The Biden Presidency

[wareyin]

What happened in those 3 weeks that initiated the resignation? Was there some exhaustive fact-finding mission that had to be completed?

Hypothetical for you, do you think he would have resigned had the Vanity Fair article not published?

You may be shocked to know this, but Biden isn't actually making every little managerial decision at the white house. Firing some guy for being a creep is not the kind of thing that requires tremendous high-level attention, unless of course you ignore the problem until it becomes an embarrassing PR situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there is no recording of this conversation. It's a case of he said/she said, and at least in her case she had to discuss it with her employer who then had to discuss it with his employer. That right there shows that whether or not investigation was required, investigation was performed.

Given that the only reason you are upset about the incident at all, is Biden's promise to get rid of sexist men in his organization, it's...weird that you're trying to play it now that of course Biden probably didn't know about it, big organization, lots of management making managerial decisions.

So, again, given that the guy you're trying to foist this on (Biden) is by your own admission not likely to have been aware of it, and by your own admission there was an investigation performed and the outcome you wanted is what you got...what is your complaint? You don't seem to be able to offer a more reasonable timeframe, so why is this one a problem?

 

[Bob001]

....
Seems that the white house press secretary can manage her own staff while the rest of the admin does other important work.
....

Since the guy had been with Biden since he began his campaign, I would be very surprised if Biden didn't have some input. And it wouldn't surprise me if Biden had leaned in the direction of compassion.

 

[turingtest]

What happened in those 3 weeks that initiated the resignation? Was there some exhaustive fact-finding mission that had to be completed?
Hypothetical for you, do you think he would have resigned had the Vanity Fair article not published?

You may be shocked to know this, but Biden isn't actually making every little managerial decision at the white house. Firing some guy for being a creep is not the kind of thing that requires tremendous high-level attention, unless of course you ignore the problem until it becomes an embarrassing PR situation.

Aren't those questions ones that you should know the answer to? After all, if your complaint is that he wasn't fired in a timely manner, then you should be able to define what a timely manner would be. I would guess that there is a process in place for this sort of thing; if you disagree with how it finally shook out, it would behoove you to show that you know how it should have, aside from your assumptions in that regard.

Seems like we're talking past eachother here.

Let's set some basic points of understanding. Does anyone here think:

1) That Ducklo would have been fired (resigned, same thing) had the story not run? Seems plainly obvious to me that the story running, weeks after the admin became aware of the complaint, is the sole cause of him being asked to quit.
2) This does not reflect well on a "zero tolerance" policy that was clearly not going to be enforced until bad press made it an embarrassing situation.


Does anyone disagree with my characterization of points 1 and 2?



That said, now that he's fired it seems like a non-scandal. Luckily there are still press outlets that don't take the knee-jerk defense posture in favor of Biden that I see here.

I'm not really all that vitally interested in this specific issue, but the reasoning does seem to me a little circular when your only evidence that he wasn't fired as quickly as he should have been is an assumption you're making about when he was.

 

[wareyin]

Seems like we're talking past eachother here.

Let's set some basic points of understanding. Does anyone here think:

1) That Ducklo would have been fired (resigned, same thing) had the story not run? Seems plainly obvious to me that the story running, weeks after the admin became aware of the complaint, is the sole cause of him being asked to quit.

2) This does not reflect well on a "zero tolerance" policy that was clearly not going to be enforced until bad press made it an embarrassing situation.



Does anyone disagree with my characterization of points 1 and 2?



That said, now that he's fired it seems like a non-scandal. Luckily there are still press outlets that don't take the knee-jerk defense posture in favor of Biden that I see here.

Yes, i disagree with both points. For point one, you seem to think "weeks" is an unreasonable timeframe but are unable to offer a timeframe you consider reasonable. The entire reason I keep calling Ducklo "that guy" is because it is and has been such a non-story that I forgot his name. There has been no mention of this on the evening television news whether local or national, nothing in the papers, nothing in my Google or MSN news feeds. If your claim is that the administration was going to let him get away with it except for the public outcry, we have no outcry but Ducklo was forced out. This seems to dispenser with point the first.

Punto Dos fails because it's dependant on Point one which already falls apart, and also because you are simultaneously holding Biden to the fire for not holding to a zero tolerance policy but claiming he probably wasn't aware of the situation anyway.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, i disagree with both points. For point one, you seem to think "weeks" is an unreasonable timeframe but are unable to offer a timeframe you consider reasonable. The entire reason I keep calling Ducklo "that guy" is because it is and has been such a non-story that I forgot his name. There has been no mention of this on the evening television news whether local or national, nothing in the papers, nothing in my Google or MSN news feeds. If your claim is that the administration was going to let him get away with it except for the public outcry, we have no outcry but Ducklo was forced out. This seems to dispenser with point the first.

Punto Dos fails because it's dependant on Point one which already falls apart, and also because you are simultaneously holding Biden to the fire for not holding to a zero tolerance policy but claiming he probably wasn't aware of the situation anyway.

Probably not much point in discussing this further then if there is such a wide disparity in the understanding of what happened.

I'm glad this toad was fired. Maybe next time something like this happens, Vanity Fair won't have to run a story before they decide to take it seriously.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I have issues with how this entire thing went down - especially since there seems to be some willful malice at Politico (big shock), but could we not use Toupee Fiasco as a standard for conduct? Simply put, that guy suuuuuucked. I'd expect better if we simply picked from all eligible adults via lottery.

"But Trump was worse" is going to be the excuse trotted out anytime someone criticizes Biden's admin. It will be true every time, and entirely unsatisfying for the reasons you say.

 

[Bob001]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there is no recording of this conversation.
....

That's actually an interesting point. There's no defense for the guy freaking out, and obviously he couldn't continue in the job. But she was writing a story about his sex life, and we don't actually know what she said to him. I could imagine a conversation that would get into the gutter pretty fast.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Aren't those questions ones that you should know the answer to? After all, if your complaint is that he wasn't fired in a timely manner, then you should be able to define what a timely manner would be. I would guess that there is a process in place for this sort of thing; if you disagree with how it finally shook out, it would behoove you to show that you know how it should have, aside from your assumptions in that regard.


I'm not really all that vitally interested in this specific issue, but the reasoning does seem to me a little circular when your only evidence that he wasn't fired as quickly as he should have been is an assumption you're making about when he was.

The article lays out the situation pretty clearly.

The time line is quite clear.

Jan 20: Ducklo has his phone call where he is extremely unprofessional with the reporter

Jan 21: Politico editors speak with Ducklo's bosses. At some point there is a semi-admittance of bad behavior and he writes an apology letter. Ducklo is assigned to not interact with any other politico reporters and is otherwise not reprimanded.

Feb 12: Vanity Fair runs the story. Same day, Press Secretary announces that Ducklo will also take 1 week unpaid leave as punishment.

Feb 13: He "resigns".

I don't know how anyone here is even pretending that the Vanity Fair piece was not the inciting incident for him being suspended then fired. What more evidence do you need?

 

[wareyin]

Probably not much point in discussing this further then if there is such a wide disparity in the understanding of what happened.

Probably not, but I'll be happy to revisit it if you ever come up with what the administration actually did wrong, or what they should have done instead.

I'm glad this toad was fired. Maybe next time something like this happens, Vanity Fair won't have to run a story before they decide to take it seriously.

Maybe Vanity Fair isn't actually driving policy or public discussion and this was going to happen even without their input. Given how little coverage this got it sort of feels like you're more invested in it than the Politico journalist Ducklo wronged.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Maybe Vanity Fair isn't actually driving policy or public discussion and this was going to happen even without their input. Given how little coverage this got it sort of feels like you're more invested in it than the Politico journalist Ducklo wronged.

Perhaps, but I doubt I'm more invested in it than Ducklo, who lost his job because of it. Gross creeps taking another L, you love to see it.

Ducklo's resignation was covered in pretty much every national news org over the weekend. Not a front page news story, nor should it have been, but it was covered.

NYTimes, for example, included a story about his suspension of Feb 13, and his firing the next day, in their print editions.

 

[Bob001]

....
Jan 21: Politico editors speak with Ducklo's bosses. At some point there is a semi-admittance of bad behavior and he writes an apology letter. Ducklo is assigned to not interact with any other politico reporters and is otherwise not reprimanded.....

I repeat, you don't know that. It might well be that he was reamed out and told to look for another job. Large organizations typically try to handle personnel issues quietly. Politico obviously wanted his head.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I repeat, you don't know that. It might well be that he was reamed out and told to look for another job. Large organizations typically try to handle personnel issues quietly. Politico obviously wanted his head.

Glad he finally did the right thing the day after the Vanity Fair article published. What a coincidence!

 

[wareyin]

Perhaps, but I doubt I'm more invested in it than Ducklo, who lost his job because of it. Gross creeps taking another L, you love to see it.

Ducklo's resignation was covered in pretty much every national news org over the weekend. Not a front page news story, nor should it have been, but it was covered.

NYTimes, for example, included a story about his suspension of Feb 13, and his firing the next day, in their print editions.

Are the news organizations that reported on his suspension after it happened now the driving force in your timeline? Or is this all down to known breaker of political dirt Vanity Fair?

I had a quick look, and the top headline at Vanity Fair is about the Britney Spears documentary right now. I don't feel like reading it, so can you summarize what Biden and/or his administration did wrong wrt Britney, or the documentary? And as a follow up, how will their front page articles on Jared Leto's Joker or Megan Markle's pregnancy drive US policy?

 

[acbytesla]

C'mon guys. This really is a huge nothingburger. It certainly isn't worth pages of posts.

 

[Galaxie]

Speaking of burgers, I can't wait for the first big Biden Tweet gaffe. He'll have to dig deep to match the sheer brilliance of "covfefe"!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

C'mon guys. This really is a huge nothingburger. It certainly isn't worth pages of posts.

Better get used to it, because this is just the beginning. Don't expect anything but brickbats for Biden from now on.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

C'mon guys. This really is a huge nothingburger. It certainly isn't worth pages of posts.

To be honest, I didn't expect this to be so controversial when I first posted about it. It was a tiny scandal that was being drug out into the light and dealt with, resulting in a tiny bit of egg on the new admin's face.

Apparently that was an absurd thing to expect, and now we're questioning every element of the story as if it were Watergate. Maybe he said it, maybe he got a wrist slap, maybe the press coverage was embarrassing or not, maybe he was forced to resign or it was just a coincidence of timing.

I'm truly impressed by the apologia being employed here for the Biden admin for what is, as you say, a pretty inconsequential dust-up.

 

[turingtest]

To be honest, I didn't expect this to be so controversial when I first posted about it. It was a tiny scandal that was being drug out into the light and dealt with, resulting in a tiny bit of egg on the new admin's face.

Apparently that was an absurd thing to expect, and now we're questioning every element of the story as if it were Watergate. Maybe he said it, maybe he got a wrist slap, maybe the press coverage was embarrassing or not, maybe he was forced to resign or it was just a coincidence of timing.

I'm truly impressed by the apologia being employed here for the Biden admin for what is, as you say, a pretty inconsequential dust-up.

Well, I have to admit that I'm sort of impressed by the apologia you're resorting to for what is an essentially CTist (or Trumpist) methodology. You posted a conclusion you'd arrived at without, apparently doing any more homework than it took to assume it; then, when folks don't just accept your conclusion, instead questioning the elements of your story, to try to get you to back it up, they are the ones making a controversy where none is warranted.

Donald Trump himself couldn't do it any better- "the only way I lost is by the Democrats cheating!" "Well, what evidence do you have that the Democrats actually cheated?" "I already told you- that I lost! Stop asking for details and making such a controversy about something so obvious!"

 

[acbytesla]

To be honest, I didn't expect this to be so controversial when I first posted about it. It was a tiny scandal that was being drug out into the light and dealt with, resulting in a tiny bit of egg on the new admin's face.

Apparently that was an absurd thing to expect, and now we're questioning every element of the story as if it were Watergate. Maybe he said it, maybe he got a wrist slap, maybe the press coverage was embarrassing or not, maybe he was forced to resign or it was just a coincidence of timing.

I'm truly impressed by the apologia being employed here for the Biden admin for what is, as you say, a pretty inconsequential dust-up.

Then you finish with that?

 

[Puppycow]

The article lays out the situation pretty clearly.

The time line is quite clear.

Jan 20: Ducklo has his phone call where he is extremely unprofessional with the reporter

Jan 21: Politico editors speak with Ducklo's bosses. At some point there is a semi-admittance of bad behavior and he writes an apology letter. Ducklo is assigned to not interact with any other politico reporters and is otherwise not reprimanded.

Feb 12: Vanity Fair runs the story. Same day, Press Secretary announces that Ducklo will also take 1 week unpaid leave as punishment.

Feb 13: He "resigns".

I don't know how anyone here is even pretending that the Vanity Fair piece was not the inciting incident for him being suspended then fired. What more evidence do you need?

In a post above I did point out that "senior-level officials including White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield, and Biden senior adviser Anita Dunn" complained to Politico that the Ducklo call was supposed to be "off the record". They wanted desperately for this episode to not become public.

Does not appear to me that they acted to remove him or even suspend him until it became public news, which forced their hand.

To be fair, he does have stage 4 lung cancer, which is very sad, but doesn't excuse his behavior. I don't know why he felt it necessary to threaten the Politico reporter.

Prior to the Vanity Fair piece People Magazine had already reported the relationship (in a positive light) on Feb. 8th and I believe that McCammond had already been open about the relationship on social media. She told her bosses at Axios and asked to be reassigned to a new beat. I don't normally read People, but this article does provide further context:

https://people.com/politics/journalist-talks-relationship-with-biden-press-secretary/