I admire your optimism.

drn92

Can you discuss the issue at all?

Is the President's tendency to quickly, and seemingly without regards to personal or professional relationships, fire people a good or bad thing?

As pointed out, this is very common in successful businesses. Where is someone isn't doing a good job they are quickly replaced. It's often said that being able to fire people is a sign of a good leader, since it's nearly impossible to always hire the right people, since you never know how they are going to perform until they are actually doing the job. Hiring people is easy, firing them is hard.

The Left said that the Trump campaign was in chaos when he fired/hired people, yet it worked out very well. Trump put people in place that he thought were the right people for each phase of the campaign (nomination, election, etc).

The Hillary bit was 2 things, a trigger for the TDS sufferers, and a case study in the opposite; keeping people on the job because of personal reasons or out of 'loyalty', even though they aren't doing a good job, or in Hillary's spiritual adviser, sexually abusing women.

There are plenty of jobs that people have gotten for their political support, or party loyalty. Trump has appointed many of those, but it seems, that at least in positions that he thinks are important, he's willing to fire anyone, in order to get the 'right' person in that position.

You missed one: direct relatives. Positions filled by direct relatives appear safest.

Also I don't know what you mean by "without regards to personal or professional relationships." I wouldn't subscribe to that notion at all. Pleasing Trump personally seems to be a considerable factor. Comey being the extreme example. It's hard to prove, because of course most (but not all) who leave take the high road. Not to say that pleasing your boss *shouldn't* be a factor. But in this case it seems to be a considerable factor. Let's not pretend it's all about some objective metric of "job performance."

From what I understand, after looking into Rexxon and his policies -- which I really don't care about in the least, to tell the truth, but it's interesting to study the dynamics of these State Department doings -- it looks like he was at odds with pretty much every major foreign policy stance Donny Two Scoops had, from the Paris climate accords to the Jerusalem embassy to the North Koreans to the Iran nuclear deal.

It also looks like it was his activities relating to the latter that finally got him kicked off "The Apprentice" by his boss. It appears he may have been working behind the back of that guy in the White House, with the European Union, to prevent the US from scrapping the Iran deal. No big secret that the EU wants the deal kept in place, for fear of US withdrawal from it (and it's not a treaty, so Two Scoops can pretty much do what he likes, apparently) jeopardizing various lucrative deals the EU had going with Iran at the same time.

I'd argue that the means and manner by which Rexxon was let go were wrong, of course. There are better and more face-saving ways to let a high-level senior officer of a company go (and it looks like the Manhattan real estate developer is running one of his companies, for good or ill), and they should have done so. But that's a bit of a distraction. It looks to me like, after a bit more than a year at the helm, Donny Two Scoops is less amenable to relying on the advice of so-called "insiders" who may or may not have his best interests at heart (State is notorious for having its own best interests, and the interests of others, including other foreign governments, at heart... which is one reason why it's called "Foggy Bottom").

Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel (hard a$$es both) are very much in line with the kind of aggressive foreign policy, one which that guy in the White House believes puts American interests first (and I'm not saying I agree with that policy), the Prexy wants. I don't know that Haspel will survive a Senate confirmation, either, given her past. I also think there'll be plenty of others in the administration who get the chop if it looks like they're clashing with Two Scoops' agenda. He's certainly proven he's not afraid to throw someone over the side if they work back-channel against him or go public with their disagreements.

Who knows? Maybe it was the guy from Manhattan's intention all the time to use (and I do mean use) insiders in major posts until he got the lay of the land and then toss them over the side once he was satisfied he'd learned enough about whatever their departments' roles are? It certainly wouldn't be out of character for the guy, would it? ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

i think the other reason that it's important completely aside from the systematic way in which the white house operates as a whole is the extent to which the turnover rate speaks to trump's own brand:

he specifically touted himself as having a long line of 'the best people' ready to slot into roles where they would solve problems that had been left unsolved by previous administrations who simply did not have the best people.

it also speaks to trump's brand of 'stability,' which again he's used as a selling point. similarly, this stability was going to allow him to confront and solve problems that others couldn't. a high rate of turnover from key positions contradicts his claims of stability in really obvious, outward-facing ways.

so, turnover can be bad in and of itself insofar as it undermines trump's own claims about himself - claims that were central to his sales pitch as a candidate.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Yep. Like it or not, the President should have a Secretary of State that he can work with, who speaks with the same voice (no small task when you're speaking for a guy like Trump) and largely shares the same foreign policy vision. Tillerson wasn't that guy in any respect, and I'm not the least bit impressed with his job performance even under those difficult circumstances. Wrong guy for the job in this administration. And with the looming Boy King Summit, now rather than later is the right time to get the foreign policy house in order.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

You make a good point but it begs the question. Why the fuck did Trump pick Tillerson in the first place? Why did he not figure out that they had different view points? Or why did he ignore that he knew that and pick him anyway?

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

He didn't call him a moron;
He called him a f*cking moron.
C'mon, let's use our #bestwords

Umm -- POTUS didn't give a reason for the firing, let alone a reason for the timing of the firing.
But none of will argue that Trump did run a very successful business.

Raises the question, not begs. Fix that shit!

Imagine you apply for a job you have no working knowledge about, didn't really want, and didn't expect to get, then when you get it you find yourself scrambling to get a thousand things done in short order. You're probably inclined to take recommendations of people you trust and offer jobs to people you've admired from a distance.

He's figured out that Tilllerson doesn't fit his young administration and replaced him with someone he's developed a working relationship with. Setting aside his sniveling coward (to quote Senator Cruz) method, replacing him now was the right move.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Kudos on your astute observation: POTUS likes 'em young

Russia connections... (no idea if that should be in pink or not)

I think Tillerson is a pretty straight shooter (so don't think he would have anything to do with any of Trump's possible questionable links to Russia), but his strong Russia connections could have assuaged Trump that he wasn't hiring someone who would be a Russia hawk.

"Boy King Summit." I LOVE IT!! Hahahahahahahahahahaha! :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

More info on Rexxon's back-channel maneuvering on the Iran deal, which was what apparently got him fired (disclaimer: the cited source is funded by one of those conservative rightwing billionaire types ;-).

Donny Two Scoops' position on the Iran Deal is apparently as follows: If the European states which used to join us in economic sanctions before Barack Obama's deal with Iran let them out of it agree to force Iran to agree to actual inspections, performed by people called "Not the Iranian Government itself," (hahahaha!) of suspected nuclear sites, and agreed to limitations on ballistic missile technology, etc., then that guy in the White House would go along with the Iran Deal for a while. But not forever, which was something he'd made clear before, sources say.

It was Rexxon's job to go out to the European states and sell them on this.


Instead, of course, he walked back from what Two Scoops was demanding and instead made softer offers he was never authorized to make -- to appease Iran.

"The abrupt firing Tuesday of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson follows months of infighting between the State Department and White House over efforts by Tillerson to save the Iran nuclear deal and ignore President Donald Trump's demands that the agreement be fixed or completely scrapped by the United States, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

In the weeks leading up to Tillerson's departure, he had been spearheading efforts to convince European allies to agree to a range of fixes to the nuclear deal that would address Iran's ongoing ballistic missile program and continued nuclear research.

While Trump had prescribed a range of fixes that he viewed as tightening the deal's flaws, Tillerson recently caved to European pressure to walk back these demands and appease Tehran while preserving the deal, according to these sources. The Free Beacon first disclosed this tension last week in a wide-ranging report.

White House allies warned Tillerson's senior staff for weeks that efforts to save the nuclear deal and balk on Trump's key demands regarding the deal could cost Tillerson his job, a warning that became reality Tuesday when Trump fired Tillerson by tweet."

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

You make a good point but it begs the question. Why the fuck did Trump pick Tillerson in the first place? Why did he not figure out that they had different view points? Or why did he ignore that he knew that and pick him anyway?

The fact that he hired Tillerson is a perfect example of how Trump doesn't have strong views on foreign policy (or domestic for that matter). If he did, he would have hired someone who reflects those views. Trump was hiring people and assumed that they would simply bend to his views, that they worked for him and would simply repeat whatever he wanted on a given day. He's realizing that some people do in fact have certain beliefs about how the world should work and they are willing to stand up for them.

Who knew foreign policy could be so difficult?

It's may be difficult, but everyone on 'our' side better be singing from the same hymnal. If he disagreed with the President's demands on Iran, he should have worked that out with the President. Not go behind his back and make offers he shouldn't be making. Or resign because he disagrees with the President's direction.

It's may be difficult, but everyone on 'our' side better be singing from the same hymnal. If he disagreed with the President's demands on Iran, he should have worked that out with the President. Not go behind his back and make offers he shouldn't be making. Or resign because he disagrees with the President's direction.

I agree that the SOS should be in line with the President but Tillerson has been on the opposite side of things since Day 1 which does beg the question why he was appointed in the first place. I think Trump appointed him because he thought Tillerson would bow down and blindly go along with him whenever he figured out what his next position was on foreign policy. The fact that he appointed Tillerson just proves Trump didn't have a clear vision of foreign policy which of course is no surprise to anyone.

The problem isn't with Tillerson, he didn't change his views on anything. The problem is with Trump.

Or, Trump wanted to hear opposing views, and wanted people to challenge him.

Of course, in the end, it's his way or the highway.

If Tillerson only wanted to do things his way, he shouldn't have taken the job. Or done a better job convincing the President of the merits of his way.

If he disagreed with the President's positions, he needed to either go along, or move along.

Working behind the President's back should have resulted in his firing.

That's the thing - there is no hymnal. Trump just makes sh*t up. Or asks the last guy what he was singing, then says "great, let's go with that", 'til he talks to the next guy.

Apparently Ambassador Nikki Haley wants to get fired too.

http://thehill.com/...isoning-ex-spy-in-uk

---

Suffer Well.

Trump has said he likes conflict and he likes opposing views. Then he said he fired Tillerson because they weren't on the same page. So which is it? Conflicting opinions or yes men? I think we know the answer.

So all of that has hurt our foreign policy, to this point, how? Just curious. Because it seems like most of the hyperventilating overseas is coming from folks and countries who are more upset about the possible loss of lucrative monies than anything else. Except for all that climate accord stuff, I guess. Is there any money to be made in trading carbon credits? I really don't know.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

You just know the country is in good hands when the most apt comparison is a Monty Python absurdity.

Now if only we can work in another Trump cabinet sketch invoking Biggus Dickus...