tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post2921626056263923426..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Appalling. Disgusting. Awful.Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-26671083089825312592010-07-21T18:44:01.108-05:002010-07-21T18:44:01.108-05:00Kooky, mostly unserious conspiracy theorizing to f...Kooky, mostly unserious conspiracy theorizing to follow: Sherrod got her job a day after winning a $13m settlement against Ag. If her job was secretly a part of the settlement (Ag denies that it was) then there could have been resentful bureaucrats looking for a reason to ax her. They leak the video to Breitbart and waits for the inevitable fallout to consume her. Their mistake was assuming that the media doesn't care about context, which, to be fair, is a pretty reasonable mistake to make.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-36864499668569305892010-07-21T10:20:36.487-05:002010-07-21T10:20:36.487-05:00"If she is going to tell that story in public..."If she is going to tell that story in public as a a federal official, she needs to do it in a way that works in the current media environment"<br /><br />In a 45 minute speech I don't understand how you can defend yourself against soundbites. Selective editing is one thing. But to take a story from 25 years ago and distort it to say it is happening today; to ignore the bulk of the story- how she helped the white farmer when his lawyer proved incompetent is not journalism. No one should allow Breithbart on TV, or at least without a chryon:- "this man has told lies; be careful we don't know if he's doing it again"Johnny canucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-60872319818611364722010-07-21T02:18:05.554-05:002010-07-21T02:18:05.554-05:00Just out of curiosity, did you watch the selective...Just out of curiosity, did you watch the selectively-edited portion yourself before being advised of the larger context? because it is pretty long on its own, and really is pretty hard to listen to without thinking, this is just stuff you can't say as a public official acting in official capacity ( and if you're accepting an award from a major national organization and you are a serving federal official, you are definitely in your official capacity, even if the award is ofr service outside that capacity). No doubt, Vilsack acted absurdly quickly, i absolutely grant that. but early in the day, no one knew what was still coming. I put myself in the mind of being her boss in a federal bureaucracy and I have no idea how to begin to ear up to defend her, absent the fuller context, which was not then available. And it went from there.<br /><br />So yes, the result was unjust and needs correcting, but the actual discreet acts and initial gut reactions that set them in motion (meaning in the USDA and at the top of DepAg) I think are far more understandable than you allow. The situation just needs to be put right, but from there I really don't think there is that much to be learned here. If she is going to tell that story in public as a a federal official, she needs to do it in a way that works in the current media environment. That's a basic competency required of government officials who are going to have any public communication role at all.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10559337725063627254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-68977558400304060722010-07-20T21:11:16.149-05:002010-07-20T21:11:16.149-05:00Jonathan, You have that exactly right. People scof...Jonathan, You have that exactly right. People scoff when I rail about how amatuerish the White House communications shop is, but instead of making anonymous comments to Greg Sargent and Ben Smith, somebody in the shop who is higher than Robert Gibbs should step up to a podium and say everything that you suggested they say, in the way that you suggested they say it.<br /><br /> This is exactly what I mean when I rail on those clowns as a bunch of amateurs who think they are still on a campaign bus. The professional thing to do is step up publicly and formally, handle it, take Vilsack to the woodshed in no uncertain terms, give the woman her job back, and move past this. Even the NAACP owned up to being wrong. <br /><br />But no. They are anonymously making calls to be printed on BLOGS -- most people heard about this ON TV -- blaming other people and disavowing responsibility. Hiding under the desk. Yours is the professional way to handle a grotesque brouhaha like this. <br /><br />Wanna job?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7485989649103696302010-07-20T17:38:22.650-05:002010-07-20T17:38:22.650-05:00Post: Eminently sensible.
Maybe you should send po...Post: Eminently sensible.<br />Maybe you should send post along with your resume to WH/USDA. Upgrade the bureaucracy!Johnny canucknoreply@blogger.com