CDZ Does Spicer know what he's talking about? Does he know what's going on? I doubt it.

[usmbguest5318]

1. Who's this thread about? --> Sean Spicer. Nobody else.
2. What's this thread about?
   • Whether Spicer knows what he's talking about.
   • Whether one can rely on what he says.

When a WH Press Secretary says things, is it really asking too much that s/he know what they're about and that it be accurate and truthful?

Consider this....

• Feb. 18
  • Major Garrett tweets, "News: Am told by two people familiar with the matter that Navy Secretary nominee Philip Bilden is likely to withdraw - cld b this weekend."
  • Spicer responds, "Those people would be wrong. Just spoke with him and he is 100% commited to being the next SECNAV pending Senate confirm."
• Feb 26 -- Phil Bilden withdraws his name from consideration.

What are the choices?

• Spicer knew Phil had reservation and just lied about it.
• Spicer didn't know Phil had reservations and lied by saying he did.
• Phil shared/intimated his reservations with some people, and none of them told Spicer, and Phil, in speaking with Spicer, misrepresented his own position at the time.

I don't have to tell you this is not the first instance of Spicer saying things that later are shown not to be so. I don't know whether Spicer is uninformed/ill informed, aka "in over his head and just barely treading water," or just stupid. Whatever the case may be, Spicer either isn't "in the loop" -- What's the point of a poorly connected press secretary? -- or just inept.

 

[Compost]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Doesn’t matter, discombobulation is discombobulation. It is either his and he should be gone or it is the entire operation and they still can’t figure out what the hell they’re doing. Maybe it is him and Don forgot his tag line.

As for "When a WH Press Secretary says things, is it really asking too much that s/he know what they're about and that it be accurate and truthful?"

Yeah, it is, but that hasn't just popped up with this jackass, been that way for a long long time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Spicer is discombulated square, yes.

 

[Fishlore]

1. Who's this thread about? --> Sean Spicer. Nobody else.
2. What's this thread about?
   • Whether Spicer knows what he's talking about.
   • Whether one can rely on what he says.

When a WH Press Secretary says things, is it really asking too much that s/he know what they're about and that it be accurate and truthful?

Consider this....

• Feb. 18
  • Major Garrett tweets, "News: Am told by two people familiar with the matter that Navy Secretary nominee Philip Bilden is likely to withdraw - cld b this weekend."
  • Spicer responds, "Those people would be wrong. Just spoke with him and he is 100% commited to being the next SECNAV pending Senate confirm."
• Feb 26 -- Phil Bilden withdraws his name from consideration.

What are the choices?

• Spicer knew Phil had reservation and just lied about it.
• Spicer didn't know Phil had reservations and lied by saying he did.
• Phil shared/intimated his reservations with some people, and none of them told Spicer, and Phil, in speaking with Spicer, misrepresented his own position at the time.

I don't have to tell you this is not the first instance of Spicer saying things that later are shown not to be so. I don't know whether Spicer is uninformed/ill informed, aka "in over his head and just barely treading water," or just stupid. Whatever the case may be, Spicer either isn't "in the loop" -- What's the point of a poorly connected press secretary? -- or just inept.

Too many years ago, as a very green Lt Jg, I had a couple of weeks in which I was junior press officer for the base on Okinawa where I was stationed. I was prepared for our meetings with the local wire service guys etc. by being told what the commanding officer wanted them to be told. I couldn't possibly leak any secrets because I didn't know any. I think Bannon & Priebus work similarly with Spicer. He is given the ready-made stories they want to hand out. Spicer has no idea if they are true or not. He isn't paid to know anything or think about it.

 

[TNHarley]

He is just the retard out front and center. Just like all Press Secs.

 

[OldLady]

1. Who's this thread about? --> Sean Spicer. Nobody else.
2. What's this thread about?
   • Whether Spicer knows what he's talking about.
   • Whether one can rely on what he says.

When a WH Press Secretary says things, is it really asking too much that s/he know what they're about and that it be accurate and truthful?

Consider this....

• Feb. 18
  • Major Garrett tweets, "News: Am told by two people familiar with the matter that Navy Secretary nominee Philip Bilden is likely to withdraw - cld b this weekend."
  • Spicer responds, "Those people would be wrong. Just spoke with him and he is 100% commited to being the next SECNAV pending Senate confirm."
• Feb 26 -- Phil Bilden withdraws his name from consideration.

What are the choices?

• Spicer knew Phil had reservation and just lied about it.
• Spicer didn't know Phil had reservations and lied by saying he did.
• Phil shared/intimated his reservations with some people, and none of them told Spicer, and Phil, in speaking with Spicer, misrepresented his own position at the time.

I don't have to tell you this is not the first instance of Spicer saying things that later are shown not to be so. I don't know whether Spicer is uninformed/ill informed, aka "in over his head and just barely treading water," or just stupid. Whatever the case may be, Spicer either isn't "in the loop" -- What's the point of a poorly connected press secretary? -- or just inept.

Too many years ago, as a very green Lt Jg, I had a couple of weeks in which I was junior press officer for the base on Okinawa where I was stationed. I was prepared for our meetings with the local wire service guys etc. by being told what the commanding officer wanted them to be told. I couldn't possibly leak any secrets because I didn't know any. I think Bannon & Priebus work similarly with Spicer. He is given the ready-made stories they want to hand out. Spicer has no idea if they are true or not. He isn't paid to know anything or think about it.

I really felt bad for Sean Spicer that infamous Saturday when he got dragged out to do his very first Press Conference after the inauguration, obviously wearing someone else's suit jacket and had to humiliate himself by telling the world his boss's bullshit about the record breaking attendance at the inauguration. He did the best he could, by taking on a combative "I'm gonna say this and try to stop me" attitude and got through it, but dear God, that must have been hard for him.
I admit I panicked until Monday, thinking the days of the Fourth Reich were upon us, until he did another Press Conference and was reasonable, walked back the more insane claims, and was wearing his own jacket.
I kinda like the guy. What a job, though.

 

[edthecynic]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

 

[Compost]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Don't ask me, I'm not clairvoyant either.

 

[edthecynic]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Don't ask me, I'm not clairvoyant either.

I doubt if Major Garrett is clairvoyant also, yet he knew and Spitter either didn't know or lied as usual.

 

[Compost]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Don't ask me, I'm not clairvoyant either.

I doubt if Major Garrett is clairvoyant also, yet he knew and Spitter either didn't know or lied as usual.

I'm not so quick to assume people are lying. Frankly, you sound paranoid.

 

[edthecynic]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Don't ask me, I'm not clairvoyant either.

I doubt if Major Garrett is clairvoyant also, yet he knew and Spitter either didn't know or lied as usual.

I'm not so quick to assume people are lying. Frankly, you sound paranoid.

Then you would have to say that Major Garrett is better informed than Spitter!!!

 

[Compost]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Don't ask me, I'm not clairvoyant either.

I doubt if Major Garrett is clairvoyant also, yet he knew and Spitter either didn't know or lied as usual.

I'm not so quick to assume people are lying. Frankly, you sound paranoid.

Then you would have to say that Major Garrett is better informed than Spitter!!!

Maybe, but maybe I'm lying.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Spot on! Moreover, Spicer stated he has just spoken with Phil. He didn't have to say that. So either he did and Phil, for whatever reason, didn't feel comfortable telling Spicer the truth, or Phil had not "just" spoken with Spicer.

My gut says that Spicer just doesn't have that fine a character. The guy could have said, "As far as I know....", but he didn't. Hell, he could have simply not replied to Garrett; it was a tweet after all. Sh*t. Garrett didn't even ask a question. He merely stated what he was told by two people. Take the stance of "okay....that's what you've heard; I believe you when you say you heard it." Don't address it and let it sit "out there" as a rumor, which is all it'd have been had Spicer/the WH ignored it, rather than dignify it, or worse create downstream trouble for oneself, by responding to it.

Spicer and his boss, like a lot of people of questionable ethical bearing, seems to have a need to defend things that don't need to be defend, or that don't need to be defended at the time they act to defend them. Say what you will of that notion, but in my experience, people who do that have a guilty conscience in some way, great or small.

 

[Compost]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Spot on! Moreover, Spicer stated he has just spoken with Phil. He didn't have to say that. So either he did and Phil, for whatever reason, didn't feel comfortable telling Spicer the truth, or Phil had not "just" spoken with Spicer.

My gut says that Spicer just doesn't have that fine a character. The guy could have said, "As far as I know....", but he didn't. Hell, he could have simply not replied to Garrett; it was a tweet after all. Sh*t. Garrett didn't even ask a question. He merely stated what he was told by two people. Take the stance of "okay....that's what you've heard; I believe you when you say you heard it." Don't address it and let it sit "out there" as a rumor, which is all it'd have been had Spicer/the WH ignored it, rather than dignify it, or worse create downstream trouble for oneself, by responding to it.

Spicer and his boss, like a lot of people of questionable ethical bearing, seems to have a need to defend things that don't need to be defend, or that don't need to be defended at the time they act to defend them. Say what you will of that notion, but in my experience, people who do that have a guilty conscience in some way, great or small.

Xelor, I think you may be expecting character from people whose job description requires a lack of it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Possibly, but Spicer's "just spoke with him" comment casts doubt on that being so.

As for "When a WH Press Secretary says things, is it really asking too much that s/he know what they're about and that it be accurate and truthful?"

Yeah, it is, but that hasn't just popped up with this jackass, been that way for a long long time.

Okay. Let's go with that. What, then, defines the limit of what is the most we should expect?

Remember, we're talking about a person who is speaking from the WH podium, thus for the POTUS and the U.S. when s/he comments on things. It'd be different if Spicer were quoted from his backyard barbecue party and was speaking as "Sean Spicer" not as WH Press Secretary. Like it or not, that job requires, when he speaks as Press Secy, him to be highly honorable as both a man and as a spokesperson for the WH/POTUS/USA.

discombobulation is discombobulation. It is either his and he should be gone or it is the entire operation and they still can’t figure out what the hell they’re doing.

I think Bannon & Priebus work similarly with Spicer. He is given the ready-made stories they want to hand out. Spicer has no idea if they are true or not. He isn't paid to know anything or think about it.

I understand where you're coming from. I understand why information would be withheld from such a spokesperson. The same thing happens in the private sector.

The thing is that Spicer needs to:

1. have the integrity to only make statements that are truthful (factually and contextually),
2. keep mum if he can't tell the whole truth for whatever reason,
3. master English to the point of knowing how to craft a qualifying statement that defines the limit of what audience members may infer from his remarks, and
4. have the presence of mind to think to do so and then actually do so "on his feet," which oftentimes is as easy as just not being quite so quick to answer....1/2 to 1.5 seconds is often enough of a "beat" to do that effectively without appearing to stammer. You surely remember how Ronald Reagan did it...."Well,...." That "well" bought him all the time he needed to frame his thoughts before answering.

Spicer should be better than he is at his job and as a man. He went to Portsmouth Abbey, after all. Also, he has a long history of public speaking. Plus he was a Naval officer. Even if he's lacking in character, his intellectual development should kick in and cover for it. Apparently it does not, at least not in his public life.

dear God, that must have been hard for him.

One would hope....

I really felt bad for Sean Spicer that infamous Saturday when he got dragged out to do his very first Press Conference after the inauguration, obviously wearing someone else's suit jacket and had to humiliate himself by telling the world his boss's bullshit about the record breaking attendance at the inauguration. He did the best he could, by taking on a combative "I'm gonna say this and try to stop me" attitude

• Saturday --> That should never have happened. There was no major thing going on that warranted a press conference that day. I don't blame Spicer for the fact it happened.
• Jacket --> I blame Spicer for the suit jacket thing. I see that as a matter of his being unprepared for the "at a moment's notice" aspect of his job. He has a desk and an office. Just like any other principal, he should have put a "just in case" jacket, shirt and tie in there. At his level, even prior to being Press Secy, doing that is comparable to having a toothbrush/floss at all times, or having toilet paper, if nothing else, the night one moves into a new home/flat. Is the "jacket thing" a big thing? No. It just is a thing.
• Boss' BS --> That he should have handled by simply repeating "President Trump maintains....," "The President asserts...," "It is the President's position that....," and so on, thus subtly making it clear that he was following orders not speaking his own mind.
  
  The WH Press Corps is sophisticated enough to catch the finesse in statements so presented. Despite the current acrimony and antipathy Trump has been expressing, the press would have been certain to have (1) not held Spicer to the wall for having to do so (the press corps generally wants to get along with the press secretary, for obvious mutually beneficial reasons) and/or (2) shared that subtlety with their audiences.

I'm not so quick to assume people are lying. Frankly, you sound paranoid.

I don't like arbitrarily making such accusations either. That's why the third bullet is in the OP. That said, Spicer is developing a pattern the belies either a character flaw, ineptitude, or a lack of refinement. I can't say which it is, but none of them is desireable in a WH Press Secy.

It could also be that Trump and Spicer have agreed that Spicer is to play the role of "whipping boy." That's be highly irregular; that's the role a Chief of Staff or other aide plays, mainly because the Press Secy. needs to have a far more stable and mutually-trusting relationship with the press. The press isn't out to "hang" the POTUS or his Administration; they are there to communicate the truth. There's only a problem when a POTUS doesn't want to disclose the whole truth. ("Whole truth" meaning damn near everything coming from the WH is truthful in all respects, not that the WH discloses every stinking detail of every little thing.)

 

[usmbguest5318]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Spot on! Moreover, Spicer stated he has just spoken with Phil. He didn't have to say that. So either he did and Phil, for whatever reason, didn't feel comfortable telling Spicer the truth, or Phil had not "just" spoken with Spicer.

My gut says that Spicer just doesn't have that fine a character. The guy could have said, "As far as I know....", but he didn't. Hell, he could have simply not replied to Garrett; it was a tweet after all. Sh*t. Garrett didn't even ask a question. He merely stated what he was told by two people. Take the stance of "okay....that's what you've heard; I believe you when you say you heard it." Don't address it and let it sit "out there" as a rumor, which is all it'd have been had Spicer/the WH ignored it, rather than dignify it, or worse create downstream trouble for oneself, by responding to it.

Spicer and his boss, like a lot of people of questionable ethical bearing, seems to have a need to defend things that don't need to be defend, or that don't need to be defended at the time they act to defend them. Say what you will of that notion, but in my experience, people who do that have a guilty conscience in some way, great or small.

Xelor, I think you may be expecting character from people whose job description requires a lack of it.

Perhaps you and I have very different understandings of the nature of the jobs in question as well as the expectations to which holders of them are expected to adhere?

• HANDBOOK FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES

As far as I know, all Executive Branch employees, except perhaps the President (I'd have to look into that), are subject to the guidelines found at the two links above.

 

[jwoodie]

After Jay Carney, any expectation of accurate information has evaporated.

 

[Compost]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Spot on! Moreover, Spicer stated he has just spoken with Phil. He didn't have to say that. So either he did and Phil, for whatever reason, didn't feel comfortable telling Spicer the truth, or Phil had not "just" spoken with Spicer.

My gut says that Spicer just doesn't have that fine a character. The guy could have said, "As far as I know....", but he didn't. Hell, he could have simply not replied to Garrett; it was a tweet after all. Sh*t. Garrett didn't even ask a question. He merely stated what he was told by two people. Take the stance of "okay....that's what you've heard; I believe you when you say you heard it." Don't address it and let it sit "out there" as a rumor, which is all it'd have been had Spicer/the WH ignored it, rather than dignify it, or worse create downstream trouble for oneself, by responding to it.

Spicer and his boss, like a lot of people of questionable ethical bearing, seems to have a need to defend things that don't need to be defend, or that don't need to be defended at the time they act to defend them. Say what you will of that notion, but in my experience, people who do that have a guilty conscience in some way, great or small.

Xelor, I think you may be expecting character from people whose job description requires a lack of it.

Perhaps you and I have very different understandings of the nature of the jobs in question as well as the expectations to which holders of them are expected to adhere?

• HANDBOOK FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES

As far as I know, all Executive Branch employees, except perhaps the President (I'd have to look into that), are subject to the guidelines found at the two links above.

I am not referring to the literal job description of spokes mouth but to what the spokes mouths show us while on the job. It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall. This pattern has been apparent regardless of the party in power at the moment. I realize you wish to focus on Spicer, but I do not find him any different than others in his position.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Hard to say. It seems most likely that Spicer was going with the information he had at the time he is asked the question. Biden apparently withdrew because he didn't want to take the financial hit required to observe the ethics guidelines. He may originally have been eager to take the job but thought it over. Spicer cannot be expected to be clairvoyant.

Except Major Garrett had the info at the time, so why wouldn't Spitter?????

Spot on! Moreover, Spicer stated he has just spoken with Phil. He didn't have to say that. So either he did and Phil, for whatever reason, didn't feel comfortable telling Spicer the truth, or Phil had not "just" spoken with Spicer.

My gut says that Spicer just doesn't have that fine a character. The guy could have said, "As far as I know....", but he didn't. Hell, he could have simply not replied to Garrett; it was a tweet after all. Sh*t. Garrett didn't even ask a question. He merely stated what he was told by two people. Take the stance of "okay....that's what you've heard; I believe you when you say you heard it." Don't address it and let it sit "out there" as a rumor, which is all it'd have been had Spicer/the WH ignored it, rather than dignify it, or worse create downstream trouble for oneself, by responding to it.

Spicer and his boss, like a lot of people of questionable ethical bearing, seems to have a need to defend things that don't need to be defend, or that don't need to be defended at the time they act to defend them. Say what you will of that notion, but in my experience, people who do that have a guilty conscience in some way, great or small.

Xelor, I think you may be expecting character from people whose job description requires a lack of it.

Perhaps you and I have very different understandings of the nature of the jobs in question as well as the expectations to which holders of them are expected to adhere?

• HANDBOOK FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES

As far as I know, all Executive Branch employees, except perhaps the President (I'd have to look into that), are subject to the guidelines found at the two links above.

I am not referring to the literal job description of spokes mouth but to what the spokes mouths show us while on the job. It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall. This pattern has been apparent regardless of the party in power at the moment. I realize you wish to focus on Spicer, but I do not find him any different than others in his position.

It has been my observation over the past few decades that spokes mouths tend to be less then forthcoming overall.

Well, that's really a matter of completeness, and as such legit to note. That politicians and their staff are incomplete in their disclosure is also somewhat bothersome to me, but I know it's tantamount to asking them to walk on water to be both complete and 100% accurate with whatever he does say.

I am shooting for the easier thing to accomplish....there are no real constraints on simply saying what one knows is wholly so, not saying what one doesn't know to be so, or at least saying one is unsure if one doesn't doesn't know X to be wholly so and one, for some reason, feels obliged to say X.