Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump promised to ‘drain the swamp.’ So what’s happening with his Cabinet?
    By Astead W. Herndon, Globe Staff
    April 17, 2018


    WASHINGTON — The refrain began on the campaign trail in 2015 and has since become synonymous with President Trump’s over-the-top brand of political rhetoric.

    “I only hire the best people,” the president has repeated over and over. “I . . . will hire the best people, not the biggest donors.”

    But nearly 15 months into his administration, Trump’s bid to surround himself with top-quality associates has devolved into constant controversy and scandal. The merry-go-round of West Wing aides has captured national headlines, but Trump’s handpicked presidential Cabinet has also been mired in constant allegations of impropriety.

    Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt is currently under fire for multiple controversies including allegations that he rented an apartment at a cut-rate price from a lobbyist in Washington and that he spent public funds on a 24-hour security detail during private trips to Disney World and the Rose Bowl. The Government Accountability Office said Monday the EPA violated federal spending laws when it bought Pruitt a $43,000 privacy phone booth for his office.

    In the last month, Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin was forced out after he used taxpayer dollars to fund a 2017 European trip with his wife, and Ben Carson, who runs the Department of Housing and Urban Development, incurred Trump’s ire for spending $31,000 of taxpayer money on a ornate dining set for his office.

    The former secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, resigned in September after news broke that he was extensively using taxpayer money to purchase chartered flights.

    “The Trump Cabinet is to a normal Cabinet the way the Addams Family was to a real family. It’s a mockery of the norm,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island.

    Whitehouse was the first lawmaker to draw attention to Pruitt’s unusual use of his security detail. In a sign of the growing cloud around Trump’s Cabinet, even some Republicans are now saying the rash of scandals has reached eye-popping levels.

    Trump himself acknowledged Monday he made some poor Cabinet picks, although he has stuck by Pruitt so far.

    “Not all of my choices were good,’’ [Understatement of the year, asshole - TH] he said in Miami, while praising two he called “great,’’ Labor Secretary Alex Acosta and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

    In the case of Pruitt, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Maine Senator Susan Collins, — who voted against Pruitt’s confirmation — and three House Republicans have all publicly said they don’t believe the former Oklahoma lawmaker has the integrity to lead the EPA.

    David J. Apol, the federal government’s top ethics official and Trump’s acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, wrote the EPA a letter on Monday raising questions about Pruitt’s actions.

    “The success of our government depends on maintaining trust of the people we serve,” Apol wrote in a highly unusual letter to the EPA. “If a violation is found, [the Office of Government Ethics] also expects that appropriate action will be taken in response.”

    Other presidents have certainly had high-level officials become wrapped up in ethics controversies. But with Trump, the scandals occur more frequently and lead to more staff turnover, according to data tracked by the nonpartisan Brookings Institution. [Oh THERE'S a big surprise! - TH]

    For example, several officials left or switched jobs within the first year of the administration — including Price, former chief of staff Reince Priebus, and homeland security chief John Kelly, who now serves as chief of staff.

    Washington ethics lawyers believe Trump’s early series of controversial ethical decisions — including refusing to release his tax returns, not divesting ownership of his global company, and using taxpayer dollars for constant trips to his golf courses — has empowered other members of government to shun normal codes of conduct.

    “There’s a disregard for ethics rules,” said Larry Noble, senior director and general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit focused on good governance. “And when you have this amount of problems, where you have to look at is the top — the president and the standards set. And what’s been clear from the beginning — and nothing has really changed there — is that Trump is very little concerned about ethics issues.”

    Noble added another reminder: Trump had no political experience before entering the White House. The same is also true for some members of his Cabinet, including Carson, and Noble said he believes some of the current problems stem less from malice and more from ignorance.

    “They tend to still view things from the perspective of a CEO of a family-owned company,” Noble said. [That's Trump in a nutshell...more than a year into his term - TH]

    The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Earlier this month, as the White House dealt with more questions about unseemly behavior from a Cabinet official — mainly Pruitt’s sweetheart condo deal — Trump surrogates refused to offer the EPA administrator their unequivocal support, which political insiders viewed as a bad sign for Pruitt.

    White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a recent briefing that the administration was “still reviewing” Pruitt’s living arrangements and could therefore not comment. Deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said recently on Fox News that he “couldn’t speak to the future of Scott Pruitt.”

    Republican senators, however, have mounted a pro-Pruitt public relations assault. On Twitter — the president’s favorite social media platform — multiple prominent conservative lawmakers made the public case for Pruitt to stay in his current job. Pruitt has amassed good will from many conservatives for rolling back several of former president Obama’s regulations regarding climate change and natural resources.

    “.@EPAScottPruitt is likely the bravest and most conservative member of Trump’s Cabinet,” wrote Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. “We need him to help @realDonaldTrump drain the regulatory swamp.”

    Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, also offered his support.

    “Why do Obama and his media cronies want so badly to drive @EPAScottPruitt out of office? @realDonaldTrump is too cagey to be duped and bullied by the Obama groupies,” Cruz said.

    More bad news regarding Pruitt continued. News outlets reported this month that Pruitt had a member of his security detail reassigned because the officer told Pruitt he could not use his emergency sirens to bypass traffic. Another story said he gave certain top aides significant raises without the White House’s consent.

    “I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Richard Painter, the Republican ethics lawyer under former president George W. Bush.

    The scandals also threaten to fuel further disconnect between the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, political observers said. In what’s already been deemed a bad political environment for Republicans, the president keeps firing Cabinet members, and therefore throwing tough Cabinet confirmations onto the already-crowded plate for lawmakers.

    Trump has made three additional Cabinet-level changes in the early stages of his second year in office, removing Shulkin and replacing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with former CIA chief Mike Pompeo. According to Brookings, the changes now mean Trump is fast approaching the total Cabinet turnover that Obama had during eight years in office. He has already surpassed George W. Bush’s total. Link
    __________________
    My commentary in brackets and initialed.
    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

    Comment


    • But you can't conduct international affairs that way. Not for long. And not without consequences.
      this is essentially it.

      Trump is burning US reputation and goodwill to obtain, at best, short-term gains.

      sometimes not even that, just PROMISES of short-term gains.

      for instance, his entire philosophy of trade deals is an overwhelming focus on bilateral agreements vs multilateral ones, under the theory that the US can bring its greater power to bear to obtain better trade deals. this means turning back on the entire post-WWII framework that the US set up in the first place to cement American power. this not only causes enormous resentment with US allies for relatively little in return, this is positively cheered on by countries like China because they detest the US-led framework to begin with!

      that's also why he treats allies like dirt, because he views them not as allies but exclusively as freeloaders. he's willing to abandon even countries like the UK because he's not interested in the US -leading-, just being top dog (which are two different things).

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cef_story.html

      His briefers tried to reassure him that the sum total of European expulsions was roughly the same as the U.S. number.

      “I don’t care about the total!” the administration official recalled Trump screaming. The official, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

      Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the expulsions. “There were curse words,” the official said, “a lot of curse words.”The next task was convincing Trump that he should punish Putin in coordination with the Europeans. “Why are you asking me to do this?” Trump asked in a call with British Prime Minister Theresa May, according to a senior White House official. “What’s Germany going to do? What about France?”...

      He was insistent that the poisoning in the English city of Salisbury was largely a European problem and that the allies should take the lead in moving against Russia.
      so to the extent that the US has kept faith with her allies and the international system, it's often because the President's advisors are PLEADING with him to do it, or in this case surreptitiously going behind his back to do so.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
        Trump is burning US reputation and goodwill
        You're placing too much on the man. Whatever reputation or goodwill Trump burned will be start anew with the next administration. The damange will not survive Trump.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • You're placing too much on the man. Whatever reputation or goodwill Trump burned will be start anew with the next administration. The damange will not survive Trump.
          some of it. but some impressions are longer-lasting.

          case in point: say a US President wanted to execute another pre-emptive war-- Iran. do you see the UK sending 45,000 troops now?
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            this is essentially it. >snip<
            Exactly THIS. All of what you said, in fact. Couldn't have said it any better myself.

            This man is TOXIC.
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • I think that has more to do with military interventions falling out fashion and the UK currently in a dysfunctional state. What was the NATO commitment in Afghanistan after Obama surged back up to, what, 50k, 60k US troops? I seem to recall the French refusing to send more troops around that time and Canada starting to draw-down?
              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

              Comment


              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                some of it. but some impressions are longer-lasting.

                case in point: say a US President wanted to execute another pre-emptive war-- Iran. do you see the UK sending 45,000 troops now?
                Strawman arguement. Obama couldn't get the UK to agree to a cruise missile strike. Trump did. And he got France to jump in.
                Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 17 Apr 18,, 15:57.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  Exactly THIS. All of what you said, in fact. Couldn't have said it any better myself.

                  This man is TOXIC.
                  I find him refreshing. No bullshit assesement.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • Strawman arguement. Obama couldn't get the UK to agree to a cruise missile strike. Trump did. And he got France to jump in.
                    not sure how it's a strawman argument. after Iraq and what happened to Blair, what right-thinking UK PM would risk stretching his/her neck out for any US President ever again in such a big fashion?

                    GVChamp's argument here actually supports my argument completely:

                    What was the NATO commitment in Afghanistan after Obama surged back up to, what, 50k, 60k US troops? I seem to recall the French refusing to send more troops around that time and Canada starting to draw-down?
                    precisely-- after Bush drew from that well in such a fashion, this completely changed the ability for future US Presidents to make similar asks.

                    the question is not what Trump is able to demand from US allies now (less than what Bush demanded, as it is), it's whether or not he's making it more difficult for future US Presidents to make demands in the future.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      not sure how it's a strawman argument. after Iraq and what happened to Blair, what right-thinking UK PM would risk stretching his/her neck out for any US President ever again in such a big fashion?
                      Remember ABC? Anybody But Carter? Obama could not get a UK curise missile strike nor European support AFTER he done the lion share in Lybia for European goals. Clinton got NATO into Kosovo after the disaster in Somalia. There's Reagan's disaster in Lebonon. Then Bush Sr got the Kuwait War.

                      Speaking of Bush Jr, he forced the NATO allies to commit to Afghanistan if they did not commit to Iraq.

                      So, all of this is strawman. Goodwill and toxic atmosphere mean crap all when it comes to strategic decisions.
                      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 17 Apr 18,, 17:06.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • Goodwill and toxic atmosphere mean crap all when it comes to strategic decisions.
                        i would argue that goodwill and toxic atmosphere means a lot when it comes to strategic decisions involving alliances-- there's domestic political considerations that come into play.

                        Blair risked his domestic political neck because his friend Bill Clinton personally asked him to support Bush and keep the alliance strong. the UK didn't NEED to be involved to the tune of 45,000 troops. there was a lot of goodwill going into that decision. that decision massively backfired on Blair, and has affected the strategic thinking of every single PM since.

                        you're talking cruise missile strikes... but bottom-line is that after Bush, no American President for the foreseeable future will get a major European power or NATO to sign on to a pre-emptive war with any significant manpower. again, Trump is several magnitudes lower down because his asks haven't been as big...but the idea that nations don't have memories does not make any sense to me.

                        any President will get SOMETHING of a "clean slate", but exactly how clean that slate is...is partly determined by how much the previous President asked for, and how he asked for it.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                          any President will get SOMETHING of a "clean slate", but exactly how clean that slate is...is partly determined by how much the previous President asked for, and how he asked for it.
                          Carter did not stopped Reagan from getting allied support in Lebanon. Bush's Kuwait War did not sufferred from Reagan's military misadventures. Clinton did not sufferred from Bush's Somalia.

                          And again, I point to Obama who did the lionshare in Lybia but got crap all for Syria, not even moral support.

                          As for committing manpower. There are 500,000 South Koreans ready to commit to Trump's plans to disarm KJU.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • I also find the Iraq War arguement to be dis-engious. Both the US and the UK had House Approvals by BOTH majority Parties.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              some of it. but some impressions are longer-lasting.

                              case in point: say a US President wanted to execute another pre-emptive war-- Iran. do you see the UK sending 45,000 troops now?
                              Couldn't if they wanted to; the whole UK army is no more than 90,000 at present though some are arguing for an increase in UK defence spending to 2.5% of GDP.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                                I also find the Iraq War arguement to be dis-engious. Both the US and the UK had House Approvals by BOTH majority Parties.
                                That's the one where the CIA lied to MI6, which in turn fed the info back to the US which then used it to lie to Congress and the American people.
                                Trust me?
                                I'm an economist!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X