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
No comments:
Post a Comment