8 ms·

The existing social media managers are openly hostile to the new boss, with irrelevant-to-their-organization tweets going out about the inauguration crowd-size?

• cyberferret 10y ago
  Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case). A changing of the guard in these roles is (as the article I posted pointed out) the norm. However, In the current case, no one knows who the replacement is, or when he/she will be taking on the role, thus leaving us officially without an ambassador for the foreseeable future, and also resulting in the longest gap in 70 odd years that we have not had an official ambassador.
  • gozur88 10y ago
    I don't think it actually matters in the short run. Career FSOs do the actual work in embassies, which is why you see big campaign donors and mid-level party hacks appointed as ambassadors to all but the most powerful countries.
  • candiodari 10y ago
    > Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case). Unless I'm misremembering, that wasn't the case. Obama was appointing ambassadors regularly for a few months.
    • Godel_unicode 10y ago
      Not an appointee, but it's worth noting that there is a deputy chief of mission at every diplomatic post. This person is always a career diplomat with extensive experience, and is in place for precisely this reason. To take over and run the mission until a politically appointed ambassador is present.
  • Vivtek 10y ago
    It's pro forma for the ambassadors from the outgoing administration to proffer their resignation effective noon on Inauguration Day. The incoming president then says, no, no, please stay on until we have your replacement set up. A transition team who knows these things would have done that - the Trump team, though, since he was not actually expecting a transition, had no idea how to run one. And accepted all the resignations. This is the same reason the commander of the D.C. National Guard was dismissed at noon on the same day. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
    • masonic 10y ago
      The incoming president then says, no, no, please stay on until we have your replacement set up. ... which constitutes a rejection of the resignation. Later, when a replacement is confirmed, what happens if the offer to resign is not repeated? Do ambassadors get normal Civil Service protections?
      • realityking 10y ago
        Amassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them at will.
    • John23832 10y ago
      "Which is more culpable: stupidity or malice?"
      • Vivtek 10y ago
        I wish current events didn't leave us needing to answer that question. I don't have a ready answer.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• cyberferret 10y ago
  > The existing social media managers are openly hostile to the new boss, with irrelevant-to-their-organization tweets going out about the inauguration crowd-size? But wasn't it the Parks agency that tweeted about the crowd size, not the EPA? And is the current administration simply going to shut down or fire everyone who shows any form of push back towards the regime? Isn't that what they do in places like, oh say, North Korea?
  • codedokode 10y ago
    I guess in North Korea they would not get away with just getting fired.
  • LyndsySimon 10y ago
    If you're an employee of the government, working to publicly undermine the policies of the person elected to lead your branch of government doesn't seem like a good way to keep your job. I can't think of many instances where Executive Branch employees used official outlets to undermine a sitting President's policies in the past. Can you?
• whyileft 10y ago
  1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion. 2. December 3, 2008. That's when that article was published about giving notice and starting to find replacements. Same as every other president does. 3. Serious question. Are you paid to do what you are doing right now? I have a really hard time understanding why you would post that link which is specifically framed to spread misinformation as it is about a completely different point in the presidency. Seriously, this is your country. Why would you intentionally attempt to misinform your fellow citizens? EDIT: I expect a response. You said Obama did the "exact same thing". Which is an outright falsehood and posted an link that is from a different period to intentionally misinform people. In some countries what you just did would be considered a crime.
  • caseysoftware 10y ago
    Except that they stopped giving estimates over 20 years ago: "For decades, the National Park Service provided official crowd estimates for gatherings on the National Mall but no longer does. The policy changed after the Million Man March in 1995, a gathering of black men meant to show renewed commitment to family and solidarity. The park service estimated 400,000 people attended the march, making it one of the largest demonstrations in history in Washington. But organizers believed they reached their goal of 1 million participants and threatened legal action. No lawsuit was filed, but the dispute was enough to get the park service out of the head-counting business." Ref: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/21/national-park-service-tweeting-again-after-suspension/ http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/21/national-park-service-t...
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • 10y ago
• rsync 10y ago
  "To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing" Don't all new presidents appoint a fresh new batch of ambassadors ? I assumed it was always done that way ... Are there cases of cross-presidency ambassadors ?
  • sandworm101 10y ago
    Yes. Where a new admin hasnt lined up a new ambassador, normal practice is to have the old one continue until the replacement is worked out. This admin, for whatever reasons, is months behind the normal schedual. A list of names should have already have been circulated on the hill so that they could be vetted and agreed upon asap. To leave such a post unfilled breaks diplomatic protocols and can be taken as a slight.
    • masonic 10y ago
      This admin, for whatever reasons, is months behind the normal schedual. This admin must really suck to be "months behind" after 5 days. Please describe your process for properly vetting, nominating, debating, and confirming all (or most) ambassadorships in 4+ days, since you see that as "normal practice". Extra credit: name any three administrations that have done so. I would hope that the Secretary of State would have some say in ambassadorships, in which case the process would also be constrained until the SecState nominee is confirmed.
      • learc83 10y ago
        The administration shouldn't have had every post already filled. What is unusual here is that an incoming administration usually asks the current ambassador to stay until a replacement is appointed. The Trump team immediately accepted all the ambassadors resignations, which is what is unusual.
      • sandworm101 10y ago
        He was elected months ago. Even so, responsible campaigns start working this stuff out even before the election. Teambuilding should not be left until the last minute.
• prirun 10y ago
  Who gives a shit? Do ambassadors actually DO anything?