Trump Fires All Obama Politically Appointed Ambassadors Effective Inauguration Day

[mystery-ak]

Trump Fires All Obama Politically Appointed Ambassadors Effective Inauguration Day

Kristinn Taylor Jan 5th, 2017 8:19 pm
   
President-elect Donald Trump has fired,effective Inauguration Day January 20, every U.S. ambassador politically appointed by President Barack Obama, according to a report published Thursday night by the New York Times.

The Times reports the State Department sent out a notice on December 23 informing the ambassadors of Trump’s order. The move sent shock waves through the diplomatic corps as some ambassadors in previous transitions had been given time to leave their post for personal convenience.

    President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

    The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

    Mr. Trump, by contrast, has taken a hard line against leaving any of President Obama’s political appointees in place as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20 with a mission of dismantling many of his predecessor’s signature foreign and domestic policy achievements. “Political” ambassadors, many of them major donors who are nominated by virtue of close ties with the president, almost always leave at the end of his term; ambassadors who are career diplomats often remain in their posts.

    A senior Trump transition official said there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Mr. Obama’s overseas appointees leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal deliberations, said the ambassadors should not be surprised about being held to a hard end date.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/trump-fires-obama-politically-appointed-ambassadors-effective-inauguration-day/

[Wingnut]

Clean out your desk.  You're fired.

[LateForLunch]

Wow. That must really be encouraging to the far left. I guess everyone who said that DJT was going to swerve hard left the minute he took office were correct. After all how better to serve the needs of the far left than to fire virtually everyone in the government who is an advocate for far leftist policies?

[skeeter]

Wow. That must really be encouraging to the far left. I guess everyone who said that DJT was going to swerve hard left the minute he took office were correct. After all how better to serve the needs of the far left than to fire virtually everyone in the government who is an advocate for far leftist policies?

I'm sure there were a few of those.

But most here (including myself) considered Trump relatively non-ideological and primarily motivated by self interests.

I will be happy to be proven wrong.

I hope he extends this to all major government agencies, BTW. Depending upon whom he nominates for the open positions t would probably be the single most effective thing he could do to change the decades long leftward trajectory of government.

[Sanguine]

Isn't this Kristinn from FR? 

[LateForLunch]

I'm sure there were a few of those.

But most here (including myself) considered Trump relatively non-ideological and primarily motivated by self interests.

I will be happy to be proven wrong.

I hope he extends this to all major government agencies, BTW. Depending upon whom he nominates for the open positions t would probably be the single most effective thing he could do to change the decades long leftward trajectory of government.

I'm not sure when being motivated by self-interest became something bad (as long as it is not the singular or dominant interest). And since accruing great wealth is essentially an exercise in providing goods or services that many others consider useful and worth paying for, no successful business person is ever entirely self-serving in a free-market system (George Soros may be one exception, since currency speculation is a morally questionable way to make money, IMO).

Also, in his magnum opus "Ghost in the Machine", former Communist turned passionate anti-Communist Arthur Koestler was of the opinion that his research into why human beings behave so destructively when so much of their rhetoric is morally lofty,  showed clearly that pursuing self interest is in an historical sense, exponentially less destructive than a distorted, perverted impulse toward "selflessness" (ideology), since the latter proclivity was the fundamental motivating factor to virtually every despotic fascist movement in the last 100 years, from Nazism to Communism. All of the worst government leaders of recent time who committed mass murder (perhaps excluding Saddam Hussein) were motivated ostensibly by wanting to get others to do things that were
"for their own good" such as converting to some political or ideological system, whether they wanted to freely or not.

[mystery-ak]

Isn't this Kristinn from FR?

yes

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The Times reports the State Department sent out a notice on December 23 informing the ambassadors of Trump’s order. The move sent shock waves through the diplomatic corps as some ambassadors in previous transitions had been given time to leave their post for personal convenience.

These are all wealthy men/women.  They can easily afford swanky temp housing for as long as they need for their "personal convenience".

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain.

The nations may be critical, but the Ambassadors aren't.  If they were, they would be professional Foreign Service types rather than just wealthy donors.

[corbe]

  Obama did the same thing in 2008 and no one thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.  They all do that, they got political connections to award.

Following up on reports of Obama's intended Herculean cleaning of the Agean Stables at the Department of Defense, where the entire body of Bush-appointed deputies and under-whatevers are expected to be fired, the Washington Post now reports that the incoming Obama administration has told every single Bush political appointee as an ambassador that their services will no longer be required come January 20th.

[skeeter]

I'm not sure when being motivated by self-interest became something bad (as long as it is not the singular or dominant interest). And since accruing great wealth is essentially an exercise in providing goods or services that many others consider useful and worth paying for, no successful business person is ever entirely self-serving in a free-market system (George Soros may be one exception, since currency speculation is a morally questionable way to make money, IMO).

Also, in his magnum opus "Ghost in the Machine", former Communist turned passionate anti-Communist Arthur Koestler was of the opinion that his research into why human beings behave so destructively when so much of their rhetoric is morally lofty,  showed clearly that pursuing self interest is in an historical sense, exponentially less destructive than a distorted, perverted impulse toward "selflessness" (ideology), since the latter proclivity was the fundamental motivating factor to virtually every despotic fascist movement in the last 100 years, from Nazism to Communism. All of the worst government leaders of recent time who committed mass murder (perhaps excluding Saddam Hussein) were motivated ostensibly by wanting to get others to do things that were
"for their own good" such as converting to some political or ideological system, whether they wanted to freely or not.

All I want from any president is to simply comply with their oath of allegiance to the Constitution and by extension to the United States.

IMO the less personal interest the president has in the pursuit of his duties as CinC the better. I find it hard to believe anyone would disagree.

[LateForLunch]

All I want from any president is to simply comply with their oath of allegiance to the Constitution and by extension to the United States.

IMO the less personal interest the president has in the pursuit of his duties as CinC the better. I find it hard to believe anyone would disagree.

All due respect, that ignores one of the strongest principles of human nature - when a person has "skin in the game" (and who has more of that than someone whose personal financial fortunes rise or fall with those of the nation)?

In the early days of the USA, virtually everyone who served in government did not derive their main income from it. Most of the earliest presidents obtained their wealth as land-owners (by developing their real estate into working farms, plantations, industry). As our nation's economy decentralized and industrialized, presidents still garnered great wealth from real estate but also became invested in other concerns not so much reliant on expansive  economic growth as sustained, steady growth.

One of the biggest problems with the Eightball Obama as a leader in terms of his economic policies was that he personally had "no skin in the game". If the economy did badly, that did not lessen his personal fortunes financially.

I prefer having a president who plans to return to private life after government and who therefore remains connected to the most vital mainstream of economics through personal investment. Obama had no problem personally in trying to convert the USA into a radical socialist nation, because the impact on him personally by so doing was nil.

[endicom]

Maybe he's afraid of additional sabotage.

[truth_seeker]

This has meaning beyond the mere dismissals, and foreign policies.

It informs all inside our government, and all other governments that it will NOT be "business as usual."

And that is a good thing.

[skeeter]

All due respect, that ignores one of the strongest principles of human nature - when a person has "skin in the game" (and who has more of that than someone whose personal financial fortunes rise or fall with those of the nation)?

In the early days of the USA, virtually everyone who served in government did not derive their main income from it. Most of the earliest presidents obtained their wealth as land-owners (by developing their real estate into working farms, plantations, industry). As our nation's economy decentralized and industrialized, presidents still garnered great wealth from real estate but also became invested in other concerns not so much reliant on expansive  economic growth as sustained, steady growth.

One of the biggest problems with the Eightball Obama as a leader in terms of his economic policies was that he personally had "no skin in the game". If the economy did badly, that did not lessen his personal fortunes financially.

I prefer having a president who plans to return to private life after government and who therefore remains connected to the most vital mainstream of economics through personal investment. Obama had no problem personally in trying to convert the USA into a radical socialist nation, because the impact on him personally by so doing was nil.

For years Geo Washington was the standard for presidents. I suppose its unrealistic to expect that to continue.

But I could not disagree more that Obama 'has no skin in the game' - self interest is what motivated his every action.
Everything he did was to the benefit of professional statist bureaucrats like himself. And if seven houses with exclusive addresses to choose from and virtually unlimited earning potential as an ex president isn't skin I don't know what would be.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

  Obama did the same thing in 2008 and no one thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.  They all do that, they got political connections to award.

Nice stuff, but is there a link/source for that?

ETA:  okay, I found one:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-political-ambassad.html

@corbe -- it's just nice if you link the actual source for things you post so that we can all read it for ourselves to see/verify the source, forward it to others if we find it interesting, etc..

[corbe]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Obama Gives Political Ambassadors Their Pink Slips
   

By Glenn Kessler 
 The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.

The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.

Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.

Most ambassadors, of course, are foreign service officers, but often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president.
   
By Web Politics Editor  |  December 3, 2008; 10:04 AM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-political-ambassad.html

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Thanks!

[LateForLunch]

For years Geo Washington was the standard for presidents. I suppose its unrealistic to expect that to continue.

But I could not disagree more that Obama 'has no skin in the game' - self interest is what motivated his every action.
Everything he did was to the benefit of professional statist bureaucrats like himself. And if seven houses with exclusive addresses to choose from and virtually unlimited earning potential as an ex president isn't skin I don't know what would be.

I get it and couldn't agree more Mr. Skeeter. Many people don't realize however, that George Washington was also the richest president (when adjusted for inflation) of any except the current president-elect. Washington had vast real estate holdings, although he was not primarily a "real estate" man but rather (as most land owners of that era), a farmer/plantation administrator, commodities-supplier.

Of course the Eightball Obama was invested in GOVERNMENT because that is where he derived his own personal esteem and revenue-stream. He was not invested heavily in the capitalist free market system, except insofar as it sustained GOVERNMENT or his political machinery. The EIghtball's self-interest was his central (maybe singular narcissistic) focus, not just part of a natural, healthy balance of personal, political and national interest.

The seventh president Andrew Jackson is one politician that some are comparing to DJT, since there are some passable parallels in their political context and personalities.  Jackson was a fierce man sometimes given to great anger. Jackson rode to the  presidency as part of a populist wave that was to some extent anti-establishment. Yet even hot-tempered, impulsive Jackson was more-importantly a dedicated, self-controlled, successful, even-handed person/administrator (former military general). So Jackson's personal proclivities/personality did not rule him - he was objective/goal/mission-oriented. Jackson was above all, a serious-minded patriotic human being who took his job as chief executive of the United States of America too seriously to indulge much in thoughtless, excessive or capricious anger / abusiveness.

[skeeter]

Nice stuff, but is there a link/source for that?

ETA:  okay, I found one:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-political-ambassad.html

@corbe -- it's just nice if you link the actual source for things you post so that we can all read it for ourselves to see/verify the source, forward it to others if we find it interesting, etc..

This move by itself is no big deal - at the bottom the writer's complaint is Trump doesn't appear to be giving the politically appointed ambassadors time to make arrangements, when they should know that when Obama goes, they go too. Its the way its always been.

Another case of seeking an outrage where none exists.

[bilo]

This has meaning beyond the mere dismissals, and foreign policies.

It informs all inside our government, and all other governments that it will NOT be "business as usual."

And that is a good thing.

Yes!

I can't wait till he gets started with the DOJ. They all need to go and the new prosecutors should immediately start looking at all the investigations that didn't go anywhere.

[skeeter]

I get it and couldn't agree more Mr. Skeeter. Of course the Eightball Obama was invested in GOVERNMENT because that is where he derived his own personal esteem and revenue-stream. He was not invested heavily in the capitalist free market system, except insofar as it sustained GOVERNMENT or his political machinery. The EIghtball's self-interest was his central (maybe singular narcissistic) focus, not just part of a natural, healthy balance of personal, political and national interest.

The seventh president Andrew Jackson is one politician that some are comparing to DJT, since there are some passable parallels in their political context and personalities.  Jackson was a fierce man given great anger, yet he was more-importantly a dedicated, self-controlled, successful, even-handed politician. So Jackson's personal proclivities/personality did not rule him. Jackson was above all, a serious-minded patriotic human being who took his job as chief executive of the United States of America too seriously to indulge in excessive anger or abusiveness.

Jackson was also extremely polarizing figure, so there's that too.

Anyway lets hope Mr Trump's self interests are wide enough to encompass those of most of us normal working taxpaying stiffs! Rising tide & all.

[corbe]

   I'm sure GW Bush did it too, but this is the only info I can find.


Bush patronage appointments to ambassador exceed father's, Clinton's - The 5th Estate

An enraged terrier on the ass of the power elite...
 
01:37 pm June 25th, 2007
   
 
During the presidency of George W. Bush, nearly four out of every 10 of his nominees for ambassador have been "non-career appointees" — or what many would consider "political" appointees. Neither his father nor President Clinton had such a high percentage.

President Bush's 36 percent rate exceeds the 29 percent of President Clinton's ambassadorial nominees who were non-career appointees. During George Herbert Walker Bush's presidency, about 31 percent were non-career appointees.

According to a Scholars & Rogues examination of records at the Office of the Historian of the Department of State, George W. Bush has made 370 ambassadorial nominations — of which 133 have been non-career appointees rather than career Foreign Service officers. President Clinton's 431 nominations included 127 non-career appointees. The first President Bush made 272 nominations, of which 85 were non-career appointees.

A few caveats: President Bush has about 19 months remaining in office. His father served only one term. During the early '90s, the United States recognized about 20 new governments with most receiving Foreign Service careerists as ambassadors, mostly named by George H.W. Bush and continued by President Clinton.

Many of George W. Bush's nominees have been significant donors to his election campaigns or have personal and political connections to the president.

http://5th-estate.livejournal.com/316099.html


 Trump will have to FIRE all the US Attorneys as well to beat Bill Clinton's record.
   Stay tuned folks, don't touch that dial!  -  Zappa

[truth_seeker]

Yes!

I can't wait till he gets started with the DOJ. They all need to go and the new prosecutors should immediately start looking at all the investigations that didn't go anywhere.

Being realistic, most will NOT go. The POTUS has only a limited number of "political" appointments to the top positions in the various departments, but the rest down the line are considered "career" positions.

And the career people wield power, like it or not.

[LateForLunch]

Being realistic, most will NOT go. The POTUS has only a limited number of "political" appointments to the top positions in the various departments, but the rest down the line are considered "career" positions.

And the career people wield power, like it or not.

Ah yes! The ubiquitous, all-pervasive federal bureaucracy!

The greater opinion on important focus that I have heard about is that to get the government that conservatives need begs a focus on appellate court and federal judgeships as a high priority. Aside from the Supreme Court, there is more power vested in the judiciary in terms of administration of justice than DOJ at any level.

The Eightball loaded up the courts with as many activists as he possibly could and thereby did a lot to politicize the federal courts (as he intended).

Reversing the politcization trend will require competent leadership in DOJ and all other justice-related departments including judicial appointments.

[skeeter]

And the career people wield power, like it or not.

I'd go as far as to say they ARE the power.