Harward says no to Trump's national security adviser job, citing 'shit sandwich'



So here’s a thought. What if, say, another 3 months go by and Trump still hasn’t completely staffed his administration because a) qualified people keep turning him down, b) unqualified people in jobs that have to get confirmed by Congress stop being rubber stamped, and c) unqualified people in jobs that don’t require Congressional approval keep resigning because they fucked up BIGLY. Will Trump be forced to resign because the government stops even pretending to function?


I suspect its more that he would be trotted out to justify bad decisions made by others in the administration. Didn’t another former military guy leave Trump’s team for similar reasons?

If he wasn’t going to be able to be moral and upright, there is no advantage in having him there.


Some men might go to their countries service almost in despair of being allowed to do good, but do it anyway. Unless they TRY, unless they do wager their reputation and make the attempt, they will have judged themselves failing their basic duty to their country. I don’t doubt this feeling is stronger in officers in the military.

If enough of them did so, they might make a substantial difference.

If I am with a group of people, even ones I have no more stake in then common humanity, and see them, say for example, setting their latrine out up stream of their water source, I grit my teeth and set myself the task of changing their mind. Don’t expect to get thanked, or even gratitude, but I do my duty.


Trump should sweeten the deal by offering Harward the meatloaf.


From everyone I have talked to, they absolutes do not. Every military member I spoke to praises Rumsfeld, the GOP, and criticizes Powell and even Rice (for going against American interests or speaking against the GOP).


Heeey! I have an idea! Mr. Pudzer can now offer Shit Sandwiches at Hardees and Carl’s Jr. to go with those curly fries.


A shit sandwich? Surely he meant a Fuck Shit Stack?


I have a gut feeling it’s got something to do with not wanting Bannon as a colleague. But that’s just how I would personally feel if I got the offer.


Same. And that’s through gritted teeth b/c I think trump makes shit decisions for the most part.


NO. The GOP will (again) lash out at the civil service for being incompetent and slow and bureaucratic and then try their best to close the whole agency. It’s Cheney/Rumsfeld logic back in action again–clusterfuck the agency’s operation until agency doesn’t work, then blame agency for poor management and close it.

Count this one as saying politely that Rummy/GOP can go and fuck themselves right over the nearest cliff, the murderous bastards.


Meatloaf again?

Note I like meatloaf, just not when trump is serving it.



The “if I don’t take the job I stay in my military-industrial-complex job at vastly higher pay” argument is a bit depressing.


It would certainly be irregular; but my understanding is that while a lot of these job descriptions came into existence for a reason, and you might not have much fun operating a contemporary American government with out them, the actually-legally-mandatory list of positions is pretty short; and sane people always sort of assumed that not having your secretary-of-whatever was its own punishment; so there are necessarily any formal restrictions on how long your dysfunctional hiring process can drag on.

In the case of the National Security Council, say, the only ‘statutory’(National Security act of 1947) members are the president, VP, and secretaries of state, defense, and energy.

You have the option of recruiting additional help; and most administrations have(normally not in such curious places as Steve Bannon); but it isn’t legally mandatory to succeed, or even try, in assembling a reasonably competent team. Just not filling most of the jobs, or scraping up a bunch of the D-list talking heads who alternate between influence peddling for defense contractors and hyping whatever war is fashionable on Fox, is low-prestige; but perfectly legal.


I don’t disagree with the sentiment; but, given how reliably the ‘revolving door’ seems to work; I think I’d be substantially happier with someone who says “Eh, Count me out, Lockheed pays way better.” rather than nominally ‘leaving’ Lockheed, doing some public-service-definitely-not-tainted-even-slightly-by-Lockheed’s-interests; and then returns to the desk they’ve been keeping nice and warm for him.

The genuinely public-spirited are nice; but the ‘I can do even more for shareholder value through public service’ types are to be avoided; and are far less honest than the ‘eh, I’m private sector these days, pays better.’


With any other president, liberal or conservative, you would be correct. Mr. Fake News does not want to hear a rational world view and will turn on anyone presenting facts that do not follow his irrational view of the world. He wants yes men that always say he is right, his hands are huge and are willing to be tried for treason to protect him.


Back when the republicans were blocking many of Obama’s nominations I read an article which explained that it really is important to have confirmed appointees. There is an actual legal difference between an acting and actually confirmed agency head. There are things that the acting heads cannot do. So it works fine for a while, but as time goes on the problems pile up.

However, given that many of his nominees don’t want the agencies to function maybe it makes less difference?


I’m feeling more of a wistfulness for the days of 80% top marginal tax rates, so fat corporate paychecks were a lot more expensive to provide, and government pay not such a relative pittance.


Shit sandwich… So, uh, a meatloaf sandwich?


In the case of defense contractors, it’s all just one big whirlwind of federal money and irrational economic decisions.