Slashdot Mirror
Trump Removes Anthony Scaramucci From Communications Director Role (nytimes.com)
Maggie Haberman, Michael D. Shear, and Glenn Thrush reporting for The New York Times: President Trump has decided to remove Anthony Scaramucci from his position as communications director (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternative source), three people close to the decision said Monday, relieving him just days after Mr. Scaramucci unloaded a crude verbal tirade against other senior members of the president's senior staff. Mr. Scaramucci's abrupt removal came just 10 days after the wealthy New York financier was brought on to the West Wing staff, a move that convulsed an already chaotic White House and led to the departures of Sean Spicer, the former press secretary, and Reince Priebus, the president's first chief of staff. From a report: Anthony Scaramucci will be leaving his role as White House Communications Director," the statement read. "Mr. Scaramucci felt it was best to give Chief of Staff John Kelly a clean slate and the ability to build his own team. We wish him all the best." Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is scheduled to brief the press corps, on-camera, at 12:45 pm PST. Scaramucci was given the job on Friday, June 21, and by Thursday, July 27, became something of a national laughingstock when The New Yorker reported his profanity-laced conversation with the magazine's Washington correspondent the night before. He was hired by the president to take charge of a communications operation in disarray, and his hiring coincided with the departure of White House press secretary Sean Spicer. Scaramucci, in his conversation with The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, was extremely critical of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and predicted, correctly, that then-chief of staff Reince Priebus would be removed from his position. Following the publication of Lizza's article, it became an open question in Washington whether Scaramucci would keep his job.
Most business organizations I've witnessed tend to thrive when there's a level of stability. For example, people know they should talk to Person X in charge of Process Y directly to get the real deal on things. It's good to get people out who are pretty toxic, but doesn't government work the same way? Don't companies and wealthy people use the back-channel methods to actually get work done?
We'll see what happens...I'm hoping that there's just a ton of drama, things basically get parked for 4 years, and other countries don't see it as an opportunity to get ahead while everyone's distracted.
No, it's a White House staff position, so no confirmation needed.
The problem is that tens of millions of people chose him over 2 dozen Republicans of varying but largely superior qualifications to be their nominee
The Republican party nominated Donald Trump because the nomination process is mathematically stupid. He won with a minority of the voters supporting him. The party didn't choose him, the poor process did. It really only works if there are only 2 candidates. With so many, it was botched.
Had he not eeked out enough votes in the end to get the required, the decision would have gone to the party leadership. They would have picked someone else. If the other Republican candidates weren't so arrogant, they could have dropped out earlier and rallied around one other candidate. The parties need to fix their nomination process. But even after this debacle they still won't. The voting public just doesn't understand the process. I wonder if you gave them a vote, but the vote was meaningless, if they would still support the process.