According to Fox News.
From what I know of him, he's always been reliably fair to Trump on air, if not actually supportive of his policies.
What a difference it makes having people working with you instead of against you. When I read comments online referring to White House instability, and that turns out to be quite a lot, I realize I'm reading someone who doesn't appreciate the usefulness of a good shakedown. They're only jobs, after all, not knighthoods. I think Kudlow is an interesting pick.
9 comments:
When one Jew replaces another Jew is that really an improvement? Ah, but Kudlow is a convert to Catholicism. On the other hand he still might be a crypto-Jew. The subterfuge, it's endless.
I first heard of Kudlow when he wrote here and there for National Review. I've read him over the years, and he seems like so many in that league. They know a lot about money and economics, but does it translate to knowing what the gubmint ought to do about it? Not necessarily, since the biggest help the gubmint could offer the economy is to butt out, and that's rarely their suggestion.
Sounded like a good move when I heard it, although windy's point is not without merit.
YMMV
Kudlow has been critical of Trump's tariff policies, but I'm sure they came to terms on that in some fashion. According to the nitwit left, Trump has fired or replaced over 30 people, which the claim leads to demoralization, a lack of loyalty, and creates instability within the administration because there is no continuity to the conduits of information or power. For example, Tillerson finding out he was fired on Twitter. How much you want to bet that, this was a load of horseshit? I'm sure Tillerson and Trump talked turkey about his time in the administration, Trump looked Tillerson in the eye and said you're fired. Simple.
This surprise firing bullshit pawned by the media as some sort of indication of Trump's paranoia and mental instability is more of the same rehashed nonsense. Even still, this is Trump's show, he's the boss. He's finding people that will get the job done. I'll bet you a box of donuts right now that Trump is already looking downstream for Kudlow's replacement and replacements for all of the people he needs to replace to get the job done. Trump is going to his human resources capital to get his agenda pushed through.
Remember that story of Trump's personal assistant/body man being fired because of his gambling and tax issues and General Kelly saw that as a security problem and promptly fired him and was escorted out of the white house? Guess what, the same guy was instantly hired by the Trump's 2020 Campaign for Re-Election. Shocked? No. Stop believing the media. They aren't worth killing your brain cells over.
I had the impression Kudlow was a globalist.
You read it here first. Trump has not fired his last adviser.
Trump can't go to the GOPe like other Republican politicians and get ready-made bureaucrats to fill positions. The never Trumpers are vast and wide within the GOPe. That's why he has to try a hit and miss approach to fill the spots.
The thing that fascinates me about all these stories about President Trump's poor management style is that there a vast trove of information that no one seems interested in. Isn't this odd?
Mr. Trump has been in business for a long time; he has headed up some very large organizations. Surely, if you want to examine this subject, all those years of activity would be a rich source of information, wouldn't they? Odd, isn't it, that none of that is ever delved into?
I say this as someone who doesn't like some of the ways the President is working with his staff. But churning through leadership positions itself isn't particularly bad; it can be a sign of health. Even if you are really good at choosing people, you will make mistakes.
One of the biggest mistakes so many bosses make is that they don't deal effectively with bad hires. Sometimes your circumstances make it especially difficult. But Mr. Trump has so many advantages that most bosses don't have. None of the people he's firing are going to be on unemployment; they will come out just fine. And he doesn't have to worry about being sued. Nor does he have to mess around with someone saying, but boss, you didn't train me properly (true enough in many work situations but not here). So this "churn" doesn't really bother me. Consider the alternative: a president makes some bad picks (inevitable), but leaves them in place, because of what the Washington Post might say about "instability."
Still, this utter lack of curiosity on the part of the media is what interests me.
It's not all bias; a lot of it is laziness. I haven't seen any of his friends delve into it, either.
By the way, one of the things that I think hurts President Trump with recruiting is that he publicly trashes people who work for him. I think that's entirely wrong, both morally and practically.
Post a Comment