[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Yes. Why would the gvt. do one more thing that looks suspicious when they are so on the hot seat right now. Why would the current administration? I am looking for the proof of your statement. I get the feeling from your posts that you are very suspicious of any kind of government control. You accuse others of not knowing what they're talking about, when in fact they do.

I have to say … when you post “Why would the gvt. do one more thing that looks suspicious when they are so on the hot seat right now. Why would the current administration?” that my eyebrows involuntarily raised up as in … did she really say that???

Regarding my reasoning, I invite you to reread earlier post regarding Mr. Klain’s appointment as Ebola Caar, and which I’ve reposted here for ease of reference.

“It occurred to me … if I was a senior official, and I had a problem, what type of person would I appoint to solve it? Well, obviously it would depend on the nature of the problem I had, wouldn’t it?

For example, if I had a military problem, it would make sense to appoint a military leader to solve it.

If I had a business problem, I would find an expert business leader to solve it.

Not surprisingly, if I had a medical problem I would appoint a doctor or medical administrator to get rid of the problem.

But, on the other hand, if I appointed a political operative, what does that say about how I view the nature of the problem I have to solve?”


Thus, if one simply refuses to acknowledge the obvious, to wit that Mr. Klain’s appointment is political intended to solve a political problem, and notwithstanding the circumstances of his background (ie bare knuckles politics), I can only conclude the refusal is based on grounds of (secular) faith, not reason.

Actually, you asked in one of your earlier posts why right of center people lack “faith” in the government’s ability etc. First of all, I would say faith is best reserved for one’s higher power, assuming one has one. But, to your point, I think the question is better asked as why people lack “trust.” Well, that’s pretty easy to answer. When the senior leader makes an obvious political appointment in the most cynical of ways, especially during a potential life/death matter such as Ebola, and where people are concerned for their safety, can you not see where trust is further shattered? The cynicism and crass calculations that led to such an appointment are glaring IMHO. I can recount other examples of shattering trust (ignoring immigration laws, and in effect allowing a terror army to arise after we had won the war in Iraq etc … but that would get us off thread so I’ll defer)

When people left of center then try to rationalize Klain’s appointment, or defend the indefensible with “hey, he’s a really good coordinator” or “he’s just the best at cutting thru red tape” and at the same time ignore the dysfunctional reporting structure (Klain reports to two staff officers, not even directly to POTUS), and overlook the lack of budgetary clout etc … yes, I repeat --- people saying that do not understand how DC really works. I will grant they may be unknowingly naïve because they’ve never worked there or, more likely, because their “faith” remains strong. It’s not an accusation, it’s simply a statement that reflects the reality of the situation.

The DC “czar strategy” is designed to make the credulous and lightly informed across the country feel better, “hey, he’s appointed a czar…problem solved!” It’s further designed to take the heat off senior appointed officials who actually have line management responsibility while they scramble to actually solve the problem. However, in this instance, it is also being done with an eye on the calendar for early November. If you deny that, there’s not much else that can be said. As I stated in an earlier post, this technique seems to fool the gullible pretty much every time it’s tried, and not just with this administration I might add.


Regarding one of you earlier posts, I asked you to explain why you think a travel ban is “simplistic” (ie your term) but you have not yet responded. I would really like to hear a brief summary of your reasoning which led you to that conclusion, and specifically to the term “simplistic.” This implies that you have a much more enlightened solution. Please share it.