I don't think she was there with the family with a master plan to tweak the President in case he said something wrong. She may very well be a family friend, and she may very well have had good intentions in being with them in their time of need.

I do, however, feel like her announcement of what Pres. Trump said in a private conversation with the family to be in poor taste, and it does reek of political grandstanding, just as I think Pres. Trump's talk about how he calls people and other Presidents didn't to be in poor taste (not to mention false). Now maybe we'll find out that the family asked her to speak out on their behalf, but my guess is that she saw an opportunity to crap on a political rival and took it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Notice that I a being very careful to not take sides on that part.

Hey, did you see that fucking football game last night. As a Raiders fan, that was insane!

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Fuck that congress women.

you're assuming facts not in evidence. you don't know why kelly is trump's chief of staff. maybe he hates trump and is in that role because he's the last best bastion against the mischief trump might wreak. maybe he's a mole for the uruguayan govt. maybe he's full charge in favor of trump and actually believes what he is saying. either way, he's there because it's his choice, full stop, end of story. (unless he's the uruguayan mole.)

if what you're saying is that once you've chosen to be in the role you, like the press secty, must behave in an advocacy role, okay, up to a point. but the chief of staff isn't the mouthpiece of the president, like the press secty is. kelly has chosen to step out of his role as COO of the executive and advocate in a decidedly one-sided fashion, omitting facts.

i thought kelly's comments were moving, necessary, illustrative, and i found myself much more enlightened, rounded, and educated because of what he said. his comments were also incomplete. so, as jpo accurately put it, if you're going to use the unique position you have to stand above the fray, to step out from the role of chief of staff and into the role of a military man who has lost a son in combat, then by god do it entirely, and make it a teaching (instead of advocacy) moment for your employer and his followers.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm making what I would consider an pretty well informed assumption, based on his public statements and what I know of men who serve their country for decades in the military. Regardless, yes, he's there by choice, exactly the same way that a lawyer chooses to work for the public defender's office or for a criminal defense firm.


Again, it appears you don't understand the role of WH CoS. Making public teaching moments for the President really isn't what the job is about.


Gen Kelly has, I feel fairly certain, done what he feels his job is and what the President has asked him to do. It's not like he called for a press conference out of the blue because he just had to address this Gold Star issue and tell his personal story. Part of his role is, in fact, advocacy for the President. That's not stepping outside of his role. It's squarely within the job description.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Dude, that game had three untimed downs. The Raiders won the game three different times and lost it twice. It was insane.

I'm out on this topic. Trump doesn't know how to be human, he just can't get the words and emotions right. He isn't being evil here, just really not right in the head. And the Congresswoman is not who the Democrats need on TV right now. Like I said somewhere else, they are a match made in heaven.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I can't stay up that late here on East Coast time. I watched most of the first half. I'm not really a fan of either team particularly, but I'd like to see Alex Smith succeed after all the years of crap he's taken.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

again, i understand the role of CoS very well. when you advocated for the right of the president to have the staff of his choice, you were straying a bit off topic, and that's okay. kelly chose to accept his role, maybe out of duty, maybe because of affection for the president and his policies, you don't know, i don't know. nobody compelled kelly to take that job, nor is he compelled to remain in it.

where you and i apparently disagree is that kelly chose (in my view) to step outside that job, and to teach and explain (with great articulation and color) how the service deals with its fallen. he chose to do that not as CoS, but by donning the cloak of personal experience both as a military man and as a gold star father. then he used that cloak to advocate for the president's behavior, omitting that the president he chooses to serve started it all by explaining that he does gold star better than any president ever. just like he does everything better than any president ever.

kelly spoke in a moving and illustrative fashion while still managing to pick up whatever it is that clings to you when you're inside of trump's orbit. the congresswoman likewise started with the honorable and hard duty of accompanying the bereaved to meet the casket, but allowed herself to get pulled by the gravity of anti-trumpism. here you have two good people - kelly and the congresswoman - each getting drawn in because of trump's narcissism and insecurity.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Regardless of whether Gen Kelly is compelled to take or remain in the job, someone needs to be there to do it, and their responsibilities and obligations would be the same. That's my entire point. You're crapping on Gen Kelly because he's fulfilling the responsibilities of that role, just like someone who craps on defense attorneys for defending criminals. In both cases, grief is being given to people for doing jobs that we need them to do for our form of govt to function.


Where we disagree is in your assessment that this was outside of his role as WH CoS. Hence my statement that you might not actually understand the role of the CoS.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

If his anecdote is true about the FBI at the building in florida and her statements on the day it opened then i think she demonstrated a degree of narcissm long before this episode.

That said, kelly could have made his point without the anecdote though he does seem to have been enraged by her behaviour and, in his view, the disrespectful commentary more than being driven by defending DJT

i think you and i agree on this: trump is a narcissistic asshat; kelly is an honorable and duty-driven patriot. one additional area in we appear to disagree is that you think my view of trump colors my view of kelly; i think your view of kelly colors your view of kelly's actions of yesterday. i don't know who's right. i suspect i'm more right than you are, but maybe my view will change based on future events, and i'll come to see things as you do.

i am comfortable noting that this exchange here, between you and me, highlights our differences, when in fact i suspect our views are very closely aligned as regards our opinions of trump, kelly, gold star families and the treatment they deserve, and so on. the reason we are each on a separate side of this - and the reason kelly placed himself on one stark side of this - is not primarily because kelly did or didn't act in the role of CoS when he made his speech, but because trump placed us all here (kelly included). you're certainly right that kelly is doing his duty (as he sees it), just as elliot richardson and william ruckleshaus did their duties (until they no longer could).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman