Vilsack acted without, with, at the insistence of the White House - Obama admin?

[Skip Intro]

Poll question: Vilsack acted without, with, at the insistence of the White House - Obama admin?

If you think about it for a minute, the obvious motivation for demanding Sherrod's resignation was to blunt the effect of that edited tape, because it would hurt not Vilsack, but the administration that felt it had something to lose here. For that reason I think Vilsack acted at the insistence of the admin. Extrapolating from that opinion, all sorts of questions arise, but that is for another thread, another time. But I'm curious about what DUers think here on the question at hand. So...

[gateley]

1. I think it went down like Vilsack said. I'm one of the ones who believes him. nt

[AtomicKitten]

3. I don't see Pres Obama micromanaging this stuff and Vilsack's mea culpa seemed most sincere.

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

[vaberella]

19. Exactly and actually very believable. Especially after he said, "Tens of Thousands" of complaints.

n/t

[sandnsea]

2. I think it was on ugly tape, on its face

And that most managers who heard it would not find much to work with to try to keep someone employed.

Even accepting the entirety of the situation, there are still some comments on there that raise eyebrows. I think Vilsack could easily have made this decision on his own.

He was a governor, he knows how politics works.

[grantcart]

4. Premature ejaculation Vilsack just got excited about being on the big stage for the first time.

[Bullet1987]

5. If you take Vilsack for his word...he acted alone

It could've gone either way to be honest and he could just be covering for the White House. It doesn't matter though because it'll still make the WH look bad.

[SunsetDreams]

6. You want a consensus on assumption or evidence?

[Skip Intro]

7. Just general thoughts on the question. nt

[SunsetDreams]

11. Ok in that case, I will go with the known fact

Vilsack acted alone.

[Imperfect]

70. How do you know it's a fact?

?

[FrenchieCat]

10. Speculation would be good......

Since we are good at that, and apparently ain't got shit else to do of any use? :shrug:

[SunsetDreams]

12. Speculation and assumptions

is the new Milk.

Edit for clarification: I wouldn't want a misunderstanding. I am not talking about the color of the drink, but the slogan.

[Forkboy]

8. No idea.

[saracat]

9. It is ridiculous to believe Vilsak acted completely alone. The NAACP

first communicated their concerns to the WH who must have relayed them to Vilsak. This was a national news story with far reaching implications. Vilsak would not have acted without consultation.

[vaberella]

20. Are you kidding me? This shit was on FoxNews first.

What makes you think that there aren't people in the department itself watching for this shit. They said as much because they deal with racist complaints in the thousands. Why is it not possible to believe the information was relayed by another worker since he got it by email. Or that's what Vilsack said, not by a direct phone call. I think you want to pin this on the WH so bad that you're jumping to something that obviously is not true or not true in the worlds of either Ms. Sherrod or Vilsack himself. And Vilsack has full authority to fire and hire people at his will since he is in charge of that department. Just like HRC would do or Gates would. So to say he would do it without consultation is ridiculous.

[saracat]

44. I am sorry but maybe because I know a bit about how the PR Crisis team in the WH works

I assume that others do as well. I also understand a bit of what constitutes a PR Crisis and how it is dealt with. But heck, I am guilty of the same thing the WH team did. I "assumed" most understand that dynamic.

[old mark]

13. Vilsack acted on his own, and WH probably had little knowledge of it at all. nt

[cornermouse]

14. While I don't think he acted at the insistence of the White House

I do think he consulted them and they told him to get rid of her. I don't think you can pin this on Vilsack alone and retain accuracy or credibility.

[vaberella]

21. Actually you can.

As I've said before my friend worked for Chase. She was a personal banker and was fired. Do you honestly think that when she was fired they contacted Jamie Dimond?! Seriously? You honestly think Jamie Dimond would waste the time, even if he had the time, on a low level employee? Unlikely. Let's be realistic here. If you want to "retain accuracy or credibility" you can look at any large enterprise. No CEO, VP, or President is aware of all fires and hires in each specific department that is run by heads who have the ability to hire and fire people and who also have Assistants and even lower level employees.

This is a perfect comparison. But you expect the US President who deals with hundreds of shit on a daily basis from domestic to international to know of the firing and hiring of each person in the government? Highly unlikely. In any event there is no evidence to suggest that. Vilsack was even asked in his press conference of his apology whether he informed the WH of his press conference and the job offer to Sherrod and said, "No." Admiral Thad Allen would have regular press conferences on the oil on different days and could call one if need be which means these people who are in charge of certain things are given lee way and authority to do things within their best judgment.

[cornermouse]

23. I don't think you can pin this on Vilsack alone

and retain any accuracy or credibility

[SunsetDreams]

24. You're right the NAACP, Faux News, and Breitbart

played a role, based on the known facts.

Anything else is pure speculation and inaccuracy, and not credible.

oh and any media outlet who carried Breitbarts water without checking into it.

[cornermouse]

40. Did the White House check it out before firing Ms. Sherrod?

No. And yes, I really do believe they played a part in her dismissal.

[vaberella]

54. The WH did NOT fire her. It was the DOA Secretary who did..this is known . n/t

[Mimosa]

25. Yes: too big a P.R. issue for Vilsack to have acted unilaterally

US Deputy Commissioner Cheryl Cook told Ms. Sherrod she was calling at White House behest, conveying the White House's request for her to resign. I believe Sherrod has no deficit of understanding and she knows what she heard.

[Exilednight]

15. Not saying that Obama had direct knowledge, but someone in the White House did, probably Rahm ......

who wanted to avoid looking weak. Rahm probably "advised" Vilsack, and Vilsack was probably more than happy to do the job.

[SunsetDreams]

16. Probably?

That is an assumption. That is part of what's wrong with politics today, rumormills start going round and round, and then before you know it, someone like Kerry get's swiftboated.

Rahm? I'm not a Rahm fan, but I only direct my ire at him when there is solid facts on something he really did do.
The Right definitely loves all this assumption and speculation.

[Exilednight]

26. It makes the most sense when you apply a little .........

critical thought to it. This is a person who was accused of discrimination on a video that was aired on national television. Vilsack knew that this was going to get media play.

A smart person wouldn't make a move like this without getting approval first, especially for something that could blow up in their face.

Vilsack is a CYOA type of guy, and Rahm is the terminator of this administration.

If Vilsack did not get approval, and did not check out all the facts, then he would of been fired by now.

This is why Vilsack will stay. He didn't do this alone, and he didn't clear it with a low-level WH aide, it someone higher.

[SunsetDreams]

27. It's definitely not

critical thought. It is an assumption period. Vilsack has the authority to hire and fire at will, within his own department. The White House, does not micromanage the federal departments. It's not a dictatorship. If they did that, they wouldn't need all these appointments.

"If Vilsack did not get approval, and did not check out all the facts, then he would of been fired by now."

Not necessarily. Second chances are sometimes granted. Sherrod forgave him, he offered her a different job. He is trying to fix it. He admitted he was wrong, but he acted alone out of haste.

[Exilednight]

28. No, Vilsack wouldn't make this move without approval. He knew he was going to draw .........

criticism for it, no matter what the real story was.

[SunsetDreams]

31. Keep believing that, if you really must

I'm not sure what the purpose is. Would you rather the facts have been different? Would you rather Obama had been the one to do it, so he could get blamed right and left?

What exactly is the purpose of insisting, even in the face of known facts that say otherwise, that the WH must was involved?

[Exilednight]

34. What facts? All we have is he said, he said, she said ...........

and by politicians none the less.

Believe what YOU want, but something doesn't add up.

I do believe that Obama was not directly involved, but someone close to the President had to be.

You have a black woman who ended up on national television with an edited video of her making racial remarks against a white man who happens to work for the first biracial president.

As far as what I would of liked to have happened? I would of preferred if Vilsack and the administration would of done their homework prior to firing this poor woman. But since they didn't, and if Vilsack is really the person who did this on his own, then he needs to be told to pack his bags.

[vaberella]

18. That's ridiculous. This is a low level employee---I don't see Rahm wasting his time with that.

He deals with big fish like Senators and Congressman. That's like saying Rahm will waste his time on Congressman's aid or something. Please. I realize there is a set motivation to pin all things on Rahm because well, it's nice to have a punching bag. But a low level employee---basically a grunt worker that Sherrod was (she was not in any high ranking position) like Assistant Deputy or Deputy and such...that she would have been worth Rahm's time. I think there is enough to say that Rahm probably not. However the liaison---would be notified like some HR person. Who probably saw this as just a regular firing.

[cornermouse]

72. Talk about snobbery.

And no. This was presented as a racial issue. That is something that Vilsack would have been sensitive too. I'm sorry but he didn't fire her without consulting the White House because of the damage this could have done, especially since it was being pushed by Breitbart and FOX. Whatever he did or didn't do was sure to be on the evening news. He contacted the White House for advise and was told to do the wrong thing because whoever it was at the White House was careless and didn't bother to do their research.

[vaberella]

17. What are you talking about in your post? Vilsack clearly explained the problem, did you listen?

I ask because you make it seem that the statements that were seen as damaging would affect the Administration more than the Department. Vilsack clearly, and I definitely agree, when listening to the initial statements was afraid about how that would affect the department itself. This has nothing to do with the Administration. Don't turn and liken this to the Van Jones incident, because it was not. Obviously, Vilsack made his incorrect and rash decision on how this would play on his Department which is plagued with claims and lawsuits of the, "TENS of THOUSANDS" (Vilsack's words) that deal with racial discrimination, bias, and prejudice from Black, Native American, and Hispanic farmers by workers in his department. That being said, without knowing when the date of the video was and the full context of her statements h e acted incorrectly because he felt this would prove that his employees were racially motivated and ultimately corrupt. This is why he acted the way he did...he himself said he tried has been trying to snuff anything that would be seen as bad publicity especially when faced with comments that are seen as racially inflammatory.

So for you to suggest that this would be Admin related is preposterous.

[saracat]

49. What is preposterous is for you not to realize that all of these people are politicians whose

main job is CYA for the WH. Vilsak is "falling on his sword" and a magnificent display it was. Tom would NEVER have acted on his own. NEVER. Not in this situation.It was too delicate and directly involved the WH. You may not realize this but this incident was perceived by the WH and the NAACP as a BFD. This was image control big time. But maybe some are just naive enough to think this really is about what Tom says. But everyone in DC knows differently.

[Jamastiene]

22. Other: I don't know.

Could be either/or/both. I honestly don't know, but it was a stupid move.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

29. This was in full cooperation with the White House

But of course lets not blame the White House for it, what do you want President Palin?

[LostinVA]

30. +1

And... :rofl:

[SunsetDreams]

32. Yeah "Let's not blame the White House for it"

because the facts are not there.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

33. I believe Mrs. Sherrod

not the White House.

[donco6]

36. Sherrod says the WH was involved

Just now on the Today show.

But I guess she could be lying . . . anyone want to go there?

[SunsetDreams]

39. no Sherrod said someone told her that

there is a difference.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

41. There are a few people on this thread that want to go there

Seems pretty unbelievable considering all this amazing woman has gone through, to have people whose sole purpose is to defend the President no matter what the cost, drag this woman's good name through the mud and accuse her of lying. It is disgusting to me.

[saracat]

46. Figures though. And considering the WH itself has issued an apology for some to insist they are not

involved. I'll tell ya what, those who deal with DC everyday KNOW what happened and if the ignorant searching for deniability have to make themselves happy by branding the WH as uninformed and out of control as well as negligent, so be it. Those are the folks the WH needs to worry about, not the people who KNOW what happened. The WH needs better crisis control and a new PR team that isn't tone deaf.

[Political Tiger]

42. She did NOT say that!

Try to pay attention next time.

[donco6]

55. Yes she did. n/t

[DevonRex]

56. Did your Rice Krispies tell you that? Or was it your Lucky Charms?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

66. No Shirley Sherrod told me

and I believe her. You can choose to call her a liar if you wish, which is what you are essentially doing and further dragging this amazing woman through the mud. I hope you are proud of yourself.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. Other: I don't care.

Seriously.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. If he acted alone, then he should be fired for that.

Look at the mess he created. If he acted alone, which I highly doubt. The WH loved this guy all along, and he's one of the appointments that altered the definition of Barack Obama into a term of art.

[LWolf]

38. Other: irrelevant. Where does the buck stop? nt

[BklnDem75]

47. The buck stops here

The phrase refers to the fact that the President has to make the decisions and accept the ultimate responsibility for those decisions. It does not refer to micromanagement on EVERY level.

[LWolf]

48. Of course not.

That position allows the president to take personal credit for anything done well, and distance himself from every stumble.

[BklnDem75]

50. Strangely enough...

It also allows anyone with a gripe to blame him for EVERYTHING under the sun. Weird!

[LWolf]

52. I'm probably

one of his biggest detractors on DU, and have been since the day he announced his entry into the primaries.

I don't have to blame him for everything under the sun. I have enough legitimate beefs for my dislike of his presidency.

I'm not interested in petty, nonsensical bullshit. I oppose neoliberal politics and politicians, therefore I'm no fan of Obama.

It's the politics I object to, though, not the man.

For too many of his supporters, imo, it's about the man rather than the politics.

[Enrique]

43. the White House, but not Obama himself n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

45. VilSuck didn't like the fact that she was helping family farmers

The Bratfart tape edit just gave him a convenient excuse. And his half assed "apology" means nothing, as he has absolutely NO INTENTION of reinstating Shirley Sherrod to her job, or any other position where she might help family farmers.

Why is that? Because VilSuck's REAL employers don't like family farmers.

It's time the Obama administration lived up to its promise of getting the lobbyists out of government. Kick VilSuck to the curb. And any other MonSatan shills at Agriculture.

[Spazito]

51. I find an irony here...

in that the poll and many of the respondents in the thread are quite happy to speculate, without the prerequisite facts, on the role of the White House, when the whole cause of this 'issue' was due to the right deliberately misleading and then speculating without the FACTS related to the edited video.

It seems some DUers have yet to learn the lesson demanded by them to others, imo.

[Skip Intro]

57. Maybe, but political speculation is part and parcel of GD:P, isn't it?

The thing is, with most of the threads on Obama and his admin, I can't help but wonder how the discussion would go if we were still in the bush years. In other words, I frequently substitute "Obama" for "bush" to see if indeed we hold our own to the same standards we held bush. Do you remember all the speculation on this board after the 2000 "election?" After 9*11? The poll question is tame compared to what we wondered about during the bush years. Not to mention all the speculation that went on here during our last primary season. Remember when Hillary was plotting to "steal" the nomination from Obama at the convention? The poll question here seems tame by those standards. And we are the same people, are we not?

I've been speculating on politics for years. Most of us here have. I don't see any reason to suddenly stop. With politicians of all stripes, it is our duty to hold what comes out of DC to a bright light and read between the lines - to use logic, our knowledge and common sense and question what we are told and given as fact.

What makes sense to me in this instance is that the edited tape was viewed to have significant potential to do political damage, and decisions were hastily made to blunt any such resulting political damage. If you accept that motive for asking for Sherrod's resignation asap, then the next logical question would be, for me, who had the most to lose politically? Vilsack is not the first name that comes to mind for me. Logically, to me, it makes little sense that he acted alone, and far more sense that he acted at the behest of someone in the WH, if not Obama himself.

Having reached that, what I consider to be, reasonable conclusion, I was curious to see if active DUers felt the same or differently. Hence the poll.

I do see your point on the irony, but not on the assertion that DUers who agree with me "have a lot to learn."

[Spazito]

60. A couple of points on that...

Had you posted the poll without commentary, I would have had no problem with it but the commentary above the poll questions is, I believe, quite leading which changes the dynamics and resulted in my post regarding irony.

On a broader note, I do think lessons can be learned here at DU about the use of specious speculation without facts or ignoring any facts that refute the speculation given the recent days regarding the mistreatment of Ms. Sherrod. If speculation is falsely presented as fact it is incumbent upon everyone to call it into question rather than accepting it as factual, imo.

[Skip Intro]

62. Allow me to address those.

In posting a poll, I am asking for the opinions of others, and hoping they elaborate as to why they voted in a particular way. It seems only good manners, to me, to answer my own question before asking it of others. And it cuts down, usually, on any questioning of my motives - you know where I stand, right off the bat. Being as I'm the one bringing up the subject, that seems only fair.

Regarding that, and your second point, I truly hope that most active DUers post and reply with the strength of their convictions. and that a simple explanation of my thoughts on a question, even as I ask that question, would really hold no sway. I think we're all bright enough and aware enough to have our own thoughts and opinions, and express those at will.

And further, on DUers and learning not to speculate without all the pertinent facts, I have to wonder if you actually read GD and GDP regularly. Jumping to conclusions with a handful of facts, or less, has been going on here for as long as I can remember. Have you seen any of the cops=pigs threads, for example?

Another point here is that when dealing with subject matter that pivots on belief in what some politician or ceo says, on "offical stories," I think a healthy dose of skepticism right up front is good practice, as in asking yourself, "does what I'm hearing or reading really make sense; does it add up?" I think that, especially after the bush years, most of us have well-developed bs meters. Not to mention that with situations involving the powerful, who knows when or even if "all the facts" will be known.

Not to go on and on, but in the end, except for LBN, the vast majority of the other big forums revolve around expressing opinion. Some may, through speculation, believe they have arrived at the hidden truth. Some may simply suspect. But at the end of the day, GD and GDP are full, consistently, of expressions of opinions. It is, after all, a discussion board.

(edited to change punctuation that resulted in a sticking-tongue-out smiley)

[Spazito]

63. Thank you for your thoughtful response...

it is appreciated. It seems we do see DU, in some ways, in a different light, which, when all told, is quite healthy for the community.

I am not a fan of specious speculation based on little or no facts and often, even worse, falsehoods.

If I am understanding your post correctly, you see such speculation as 'business as usual' and simply part of the dynamics of DU.

We see some things differently, neither perspective better or worse than the other, just different.

Thanks again for your reasoned response.

[Skip Intro]

64. And same to you. I agree entirely.

I understand and appreciate your views as well. It might surprise you to know that I have made the same arguments you've made in some of those threads about cops in GD. Not sure I encountered as polite and persuasive a DUer as yourself in those.

This has been an enjoyable discussion. Hope to have one again with you soon.

[Spazito]

65. I, too have enjoyed our discussion and also hope to do so again...

as we will surely 'meet' on the many interesting, passionate, intriguing and, yes, frustrating threads that make DU the'go-to' site it is.

[SunsetDreams]

59. Spot on Spazito

[Uzybone]

53. I think Jesus had her fired

Just my speculation.

[Sebastian Doyle]

58. Vilsuck needs to go because he acted in the interests of MonSatan

and that is the exact OPPOSITE of his job description.

[Arkansas Granny]

61. As the Secretary of Agriculture, appointed by President Obama, Vilsack represents

the administration in his decisions. Whether he was directed by the White House in this instance or not, the fact remains that his actions reflect on the President. I don't think you can separate the two when it comes to policies or decisions.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Barack Obama should do everything perfectly, always......

because when he doesn't, nothing he ever does will ever make it
perfect again, and it will give folks an excuse to shit on him...
usually same folks who are never satisfied with anything he does anyway,
as well, same folks who never see the good done. You know, the perfect ones!

[Arkansas Granny]

68. I'm just saying that if Vilsack had done any investigation to find out the facts

in this matter and had then stood with Sherrod against an unfair attack, we would have been saying that Obama was ultimately responsible for the brilliant handling of the situation because he had appointed Vilsack in the first place. However, that is not what happened. When a President's appointees take actions or make policy, whether good or bad, they are associated with the President who appointed them.

[dionysus]

69. of course you think it's that evil obama's fault.

:eyes:

[jillan]

71. I think Vilsak would've contacted the WH before he forced Shirley to resign.