pick. Whereas now it's "OMG Trump considering Omarosa for UN Ambassador" or some such, and the HuffPo axis freaking out, then a week later comes a solid pick (which of course still causes the HuffPo axis to freak out).
“In some cases, he knew who he wanted and it was a question of convincing them to do it,” Mr. Pfeiffer said, citing examples like Hillary Clinton, who became Mr. Obama’s secretary of state
Who could be thick enough to believe such an assertion.
"President Obama... interviewed a single finalist for each post in most cases, usually in a one-on-one discussion meant to confirm an already well-established conclusion"
You missed the lede here, Ann.
Barack Obama is not someone who goes out and tries to learn new things. Barack Obama is a person who only seeks "to confirm an already well-established conclusion".
It's why he's such a failure at compromising: he "knows" that he's right, that he understands everything. "Give and take"? Learn something new? Not in his toolkit
Ann, if you want to know who selected the people who Obama interviewed, just check wikileaks.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet
Obama generally appointed figureheads and ran the departments and agencies out of the back door at the White House.
So, Trump has had Al Gore, and now Leonardo DiCaprio up to the palace. How sweet would it be if he puts the pressure on them to lead by example- to downsize everything, to create solar and wind factories in America, in coal country where the mines have shut down. To fly commercial. To speak out against Hollywood millionaires energy excess.
Not likely, but fun to think about.
Which hiring practice, if a private company did it, would look more or less like a good ol' boys' network?
Larry J said...
First rate leaders hire first rate staff. etal
I have often said something in a military context that would apply to being considered for a job under trump or obama.
"I've worked for a lot of a$$holes.
Competent a$$holes, you can deal with. They typically want success for the organization, which will result in promotion for themselves. Suck it up and work hard. Nothing lasts forever. That's how I see Trump as a hiring manager. a competent a$$hole.
Incompetent a$$holes? They'll get you killed. e.g. Obama
I notice that Trump is not handing out appointments as rewards to his supporters. Whenever Rudy Giuliani appeared before the press the standard closing question was "will you be Attorney General in a Trump administration?", and yet...
A merit-based employment process. It still needs to be qualified, but for now it's positive progress.
"Anyone have eyes on Algore? Will his head actually explode due to Pruitt nom and Dem invoked precedent of the nuclear option?"
-- But he talked to Ivanka and Donald!
That link to the New Republic article on 2008 is fascinating. I suspect future document revelations will show that the Clinton team in 2016 spent too much time planning the transition when they should have been campaigning their asses off in the midwest.
Actually, on Gore: I think Trump is literally willing to sit down and talk to anyone who asks for some of his time. Doesn't mean he'll listen/agree with them, but he at least seems to give people he disagrees with the time of day.
"when they should have been campaigning their asses off in the midwest."
-- A lot of the states they lost they didn't lose by huge margins. They just had to put in the barest of effort, and the presidency could have been theirs.
I've put more effort in to middle school projects, comparatively, than Clinton's team put in to campaigning.
Quaestor said...
I notice that Trump is not handing out appointments as rewards to his supporters.
Well this is mostly true. We are not seeing a cabinet of Giuliani, Christie and Palin. The Eric-Bolling-for-Commerce-Secretary thing had all the earmarks of a rumor started by Eric Bolling's agent, and I hope that remains true. If Laura Ingraham gets an Administration job, I'd be okay with that. She's infinitely preferable to toadies like Jeffrey Lord and Sean Hannity.
But Betsy DeVos is a thoroughbred, blue-ribbon Republican Donor. Capital R, capital D.
I think we'd have to agree that Jeff Sessions is getting the AG job thanks to his longtime support and campaign counsel to Trump. A case of a reward, being paid to a wholly capable, standard-issue, conservative Republican.
The string of generals getting jobs may also be related to their campaign support for Trump. Even though Trump knew more than the generals did.
Elaine Chao (Mrs. Mitch McConnell) at DoT is no doubt some political dealing.
Seema Verma comes into the Trump administration straight out of the American Enterprise Institute (read: Chamber of Commerce and GOP establishment) and Mitch Daniels' (the hero-god of the GOP establishment) Indiana health care reforms.
And Nikki Haley's ambassadorship to the UN, with almost zero federal foreign policy experience, is nothing if not a battlefield promotion for a rising mainstream GOP star. Working on the farm team for the 2020's.
I forgot Don McGahn. New White House counsel. A Bush-era Republican FEC commissioner and a former token Republican partner at the Washington lobbying firm of Patton Boggs.
McGahn had been Trump's campaign finance advisor; he's getting rewarded as is Sen. Sessions. Another thoroughly capable talent, being rewarded as a loyalist.
The most important line is Scott Brown's right at the end “He made it clear that he’s a businessman and he’s going to delegate to people like me, potentially, and others,” Mr. Brown said. “He’s going to say, ‘Do your job, and do it well, and otherwise — you’re fired.’” As Mike says above, that is the essence of management
I would venture that no one has been named at SOS because Trump is still not happy with the responses he as gotten from candidates and may not be confident that any of them are tough enough to do the job right. He has chosen a number of military men because he knows that they understand how to delegate and how to supervise - a skill sorely lacking with the current bunch.
I agree with those who are convinced that Obama's cabinet was chosen for him by the D mafia - he would not have had a clue about hiring criteria.
"when they should have been campaigning their asses off in the midwest."
It's fair to ask whether the vigorous campaigning HRC did elsewhere was effective. It has been asserted in this forum that not campaigning in Wisconsin actually helped her there. ( Sending Chelsea to campaign in Wisconsin might have been counter-productive.)
In other words, more advertising would not have made the dog food more palatable.
"It's fair to ask whether the vigorous campaigning HRC did elsewhere was effective. It has been asserted in this forum that not campaigning in Wisconsin actually helped her there. ( Sending Chelsea to campaign in Wisconsin might have been counter-productive.)
In other words, more advertising would not have made the dog food more palatable."
I know I've made that assertion. Getting her out there more might have lowered her vote total. A lot of people could vote for the idea of Hillary but once confronted with the candidate it's not so palatable.
Brando/tcrosse: It may have hurt her with undecided/independents, but what she really needed was to get weak Dem voters to show up. A lot of people voted third party/didn't show up, in part, because they were never asked. A lot of Trump voters showed up just because he gave them a sales pitch, and it was literally better than nothing.
So the question is.. who selected the "JV" team for the "JV" president?
That would have to be his "JV" confident, Rahm & David Axelrod.
And you see how well Rahm has ran Chicago, right?
Yes a JV president needs JV people and Obama picked JV people.
Has Rahm ran Chicago any better/worse than a standard issue Democrat would have?
Matthew Sablan said...
Has Rahm ran Chicago any better/worse than a standard issue Democrat would have?
You beat me to it, Matthew. Any responsible "management" of Chicago would result in a revolt of one kind or another. Ditto Illinois more generally.
Can we vote Chuck off the island?
Trump's first decision as presumptive nominee was to select Pence. It was an impressive selection and should have mitigated the fears of the he's-a-Democrat crowd. His cabinet selections to date have been impeccable -- that's not an accident. He knows talent.
Darrell said...
Can we vote Chuck off the island?
For what? Insubordination? Insufficient displays of loyalty to der Leader? Does Althouse need to be more purist Trump?
Brando said...
I know I've made that assertion. Getting her out there more might have lowered her vote total. A lot of people could vote for the idea of Hillary but once confronted with the candidate it's not so palatable.
I agree that retail politics is not within Hillary's skill set. But she should have been able to send surrogates: celebrities, popular local Democrat politicians, etc. If she had gotten some retired Steelers players campaigning for her in the white working-class areas around Pittsburgh, some retired Packers players campaigning around Wisconsin, etc, she might have been able to swing it.
The lowest prediction accuracy? Five miles down and still digging? Just because?
As much as I don't like Bill, I think he was under used during the campaign. In part, that is because Trump successfully turned him into a risky play, and if there's one thing about Hillary Clinton, she rarely goes with risky plays. She prefers small, safe plays. So, even though I doubt using Bill more would have hurt her, she didn't.
But, then again, even with the immensely popular President and First Lady behind her, they couldn't buoy her numbers, so maybe her personal likeability just wasn't saveable?
"he at least seems to give people he disagrees with the time of day."
Yes and that is a rare quality. He also seems not to be too impressed by the last person he talked to, which was a criticism of Reagan.
I like Romney for SoS but the Exxon guy is also supposed to be impressive.
I wonder if Trump will talk to Gates ?
I would have supported Gates for president after reading his book.
I think he's too old for the job but he would be a great source of advice. He has a long career,
Matthew Sablan said...Trump successfully turned him into a risky play
--
More like pointing to the obvious.
(Bill was..err.."low hanging fruit")
Gates was the only adult in the entire Obama administration.
She prefers small, safe plays.
Did you follow her career at the State Department? I mean the one where she was helecoptered into the top job after being a president's wife and warming a Senate seat handed to her by the New York State Democrat Party for a few years?
Oh yeah, and you used that word "immensely," even with the immensely popular President and First Lady behind her,, but I do not think you know what it means.
It's interesting to see the different styles of presidents. HW Bush was the last insider elected as President. W seems to have had internal pressure to pick some of his dad's old hands, especially Cheney, though he brought Hughes and Rove on as his personal advisors because of their political astuteness. And every president has to reward party loyalists like an Ashcroft or a Hillary
Chuck said...
Darrell said...
Can we vote Chuck off the island?
For what? Insubordination? Insufficient displays of loyalty to der Leader? Does Althouse need to be more purist Trump?
12/8/16, 12:10 PM
You smell.
W seems to have had internal pressure to pick some of his dad's old hands, especially Cheney,
I think Cheney had no interest but, like Gates, did what he thought his duty was.
He was happy at Halliburton and they were paying him far beyond his dreams.
Algore's twitter silent on Pruitt nom..yacking about #24hoursofreality.
Indeed..
Check the rubber rooms.
You know what would have helped her in PA and Ohio? Not bragging about putting coal miners out of work and perhaps retraining them to clean bedpans.
Obama is fundamentally lazy. Trump is fundamentally hard-working. That is the difference.
I'd follow Gates anywhere. After the Osama Raid and the leaks:
“By Wednesday of that week, Gates went to see Donilon, offering up a barbed assessment of how the White House had handled the aftermath of the raid. ‘I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend,’ Gates said in his trademark droll tones, according to an account later provided by his colleagues. What was that, Donilon asked? ‘Shut the fuck up,’ the defense secretary said.”
I think Trump is literally willing to sit down and talk to anyone who asks for some of his time. Doesn't mean he'll listen/agree with them, but he at least seems to give people he disagrees with the time of day.
This is good advise for anyone.
The software architect at my last company was in way over his head and was very muddled on what direction to take that company's software. But he was smart, had some good ideas and and was fairly articulate on why the software engineering there was so terrible when he arrived. (He ended up quitting just before my contract ended. I was told that within a month, the engineering department pretty much went back their old ways.)
Even if fundamentally disagreeing with them, a meeting can glean info you wouldn't get via opposition from a distance.
"It may have hurt her with undecided/independents, but what she really needed was to get weak Dem voters to show up."
"I agree that retail politics is not within Hillary's skill set. But she should have been able to send surrogates: celebrities, popular local Democrat politicians, etc. If she had gotten some retired Steelers players campaigning for her in the white working-class areas around Pittsburgh, some retired Packers players campaigning around Wisconsin, etc, she might have been able to swing it."
I guess it's possible that a bit more campaigning in WI and MI (not to mention FL and PA) might have swung things for Hillary, I just got the idea that they'd already blanketed the airwaves (though the commercials I saw didn't seem very compelling--who cares if a guy runs his mouth off? Is that really the main reason we shouldn't vote Trump?) and high profile surrogates were all over the place. If you were a Dem (even a moderate Dem) and you weren't already moved to vote for her, could any surrogate do it?
Of course what may have worked against her was this belief so many of her supporters (and even non-supporters just observing the election) that some of these states were not going to be close based on polls (like PA). I wonder if a lot of people who didn't vote, or voted Stein, might have voted for Hillary if they knew their state would be so close. I'd sort of love to see a smug Stein voter's face knowing they'd just pulled the famed Triple Nader.
Obama is fundamentally lazy. Trump is fundamentally hard-working. That is the difference.
I think that is a lot of it. And I would add, "Thank God!"
There is a famous quote about army officers that applies.
Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can, under certain circumstances, be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.”
General Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord
Thank God for Obama's laziness.
Darrell: Can we vote Chuck off the island?
Chuck: For what?
For BORING us, dude--that's the truly unforgivable sin you're committing.
There is a non-trivial subset of lefties who despised Hillary, particularly after she scuttled Bernie. The ones I talk to thought that she was just as bad as Trump. Bringing in more rich people to shill for her would not have made the dog food any tastier. Well, at this point, what difference does it make ?
There is some evidence that the GOTV effort in the Rust Belt brought out people who voted for Trump. I really thought the Dem machine would drag her bloated carcass over the finish line. Maybe it's good that the candidates do this for themselves, and not just have the parties do it.
I think Cheney had no interest but, like Gates, did what he thought his duty was.
He was happy at Halliburton and they were paying him far beyond his dreams.
Oh, yeah. His duty. As if Halliburton didn't profit immensely from Cheney's position.
Binders of prospects, some women!
Chuck: I am suggesting it as someone who likes tweaking the unthinking Trump loyalists.
But its people like you who immunize Trump against legitimate criticism.
For example, I had several honest complaints about Bush, but most my time was spent explaining to loons that Bush didn't let 9-11 happen on purpose.
"By the way; Robert Reich should be relieved now as well. "
Reich, always aggrieved, NEVER relieved.
Chuck @ 8:32 - But it is so obvious that the positions that Trump is filling first are carefully chosen to carry his agenda forward!!! Trump is picking these people in the basic sense - Trump knows what he wants and is selecting individuals with both the matching inclinations and the experience to make it happen.
This is a change. We will have to wait and see if it is what the Trump voters were hoping for - but change they are definitely getting.
IMO Trump's executive experience really shows here. The question of whether he is wise or not will wait for history to judge, but he IS running this show.
Post a Comment