I'm kind of scratching my head here. Can an Obama supporter explain to me how he can accept the resignation of someone who doesn't work for him? Maybe it's just more of that change you can believe in...
Actually, it would be pretty amusing if someone in the press asked him that question. Don't hold your breath, though.
Sure, no problem. Let me offer an explanatory analogy:
I hereby resign as an unpaid reader of your blog. Will you accept my resignation?
I hereby resign as an unpaid reader of your blog. Will you accept my resignation?
Of course not. How can I accept a resignation of something I never hired you to do? That explains nothing.
Alright, you had your chance. I will continue to plague this blog.
Seriously, take a look at a dictionary definition of "resign", and, as long as you are using a general English dictionary, I think you'll see that pay isn't a necessary prerequisite for resignation.
I think you'll see that pay isn't a necessary prerequisite for resignation.
I never claimed it was. That was your invention. I claim that you can't resign from something if you don't first work for it.
Well, it wasn't my invention -- it was the topic of the Obama excerpt you linked to. You can "work for" change, or you can "work for" your boss. In the second case, pay is implied. Obama clearly meant "work for" in that second sense.
The more interesting question is whether a vetter who is corrupt can still do a good job of vetting others.
On the one hand, they are open to charges of hypocrisy, and worse, corrupt manipulation, but on the other hand, it might take one to know one - a corrupt vetter might do a better job of uncovering another person's corruption.
I think Obama wasn't arguing either point - I think he was just saying that he didn't vet his vetters, and that the vetter in question was capable of doing a good job.
Robert, you missed your calling. You should either be a lawyer for Bill Clinton or a contortionist in Cirque du Soleil.
You can "work for" change, or you can "work for" your boss. In the second case, pay is implied. Obama clearly meant "work for" in that second sense.
Not at all. If I ask someone to do something for me, and they do it, and it involves time and effort, they are obviously working for me, regardless of whether or not I compensate them. Just because someone does volunteer work doesn't mean they aren't working for the organization for which they're volunteering.
Give it up.
Rand, I completely agree with you, and I'm sure Obama would too, but now we've drifted from the central point: when Obama said that Johnson was an unpaid volunteer who wasn't working for him, what do you think he was trying to say? Why did he say it?
I think he was emphasizing the unpaid nature of the work and non-existence of a future role in the Obama administration to show that there wasn't any need to vet Johnson, because his role in Obama's organization would be so limited. Obama was explaining that why Johnson wouldn't have future roles when this task was over -- because he wasn't on the staff. There was no real danger of Johnson acting in a corrupt fashion as a VP vetter, but you don't want a corrupt guy doing who-knows-what in the future administration.
Anyway, an unpaid volunteer can be working for Obama, and can then resign (or be asked to resign). This doesn't seem that hard to understand!
when Obama said that Johnson was an unpaid volunteer who wasn't working for him, what do you think he was trying to say? Why did he say it?
Because he was trying to distance himself from another embarrassing and corrupt associate, even though he'd given him one of the most critical (albeit unpaid) jobs of his campaign.
This isn't rocket science, Robert.
You see Rand, it's the same way that someone who has a task that is "tangential" to the campaign one day can be let go because it would "distract in any way from the very important task of gathering information about my vice presidential nominee."
You're right, it shows how enthralled the media is, that such softball examples of Obama being full of hotair and totally inept at picking staff goes ignored.
I think it is only fair to acknowledge that Obama picked the guy who has been doing this every four years for quite some time. Obama picked one of the few people in the country with lots of experience with this task. Before the news broke, Obama's pick was uncontroversial and approved of by everyone. Hindsight is 20/20.
I think it is only fair to acknowledge that Obama picked the guy who has been doing this every four years for quite some time. Obama picked one of the few people in the country with lots of experience with this task. Before the news broke, Obama's pick was uncontroversial and approved of by everyone. Hindsight is 20/20.
Then that should have been his defense. Not that it's a great one, but it's better than this "he wasn't working for me" bullshit. It's all of a pattern.
" Robert wrote:
Alright, you had your chance. I will continue to plague this blog."
Fine then, resignation accepted. Get your shit and go.
If you want to resign for a job that Rand didn't hire you for then I can accept that resignation for a site that I don't own. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. =P
Ha! That really did make me laugh out loud.