The Hegseth "incident."
-
@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Time for introspection...
So ask yourself...Why the concerted push to kill the nomination?
It seems that's just the way these things go for Republicans. Kavanaugh was kicked pretty hard because of a high school party that he might or not have attended, Barrett was attacked for going to church on Sunday.
Yet the Democrats have guys like this in positions of power.
-
Listened to a guy today, filling in for Hannity. He said he'd done the weekend Fox & Friends show multiple times and had never detected any alcohol on Pete. He reached out this week to the other two hosts on the show, and both denied being contacted by anybody about Pete, and both stated they had never smelled alcohol on Pete.
Furthermore, they talked about show prep and performance. Hegseth seems to always be prepared and has never had any type of on-air problem.
Unnamed sources, indeed.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Because he’s obviously unqualified....
This. As I said when he was first nominated, who can objectively look at his resume and say with a straight face that his background makes him qualified to run a multi billion dollar "company" with hundreds of thousands of employees.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Because he’s obviously unqualified....
This. As I said when he was first nominated, who can objectively look at his resume and say with a straight face that his background makes him qualified to run a multi billion dollar "company" with hundreds of thousands of employees.
Do you really think secretaries of <whatever large governmental organization> in past administrations are mostly people qualified to be CEOs of large private companies? I mean, I haven't checked, but I would assume they don't often have those resumes either. Would a day in the life of a cabinet member be similar to a day in the life of a CEO? I don't know. I do know that the current secretary took 8 days off without telling anybody, and he almost got away with nobody even noticing.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Because he’s obviously unqualified....
This. As I said when he was first nominated, who can objectively look at his resume and say with a straight face that his background makes him qualified to run a multi billion dollar "company" with hundreds of thousands of employees.
Lloyd Austin was "qualified" and look what you have...
-
As Sec Def, Hegseth would have fewer people reporting to him on a daily basis than he did as a Major.
I think what your concern is, @taiwan_girl , is that Hegseth’s experience as a Major was more tactical while the role of Sec Def is more strategic in nature. I would counter that his training and education in public policy prepares him for the strategic role and his background in tactical command gives him a unique perspective and an advantage over Sec Defs that only ever sat in leadership, never in tactical or even operational roles.
-
No Hegseth has the chops in Public Policy. It’s his Pubic Policy that’s the problem.
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K I would have said (and maybe I did) the same thing about those two.
@Horace said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Do you really think secretaries of <whatever large governmental organization> in past administrations are mostly people qualified to be CEOs of large private companies?
That is not my point. It is not a matter of "were they qualified", but more "should they be qualified". Yes running a government department is not the same as being a CEO of a large company. I would say that it is even harder because of the more interference from outside sources. There is, however, quite a bit of overlap in the necessary skills.
@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Lloyd Austin was "qualified" and look what you have...
Just like every CEO does not succeed. But, the odds are greater the more qualified you are. To use a US football analogy. If you were hiring a new college football coach, would you be more likely to look at other former college coaches or would you hire a youth football coach from the local high school?
@LuFins-Dad I get what you are saying, but I am not sure that direct report is a good indicator. You probably have more direct reports than the Sec. of Defense. I just dont think he has the strategic and maybe as important, the knowledge of managing organizational things.
Anyways, it will be interesting. You guys have made good points, but not enough to make me vote in favor of his confirmation. 555
-
You hire the coach that works.
Sometimes, that means a high school coach goes to college. Many times, a college coach goes to the pros.
A lot depends upon what you want to do. The wing T, wishbone, veer option, West Coast or air raid offense...None were developed in the pros. Some even came from high school coaches.
TG's argument assumes that a qualified SecDef comes from the military industrial complex...Trump is trying to overhaul the military, make it more efficient and more lethal...Yet, she wants to hire somebody from the pack to oversee the pack.
No, you need an outsider. But you don't want a McNamara. Look how that worked out.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
That is not my point. It is not a matter of "were they qualified", but more "should they be qualified". Yes running a government department is not the same as being a CEO of a large company. I would say that it is even harder because of the more interference from outside sources. There is, however, quite a bit of overlap in the necessary skills.
Obviously it is not harder, if so many unqualified people are able to perform those jobs adequately. In fact to say that something is harder or easier, you'd have to have some way to measure job success, then see how many people can actually perform up to that standard. There is no way to measure the success of cabinet members. They are rhetorically accused of being great or failures in the political discourse, but that's never agreed upon. Private company CEOs, on the other hand, have very public and unambiguous measures of success.
-
Education is extremely important.
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
I don’t understand what the issue is here. Why not give the guy the job? Qualifications in most instances are overrated in these cabinet appointments.
In any case with Trump in charge you know very well that if Hegseth makes a hash of it or is an embarrassment, the POTUS will fire his ass out of there in the blink of an eye.
-
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@Horace said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Not sure how that might be measured.
Or, even relevant when it comes to this type of crap.
If the troops are overwhelmingly behind a guy, it would be politically inconvenient to oppose him.
-
McNamara was an outsider. Yea he had been in the service in WW-II, it was inconceivable that any pick in 1961 wouldn’t have been a veteran of that war.
But he was a management consultant that went on to be the first CEO of Ford Motor Company whose last name wasn’t Ford.
And even he said ‘I’m not qualified’ when Sargent Shriver approached him about it. And Ford was the fourth largest company in the world.
