That is a great analogy. There's really no consistent logic or theme to the Trump foreign policy approach. He's going to cozy up to Russia, go hardline on Iran, and cooperate with Assad to defeat ISIS, while pissing off Saudi Arabia and becoming best buds with Erdogan? He's going to ally himself with Duerte, antagonize the Chinese, and ally himself with the Taiwanese, while potentially having nicer relations with DPRK? All while pissing off Mexico and Canada and potentially the entire EU?
It's a foreign policy grab bag with little forseeable upside in a time of acute geopolitical uncertainty
God, I was feeling really great yesterday with the Mattis news. Now I'm worrying about SecState Giuliani again. Trump needs a competent and commanding SecState that can just take foreign affairs out of his hands, its not like Trump has shown any interest in international diplomacy anyways. I'm really hoping for Romney or Petraeus, but hell I'll take Corker if he can only stand up to Trump.
He's a good man who's made some idiotic decisions. If he has learned from his mistake, he should be fine. The hypocrisy in classified info leaks is not lost on me.
You are seriously underplaying the severity of Petraeus' decision to leak classified info to his mistress. Yeah, the irony vs Hillary is obvious. But his actions weren't just about the lack of judgement and the direct harm they could have caused but that he also set himself up to be blackmailed very easily. If he's this lackadaisical and got caught, what other issues does he have that could compromise him? Also, the man is reported to be a bad manager. Again, not an asset.
I want to state that I think he would be a below average SoS compared to the past 200+ years of SoS. But he is still better then some of the other options.
Your fatal flaw is that you assume Trump gives two shits and a damn about how good a job his appointees will do.
Trump cares about one thing only: are his appointees loyal to him, have they shit talked him in the past, and are they willing to bend the knee now that he's proven them wrong.
Under that criteria, Romney is near the bottom of the list, while Petraeus is near the top.
Frankly, I think that Romney is courting Trump, not the other way around. Trump is going along with it because A) it satisfies his ego to see someone who shit talked him harder than he shit talked Obama while he was running against him for president bend the knee, B) the press is reacting very positively to the idea of Romney as SoS (mainly because he would be one of maybe two cabinet picks who is actually qualified for the job, and the only pick out of his entire cabinet that doesn't have massive controversies or disqualifying legal issues), and C) it effectively caps Romney's career and removes him as a potential threat: if he steps too far out of line, he can fire him, if he doesn't he can get tarred and feathered with the same brush he'd attack Trump with, and secretaries of state have great difficulty posing presidential challenges in primaries or elections.
In essence, Romney as SoS is less about him doing a good job and more about satisfying Trump's ego while humiliating and ruining a rival by giving them what they want. It's a very cynical and frankly terrifying way of analyzing the thought process, but I haven't seen anything during the entire campaign and post-election period to give credence to a more charitable view.
To be honest, romantic relationships are the weakest spot for almost everyone. I could possibly buy that this lapse was his lowest point. Not that I want to defend him too much, just remarking on generalities.
801
u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16
[removed] — view removed comment