There is an opinion piece on CNN’s site by Michael D’Antonio that says, basically, we should feel a little bad for Nunberg because he was treated badly by Trump.
“Never an A-list political operative, Nunberg worked briefly for Trump but was fired in 2014 when he arranged for an interview that didn’t go well for the boss. Trump then brought him back into the fold, only to fire him again when it was revealed that Nunberg had written a variety of racially charged social media posts.”
It seems to me that Nunberg knew exactly what he was getting into when he aligned himself with Trump. Twice. Anyone who goes to work for Trump has to know that they are likely be thrown under the bus, no matter how loyal they are. In Nuberg’s case the second firing was well earned. The lure of perceived power must be overwhelming to those that sign on.
Nunberg doesn’t deserve our empathy, he deserves our scorn. I wish he would have defied Muller and been arrested. When Trump finally fires Kelly and Sessions are we supposed to empathy for them, too?
Assuming one is not a mental deficient who buys what Trump is selling, there are two reasons I can think of for aspiring to work in the Trump administration:
1: you want to have that line item (“I worked in the White House”) in your resume, and you’re willing to compromise your integrity to do it. Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders come to mind; I can’t imagine the self-suppression required to stand in front of the press corps and say the things they said with a straight face. Nunberg probably fits into this category, and none of them deserve sympathy or respect.
2: you are intelligent and imbued with a strong sense of duty, and want to limit the damage done by the Trump administration. Kelly and McMaster come to mind; I have seen news articles describing them as “the adults in the room,” and despite whatever flaws they may have, they deserve some appreciation for their roles and perhaps some sympathy for whatever mistreatment comes their way from Trump.
“2: you are intelligent and imbued with a strong sense of duty, and want to limit the damage done by the Trump administration. Kelly and McMaster come to mind; I have seen news articles describing them as “the adults in the room,” and despite whatever flaws they may have, they deserve some appreciation for their roles and perhaps some sympathy for whatever mistreatment comes their way from Trump.”
I can see how this might make sense but at what point does one say “This is so far off the rails the best thing I could do for the country is bail out AND speak out honestly about how bad it is.”? I’ve lost whatever sympathy I had for Kelly with the the whole security clearance mess.
I can understand and appreciate his situation (at least what I know without doing any research at all): All he wanted was to run a simple low-key scam, getting old people and other suckers to invest in a project, and paying himself a handsome salary until it went bankrupt (casino, university, Presidential Campaign, who cares? It’s all the same scam). It’s even basically legal, so shouldn’t be all that stressful. But now, he’s suddenly got FBI and other three-letter agencies interviewing him and using words like ‘treason’, while at the same time getting suggestions that he should research “polonium poisoning” and think carefully about what he does. He didn’t sign up for that!
Now, I don’t feel too badly, in fact, more grimly amused, since he’s a scumbag grifter who deserves most of what he’s getting.
I think you meant to say “want to work undoing the damage done by the Obama administration”. Otherwise, that sentence makes no sense, because Trump in his first year has been far more productive for America than Obama was in eight.
What damage did Obama do that you believe Trump has undone?
What productive things has Trump done that Obama didn’t?
I will grant you that Trump cut taxes for corporations and temporarily, at least, cut income taxes for most individuals. The Trump tax cuts though are permanent for corporations but disappear over time for individuals. It is absolutely ballooning the deficit, which is something Republicans pretended to care about when they weren’t the ones in charge. In contrast, Obama enacted permanent tax cuts for all but the most wealthy (American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 - Wikipedia). Which do you think is better?
I’m not sure of the validity, but I read a book recently (Devil’s Bargain) which intimates that Chris Christie got on Trump’s bad side for spreading germs (apparently Trump is a notorious germophobe) and lingering too close like a puppy, which annoyed him. That was the totality of Chris Christie’s crimes. Trump is just a fickle toddler.
Why would you insult the genus Sus in this way? They are an intelligent and personable animal with fierce determination and are highly trainable, and has also served human civilization in many important ways. Donald Trump is literally none of these things.
When you can count the list of “smart things” Trump has done in his life on one hand, and the hand of an incautious old powder monkey at that, the statement is really not very impressive.
Sometimes you see that worm and you just instinctively have to snap at it even though you know there is a hook inside.
For case 2 above, that just makes sure that only yes men and fellow horrible people are working for him. It would mean the Russian investigation was completely stopped. It would mean that there would be no one keeping Trump from making decisions that would destroy the country.
Like it or not, sometimes the good guys have to work for the bad guys. It’s the only way to keep the bad guys from winning.