BloggeRhythms

An article  @latimes.com via Drudge this morning, clearly illustrated the horrid results encountered when clearly unqualified critics take on subjects far beyond their comprehension capabilities.   

In keeping with the newspaper’s leftist orientation, the articles unnamed author(s) attempted to give the new POTUS deserved credit for his bold action in Syria, while making a concerted effort to maintain their position that Trump is nonetheless still undeserving of the presidency.   

Reported from Palm Beach, Florida this morning the text begins with a negative premise of Trump's performance to date, stating: “After 10 weeks of pinballing through political and domestic fiascos largely of his own making, President Trump last week faced the kinds of wrenching external challenges no White House occupant can avoid for long.

“This was the week a reality-TV presidency faced cold reality. 

“The fast-moving Syrian crisis combined with escalating U.S. concerns about North Korea’s ballistic missile tests and nuclear capability, even as Trump held back-to-back summits with three visiting foreign leaders, including China's president.” 

From there, while trying to promote Mitch McConnell as having played the major role in the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, no mention was made of the facts that it was Trump who selected the candidate himself and McConnell was simply doing his job as Senate Majority Leader.

McConnell, whom the author(s) referred to as the ultimate of inside players, “downplayed his own role in Trump’s first major success in Congress.” 

Taking no undeserved credit McConnell said: “We're just in the first quarter of the year. There's much left to be done.” 

The author(s) next presented a couple of paragraphs that unquestionably prove that they know nothing whatsoever about employee selection by executives and less than zero about what superior “negotiating skills” entail.    

The author(s) wrote: “And while Trump ran on anti-globalist threats aimed at China, he relied on Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp., one of the world’s largest energy conglomerates — to take a key role at his overnight summit in Florida with Chinese President Xi Jinping.” 

Thus, by their inability to grasp the fact that Trump placed Tillerson in the position of Secretary of State, the author(s) make crystal clear that they know absolutely nothing about authority delegation, which is why there are cabinet officers in the first place.  

Then came the totally misperceived assessment of the POTUS’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, about which the author(s) wrote: “Trump has long boasted of his fierce negotiating skills and how they would help him as president. While no mishaps marred his talks with Xi, he also made no apparent breakthroughs on trade or North Korea, the White House priorities.” 

Which means in this case, the author(s) have no understanding of the Chinese perception of introductory meetings in which the object is deciding upon others acceptability and the consideration of whether to develop a meaningful relationship. And in that regard, Trump received extremely high marks from Xi, including indications of  future support in dealing with North Korea.     

Next, the author(s) inserted a set-up paragraph of negativity as they prepared to give Trump some credit on a major accomplishment once more, writing: “A new push to repeal and replace Obamacare was on life support in Congress, the scandal over Russian meddling in the election claimed another GOP scalp, and his White House again descended into a cacophony of West Wing intrigue and infighting.” 

And then they came back to the Supreme Court victory, this time crediting Trump while including a caveat: “But Trump notched a historic win — arguably his first since the election — with the Senate confirmation of conservative jurist Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, ensuring that whatever else happens, a Trump legacy is now ensured.” 

Following that, the author(s) proved once more their total lack of knowledge of how an effective managerial system functions, as they wrote: “Trump vowed in his scorched-earth campaign last year to “drain the swamp” of the forces that run Washington. But in his most consequential week in office so far, Trump relied on familiar pillars of the establishment: the generals who now run his national security team, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whose political cunning engineered the Gorsuch confirmation.” 

Thus, the question here to the author(s) regards where they think the generals who now run Trump's national security team came from, and how did they get on his team to begin with? And who was it that met with McConnell to determine whether or not to continue pursuing Gorsuch’s confirmation. The answer obviously is Trump himself, of course.  
  
Moving on, the author(s) again reinforced their lack of knowledge regarding managerial superiority, the delegation of responsibility and maximization of effective personnel deployment.   

Here, the author(s) treated personnel changes, replacements and terminations as managerial faults or negatives although they are in reality, the complete reverse. And that’s because, until personnel actually function in the specific jobs assigned, there’s no way to predetermine their fitness or adaptability to the particular requirements involved. And thus, at the highest job levels, turnover is to be expected.  

However, when job unfitness is discovered there are two major ways to address employee incapability's. One is to keep loyal misfits in unwarranted positions as did Obama, and the other to focus on superior job performance, first and foremost, regardless.  

In these situations, Trump to date has shown he’s a pure pragmatist, sorting and assessing others as performance dictates.

Which is why Trump and the author(s) make a completely different assessment of the circumstances involved when a “murky case claimed a new victim last week when the head of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare), recused himself from a Russia probe because he was under a House ethics investigation for allegedly disclosing classified information that the White House had given him.”

However, the case isn’t really “murky” at all whereas Nunes was proven to be correct. But yet, both he and Trump agree that the entire situation will resolve far neater and cleaner if Nunes disassociates from it for the moment. That's called “pragmatism”

On the very same premise is a quote from Jim Carafano, a Heritage Foundation analyst who advised the Trump campaign and transition teams, who said: “A year ago if you asked me who are the three most important people in national security, I would have said they’re Mike Flynn, Jeff Sessions and Rudy Giuliani.”

The author(s) then note: “Flynn was ousted as national security advisor in February for misleading the White House about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. 

“Sessions, the attorney general, had to recuse himself from the Justice Department inquiry into Russian meddling for failing to acknowledge his meetings with the same ambassador. Giuliani, former mayor of New York, fell out of favor and was not chosen for a top job.

“So the core of his national security [team] has shifted completely to three people he didn’t even know a year ago,” Carafano said, referring to Tillerson, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Defense Secretary James N. Mattis.” 

Meaning that while the author(s) aim is to indicate weakness or instability in personnel selection, the reality comes back to insuring that jobs are performed as intended, or else.

The same parameters apply, regardless of any kind of personal attachments that may exist. 

Which the author(s) seemingly missed while further trying to demean the POTUS as they wrote: “Adding to the upheaval, the White House last week removed Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and fellow disrupter, from membership in the National Security Council, and reinserted the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

And yet, while investing their energies into a column intended to paint all Trump's done to date in its most negative perspective, a quote was included from John McCain who told MSNBC: “I've always said that he had a very strong team around him, but I've also said, during this period of time, will the president listen to them?” 

“I think that question was answered [Thursday] night.”

And, it certainly was.

As far as Trump himself is concerned, he continued to communicate with others directly as always.

FoxNews.com reports that: “President Trump on Saturday congratulated U.S. military personnel who executed his ordered missile strike on the Syrian air base connected to a deadly chemical attack on civilians earlier in the week.

“Congratulations to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in the Syria attack,” Trump tweeted. 

No similar mentions were found @latimes.com. 

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios