posted
There has been much public discussion regarding President Biden's mental acuity and the wisdom of him seeking a second term as POTUS.
But I believe one factor not openly addressed is Joe's staff - and the stability of such, especially when compared with the "daily turnover" of his predecessor and current challenger, who appears to be the likely victor.
While of course there has been turnover amongst the less visible staff positions that simply have not been media reported, there have only been two visible departures in the thirty-nine months of Joe's Administration. Those departures were Ron Klain, Chief of Staff, who reportedly sought the "Greener Pastures" of private law practice and was succeeded by Jeff Zients. The other was Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who is now an on-air media personality.
Of course, as with any organization attracting "The Best and the Brightest", there is intrigue, such as that to oust incumbent Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, as has been reported by the New York Post
But otherwise, the Cabinet has been intact since Day One, which means that Joe has been given consistent advice through his term, and such could well be same during a possible second term - and further, at such time should it occur, sound transitional advice to POTUS 47 Harris.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
I started to let this go by, but decided to put in an opposing viewpoint. My inclination is that reality is more on the order of "Worst and Dimmest" for this bunch. Yes, consistent advice may be true, but what I see I consider it to be consistently bad advice. They do all seem to be marching to the same drumbeat, which makes the lack of turnover understandable.
MontanaJim Member # 2323
posted
much better than the constant turnover in the trump administration. once many found out what it was like to work there, they were out.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
So an entrenched bureaucracy as the POTUS’ cabinet is preferable to weeding out people who are not suited for the job?
IOW, longevity ≠ stability. Longevity is a bad sign in government, indicating bad elements getting entrenched.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, likely you have not read the Bob Woodward "trilogy" ("Fear", "Rage", "Peril") of Trump's first term; suffice to say I have.
Mr. Woodward portrays a White House staff that was analogous to an Abbott & Costello "Who's on First" skit. I think his years as both an author and a journalist gives him credentials to be "on mark".
But an environment in which it's a "do this" today, but tomorrow, owing to an overnight "house cleaning", it will be "do that", makes it very difficult for a president, who in this case was often "on the job" maybe four hours a day, to make the proper decision in matters, which under the Constitution, fall to the Head of State.
Will it be any different during the likely second? Tune in.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
Woodward’s credibility is at best tenuous. He could have been an interesting fiction writer, though; his imagination is wasted.
Like I said, longevity in government is a bad sign; such people are in there to serve themselves and their desires for power.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Helfner, I figured you'd say that regarding Bob Woodward
Now so far as appointed Executive staff positions, they will not be for longer than eight years - and it appears that the incumbents have only some eight months left; so your housecleaning will soon be at hand.
I guess there are some people like Trump that "thrive on chaos". It will soon occur again.
posted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)