dstieger wrote:IDK...I think this is precisely how its supposed to work. I have a strong sense that Trump accepts, maybe even encourages, an atmosphere in which subordinates are both able to speak their minds, even painfully....and in which they are continually in conflict; competitive to the point that leaks of a personal nature that don't reflect specifically on Trump are going to be common.
If I rate the four or five 'issues' at play in order of significance, I have them this way...though none are anywhere near outrage-inducing:
1. McCain's absence -- can't talk about it, but on everybody's mind. I consider him a hero and have a ton of respect for him. But, geez...it is way past time to go. Resign, already. Sixth term alone should be enough for that. But since his surgery last July, he's missed over 135 votes. AND, he's a committee chairman. Resign, already. Broad proclamations from his bed about how Republicans should vote isn't sufficient. Its not like there's any indication that he is going to ever be able to return. Resign with dignity, already.
2. The leak -- Probably stupider than the comment. This does damage to the WH, is petty, and disloyal; even if unsurprising.
3. WH reaction -- BFD. Maybe should 'ASK' her to publicly apologize -- low risk, remove this from the news cycle and move on....not sure why they haven't, but I don't much care
4. Staffer's comments -- stupid and insensitive. So what? It may diminish her standing in the eyes of her associates in the room, but so what? Chances are that nobody in that room thought that compassion was her strong suit. Was a closed door meeting and the comment should have stayed there. Doesn't reflect on Trump, the broader administration or anyone else but her, IMO.
I would order it 1, 4, 3, 2.... but that's because I'm looking at it from a causal standpoint.
Imagine it wasn't a simply "insensitive" comment.... I mean, we could go as far as a WH staffer saying they enjoy child porn, but I won't because that changes the field a little (legality vs illegality). What if a WH staffer couldn't read? That's an indicator that the person should not be in the WH staff, yet not illegal. Would you be more irritated by the leak, or by the fact that our WH is hiring completely inept people to perform a job which is reasonably important, and which they are well compensated for.
That's what's being highlighted every time there is one of these leaks trump likes to claim are traitorous. The leaks are each showing instances of people acting in a manner that demonstrates they are extraordinarily underqualified for the positions they are in.
Nobody really cares if a single individual is looking forward to McCain passing or not. He's a big boy, he can handle not being universally loved. What people don't like is that the staffer is so incompetent at their job that they don't understand that's not an appropriate joke, that after they said something inappropriate they are even more incompetent as to not understand that the best way to make something like this go away is an immediate apology, not blame the people who leaked.
I mean.... jesus christ...
You can't avoid issues like #1 happening. But if you hire good people, then you don't have #4 occurring. If there is no #4, then there is no worry about 3 or 2... (and someone of even mild competence could avoid 3).