“The Gordon Problem”: Former Ambassador To Face Grilling Before House Committee

President Trump’s European Union ambassador, Gordon Sondland, will appear today before the House Intelligence Committee in what may be the most awaited testimony of the impeachment hearings. Indeed, Sondland has few options and none of them are good as a witness. He has been skewered by witness after witness — leaving the image of a dim-witted braggart with virtually no diplomatic experience and even less judgment. Former National Security Council aide Tim Morrison simply referred to him in clinical terms as “the Gordon problem.” While some of us have questioned whether the Democrats are building a viable impeachment case, they are clearly building a compelling case for a highly inappropriate and damaging campaign for a quid pro quo. Sondland was either a dupe or a designer of that ill-conceived strategy.

In his opening statement, Sondland states that there was a quid pro quo stated by Giuliani but he is less clear about President Donald Trump. However, he makes clear that he did not want to work with Giuliani but that it was clear that Giuliani was carrying out the wishes of the President. That may throw Giuliani under the bus but it is not likely to make this day any easier for Sondland. On page 5, Sondland makes clear that he came to understand that aid was conditioned on the investigations. That will not however make today any easier for Sondland as members delve into the Trump connections and directions.

I will be doing the coverage of the hearings today for CBS News and BBC.

Sondland came to the Administration after a successful career in the hotel business — and after writing a $1 million check to the Trump inauguration committee. Just for the record, Sondland is yet another example of the ridiculous practice of allowing presidents to reward donors with diplomatic posts. Clinton, Bush, Obama, and other presidents did the same thing. It is bad for this country and I have been writing about this practice for decades. We have great professional diplomats like William Taylor and the others who have testified in these hearings. They should be the representatives of this country, not donors who bring large bank accounts and little discernible intellect or skill.

Accounts of Sondland having a loud conversation with President Trump in a Ukrainian restaurant only adds to his image as a bumbling political operative with a diplomatic title. Sondland gave generously to the Trump campaign and was rewarded with the position. He then appears to have been one of the driving forces with Rudy Giuliani in pushing this “deal” with the Ukrainians.

Sondland is in the worst possible position as a witness in coming to the hearing with conflicted testimony. He insisted that there were “no quid pro quos of any kind” but then seemed to walk that position back under questioning. His “I now do recall” pivot is deadly in a partisan take-no-prisoners hearings. The question is which direction he will jump. With the recent conviction of Roger Stone for lying to Congress, Sondland knows that any false statement could have disastrous consequences.

Sondland (like Trump) was helped and hurt by the last two witnesses before the Committee.

Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison and  former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker denied hearing any quid pro quo or demands in key conversations. Yet, they also left the impression of Sondland as something of a braggart, or as Volker said in truly diplomatic terms, someone who is “bigger than life.” Ouch.

The most damaging testimony from highly credible witnesses like William Taylor is that it was Sondland who was unrelenting in pushing for a commitment to investigate from the Ukrainians. It was Sondland who allegedly brought a meeting with former National Security Adviser John Bolton to a sudden end by raising the issue. Sondland seems to appear at every awkward or sinister moment.

In other words, this is unlikely to go well for Sondland. It never does when your best defense is that I am a well-intentioned but clueless donor turned dupe thrashing around in the world of diplomacy.

116 thoughts on ““The Gordon Problem”: Former Ambassador To Face Grilling Before House Committee”

  1. Is President Trump not empowered to require a foreign government transparently investigate allegations of corruption within their country as a condition to release foreign aid, if that investigation might harm a political opponent?

    One question that I haven’t seen asked: Why do the Democrats declare an investigation into Burisma is a benefit to the President’s reelection? Put another way, what do the Democrats know that makes them declare an investigation in Burisma will do harm to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign?

    Why is it never presented that a Burisma investigation would clear Biden and give him a landslide victory?

  2. ” .. they are clearly building a compelling case for a highly inappropriate and damaging campaign for a quid pro quo. Sondland was either a dupe or a designer of that ill-conceived strategy.”

    So the new DIm standard for Presidential corruption seems to be that you can investigate any politician in America for payola excepting only the one running maybe against you and regardless of the magnitude of that corruption. If them’s the rules, we really ought to start over. Banish all of them to the hinterlands and let’s pick 435 people from the phone book to run the place and here’s betting we have less corruption, more common sense and a drop in the arrogance level that would make the Atlantic look like a desert. We don’t need a government that is for sale to the highest international bidder or one that routinely puts our interests third, fifth or last. Throw the bums out hasn’t has this much validity or necessity since the Jesus ran the corrupt money lenders out of the temple.

    Who’s up for braiding some whips?

  3. LBJ, CIA, FBI, Texas Oilmen et al. killed JFK, RFK, MLK. Richard Nixon engaged in dirty tricks that every other president engaged in. Bill Clinton would have been removed with extreme prejudice by any corporation or military organization for his depraved personal behavior and his abuse of an innocent intern and his marriage vows. Obama should have been imprisoned as a traitor for perpetrating the fraud of not being eligible for the presidency as a “natural born citizen” as is required by the Constitution.

    And President Donald J. Trump is being impeached for conducting foreign policy, including investigating corruption, for the benefit of the United States.

    In fact:

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey, Christopher Wray,

    McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap,

    Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer,

    Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel,

    Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy),

    Nadler, Schiff, Obama et al.

  4. Someone wake me up when something worthwhile actually happens except hyperbolic BS of a boring kind. Reading how Comrade machine part Natachas frantically changing programmers and lubricant to no avail is …. a bit on the two kinky side for family hour

  5. President Donald J. Trump was aggressively conducting foreign policy for the benefit of the United States. You don’t say! Massive corruption in Ukraine was extant. That vast Ukrainian corruption, incidentally included Vice President Joe Biden, his son, Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings. Your point is? Corruption shall be ignored if it involves Biden, Hillary and Obama? Read Wiki below discussing A-Damn Schiffffff!


    Making a mountain out of a molehill is an idiom referring to over-reactive, histrionic behaviour where a person makes too much of a minor issue. It seems to have come into existence in the 16th century.


    The idiom is a metaphor for the common behaviour of responding disproportionately to something – usually an adverse circumstance. One who makes a mountain out of a molehill is said to be greatly exaggerating the severity of the situation.[1] In cognitive psychology, this form of distortion is called magnification[2] or overreacting. The phrase itself is so common that a study by psychologists found that with respect to familiarity and image value, it ranks high among the 203 common sayings they tested.[3]

    Similar idioms include Much ado about nothing and Making a song and dance about nothing. The meaning finds its opposite in the fable about the mountain in labour that gives birth to a mouse. In the former too much is made of little; in the latter one is led to expect much, but with too little result. The two appear to converge in William Caxton’s translation of the fable (1484), where he makes of the mountain “a hylle whiche beganne to tremble and shake by cause of the molle whiche delved it”.[4] In other words, he mimics the meaning of the fable by turning a mountain into a molehill. It was in the context of this bringing together of the two ideas that the English idiom grew.

    The earliest recorded use of the alliterative phrase making a mountain out of a molehill dates from 1548. The word for the animal involved was less than two hundred years old by then. Previous to that the mole had been known by its Old English name wand, which had slowly changed to want. A molehill was known as a wantitump, a word that continued in dialect use for centuries more.[5] The former name of want was then replaced by mold(e)warp (meaning earth-thrower),[6] a shortened version of which (molle) began to appear in the later 14th century[7] and the word molehill in the first half of the 15th century.[8]

    The idiom is found in Nicholas Udall’s translation of The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus vpon the newe testamente (1548) in the statement that “The Sophistes of Grece coulde through their copiousness make an Elephant of a flye, and a mountaine of a mollehill.” The comparison of the elephant with a fly (elephantem ex musca facere) is an old Latin proverb that Erasmus recorded in his collection of such phrases, the Adagia,[9] European variations on which persist. The mountain and molehill seem to have been added by Udall[10] and the phrase has continued in popular use ever since. If the idiom was not coined by Udall himself, the linguistic evidence above suggests that it cannot have been in existence long.

    – Wiki

  6. It’s interesting to see the power struggle between these two branches – Congress and the President, and the rejoicing of our adversaries with this chaos. Trump is running government as it is his company and wants nothing to do with the institution itself; frankly, his greatest wish is that there was no Senate. Maybe he wishes we were more like..say, Russia, China, or Turkey, where totalitarian leaders make the rules and if you are not “loyal”, poison, jail or kill their opponents, including journalists! Seeing comments above, is that where we want the U.S. to go? This is beyond Democrats leading the impeachment; is asking a foreign government to investigate a US Citizen appropriate? Be it democrats or republicans, Congress has take a step at addressing this, unfortunately impeachment seems to be the only recourse available for the inappropriateness – God knows how many more he has done behind the scenes. Remember, he asked before elections the same about Hillary from Wikileaks – release those emails….So, against or in favor of impeachment, there has to be check and balances between the 3 branches, that’s the Constitution – no one branch is more powerful than other, but complementary to each other. Impeaching and removal from office are not equivalent. He won’t be removed, but he should have in his record that he’s not above the Constitution of the United States of America, and the US is not his own personal company…

  7. It’s interesting to see the power struggle between these two branches – Congress and the President. Trump is running government as it is his company and wants nothing to do with the institution itself; frankly, his greatest wish is that there was no Senate. Maybe he wishes we were more like..say, Russia, China, or Turkey, where totalitarian leaders make the rules and poison or kill their opponents. Seeing comments above, is that where we want the U.S. to go? Is asking a foreign government to investigate a US Citizen appropriate? Be it democrats or republicans, Congress has take a step at addressing this, unfortunately impeachment seems to be the only recourse available to address the inappropriateness of the request. He asked the same about Hillary from Wikileaks – release those emails….So, against or in favor of impeachment, there has to be check and balances between the 3 branches, that’s the Constitution – no one branch is more powerful than other, but complementary. Impeaching and removal from office are not equivalent. He won’t be removed, but he should have in his record that he’s not above the Constitution of the United States of America!

  8. Did anyone stop to consider how this is going to pan out. Let’s say you get an impeachment vote. At best for the Democrats, the Senate does not take this up until election year next year. In fact the majority leader might choose to lengthen this embarrassing display. The Senate will subpoena people Schiff does not want to talk to. And the Senators running for President won’t be able to campaign.

    Looks like Constitutional and political malfeasance.

  9. Instead of accepting the results of the 2016 election, the Democrats and their media allies have been trying for 3 years to “get Trump out of the White House” any which way they can.

    Now, still flailing about, the Democrats and their media propagandists, having failed at each attempt, now find themselves facing their final option for how to “get Trump out.”

    What is their final option?

    An election.

  10. Vindman’s policies differ from those of Trump. That is obvious. He was offered the position of Defense Minister for the Ukrainian government.

    Tucker: “Wait, what? He was offered defense minister three times? Keep in mind that Alexander Vindman was born in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and clearly has strongly held views about Ukrainian Politics, views that may or may not align with U.S. Policy on the subject. Now we learn that the Ukrainian government repeatedly asked vindman to take formal control of the entire Ukrainian military, which, for the record, it is a very strange thing to ask of an active-duty American military officer. And yet somehow, that constellation of facts did not raise a single red flag for our self-appointed watchdogs in the news media. Alexander Vindman is hurting Trump, therefore he is an American hero. That’s what they know, and they don’t want to know any more than that. They are adamantly uninterested, for example, in the identity of the so-called whistle-blower.”

    Tucker’s video also demonstrates that Vindman very likely knows who the whistleblower is as does Schiff (per my comment below). Bunch of liars and individuals whose patriotism is very much in question.

    Video etc. at http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2019/11/20/strange-media-silence-after-vindman-testified-he-was-offered-job-of-ukraine-minister-of-defense-3-times-by-thomas-lifson/



      oh, now i understand. in washington the bureaucrats who dont stand for elections, presume to correct the boss, who did

      normally they would be called insubordinate or perhaps saboteurs or coup plotters or traitors

      on twitter they were calling him a hero.

      usually that’s a matter of perspective. werent we recently having a similar conversation about benedict arnold?

      it may just be time for people to pick sides and let the chips fall

      1. “normally they would be called insubordinate or perhaps saboteurs or coup plotters or traitors”

        Kurtz, why not simplify this and just call them leftists.

        1. because they are not really ideology driven people, they are just taking social cues from the pro-Hillary faction.

          serious left wing governments have chains of command and punishments for saboteurs and coup plotters.

          these people are just subversives, saboteurs, foot draggers, and generally, agents of chaos

        1. No i wasnt but if I was, I wouldn’t go around correcting people on my title like that jerk Vindman did

          Mistah Kurtz is just fine by me

          1. “Mistah Kurtz”

            Oh the timing of this; I just finished last night reading “Heart of Darkness”, namely the line said by the “Manager’s Boy”:

            “Mistah Kurtz–he dead.”

            I mean no offense, but the synchronicity of it all made me laugh.

            1. a laugh is a good mood. keep a good mood, it’s worth it

              martin heidegger talked about a mood of wonderment, “thaumazein” which is Greek θαυμάζειν.

              the synchronicity of it all! it’s all part of our existence, interlinked

              “And blood-black nothingness began to spin
              A system of cells interlinked within
              Cells interlinked within cells interlinked
              Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct
              Against the dark, a tall white fountain played.”

                1. Cindy Bragg aka gorgeous – if I took on my godly form, humans could not look directly on me. Staying as a demigod allows me deal with humans, without killing any. 😉

                    1. Cindy Bragg aka gorgeous – well, getting you coffee in your favorite cup before the sun comes covers a lot of sins. 😉

    2. Wow. the Ukrainians tried to recruit this guy and now he’s right up there spying on Trump for the benefit of Ukraine. that’s incredible. unbelievable. this guy is incredibly biased, not only a native of Ukraine but apparently still has offers of cabinet level positions. wow. where’s the press on this blockbuster?

      oh btw did you see the doucher corrected the civilian Congressman who called him “mr vindman?” what a jerk.

  11. The irony here is enough to make you barf.

    Sondland, who shouldn’t be an ambassador, was looking into Hunter Biden, who shouldn’t have been working for Burisma.

    1. Since you brought it up, let’s talk about it.

      The real quid pro quo gold winner.

      “Clinton Foundation Reports $16.8 Million Loss in 2018 … The foundation’s financial prospects will presumably look much brighter after Hillary inevitably declares her candidacy for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2020.”

      Full story at http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2019/11/19/clinton-foundation-reports-16-8-million-loss-in-2018-andres-stiles/

      1. Sure have them look at Hillary AGAIN, and at the same time maybe they could throw in the trump children, and trump taxes, how did Princess Ivanka get trademark protections? Why does she and her husband have top secret clearances. Why does trump DC have 80% of bookings from the republican party? And why is he trying to sell now? What foreign government paid for trump’s inauguration, and by who? And why is the money still not accounted for? Why did the trump boys say that most of their money comes from the Russians? I could go on and on, but sure look into Hillary again.

        1. FishWings — yeah it’s too bad Hillary and Bill didn’t get to move back into the White House to continue running the scheme she had going on at the State Dept. Imagine what they could have done with Bubba running it out of the White House? Clinton Family Charity is all dried up now. No more influence to sell.

        2. “Sure have them look at Hillary AGAIN”

          It turns out that Hillary wasn’t appropriately ‘looked at’ the first time.

          “trump children, and trump taxes”

          He has been audited many times.

          “Why does trump DC have 80% of bookings from the republican party? ”

          You aren’t even expressing yourself accurately in the above question. Ignorance prevails.

          “Why does she and her husband have top secret clearances.”

          I don’t know the exact type of clearance they have but why shouldn’t they be cleared?

          Lots of questions FishWings but all you have proven is you don’t know much of anything.

  12. An interesting comment I read in an email.

    “But according to Republicans, the hearing wasn’t so one-sided. Vindman admitted to leaking the contents of the president’s July 25thphone call to two individuals, one of whom he named and the other whom he was prevented from naming by Chairman Adam Schiff. Schiff scolded Vindman for potentially naming the whistleblower, which is odd because Vindman had previously testified that he did not know the whistleblower’s identity. “

      1. Vindman dressed in military garb for effect. Rep Stewart pointed out that Vindman dresses in civilian clothes when working at White House. Poser.

    1. He did not admit to leaking, idiot. Schiff did prevent an attempt to divulge names whether it would have been the wb is not clear.

      1. YNOT, it is obvious you are too stupid to get the logic and understand why the statements made by Vindman and Schiff indicated they almost had to know who the whistleblower was. Reread it and if you still don’t understand it along with the published news then accept the fact that your intellect doesn’t meet standards.

        1. Fool, I never said whether they know or not. I said schiiff thwarted speculation about unknown person who may or may not be.

          1. It seems YNOT that you are still unable to understand the logic of the statement. You run around like a chicken without its head with your insults but you never accomplish anything. You are totally uneducated and probably need someone else to fill out your paperwork for your janitorial job as assistant toilet cleaner.

  13. There can’t be bribery or quid pro quo unless the second party KNOWS without a DOUBT that something is based on something else and that the first party clearly states the implications ! … Here’s Joe Biden showing you exactly what bribery- quid pro quo to Ukraine with US foreign aid is … https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html .

    The Democrats are absurd!

  14. Okay Jon, you’re a Constitutional expert and you know what the opening of Article II says. You also know that PRESIDENTS appoint ambassadors to be their personal representatives. You should also know that the State Department has been corrupt for at least a century. Remember that Barrack Obama appointed Caroline Kennedy ambassador to Japan. As for Giuliani, every president going all the way back to George Washington has had their personal envoys to represent them overseas. The problem in Washington is not political appointees, it’s professional bearucrats.

    1. Agreed! From the testimony thus far, it appears these “professionals” consider themselves to be the ultimate authority on U.S. policy. In my view, it’s about time we got some “quid pro quo” for the billions we spend on other countries! Of course, the flaccid DNCes prefer their apology tours.

  15. they are clearly building a compelling case for a highly inappropriate and damaging campaign for a quid pro quo.

    No, you’re pretending because you cannot bear to admit that the media and the political establishment is currently occupying the spectrum which runs from ‘utterly mendacious’ to ‘clinically insane’.

    1. Tabby, Sondland called Trump from a Kiev restaurant and allowed God knows who to hear the conversation. And now Sondland has to walk-back statements he made at the secret hearings. They were secret for a reason! So witnesses like Sondland wouldn’t know what the others were saying. Therefore Turley’s spin on Sondland is reasonably accurate.

    1. Paulie: the main reason FDR appointed Joe Kennedy to be Ambassador to England was to get him out of the U.S., and to stop him from campaigning for President to run against him. Joe Kennedy was a Hitler appeaser, mainly because he feared that if the U.S. got into WWII, his sons would enlist and get killed. He knew they would feel compelled to vindicate their father because he was a coward who avoided military service in WWI by marrying Rose, the daughter of the Mayor of Boston. Rose’s father, known as “Honey Fitz”, was in a position to get Joe, Sr. appointed as CEO to a naval shipyard in Boston. Since shipbuilding was a vital industry, this would exempt Joe from service. He never lived down the scandal, because everyone knew he wasn’t qualified to run a shipyard, and he was publicly called a coward. His favorite son, Joe, Jr., got killed by insisting on flying a dangerous mission in which a pilot would fly a plane close to the German border, bail out, and then have the plane be guided by remote control to a target where onboard bombs would get detonated by radio signal. Problem is, stray radio signals detonated the bombs on board before he could bail out. There was literally nothing left of him to bury. Joe, Jr. flew this mission, even though he was advised against it and even though the military was concerned that the radio system was vulnerable to stray signals partly because JFK received the Navy Cross and other awards for valor. JFK almost got killed when a Japanese destroyer cut PT 109 in two in Blackett Strait. JFK saved those members of his crew that didn’t get killed in the impact. He swam 3 miles, dragging an injured crew member to a nearby island by holding the straps of his life jacket in his teeth while he swam. Joe, Sr. taught his kids to be competitive with each other. Anyway, it wasn’t donations that got Joe, Sr. appointed as Ambassador to England.

      1. Joe Kennedy, nobody tires of slandering him, long as he’s lied in his grave, not even Democrat “activists” like Nuthatch.

        I’d take one Joe Kennedy over ten thousand Nuthatches I can tell you that.

        You havent convinced me of a damned thing about Joe Kennedy. Nothing you say makes sense.

        1. Have you read anything whatsoever about Joe Kennedy, about the relationship between FDR and Joe Kennedy about the competitiveness Joe Kennedy imbued into his children and the damage it did to them? Or, is this just more bitching about me? Joe Kennedy’s cowardice and his Hitler-appeasement rhetoric doomed any chance for him to become POTUS, so he was grooming Joe, Jr. for this job. Ironically, in trying to compensate for his father’s cowardice by taking this risky assignment, Joe, Jr. ended up getting killed.

          1. “have you read anything whatsoever….the competitiveness Joe Kennedy imbued into his children and the damage it did to them”

            we don’t read the same books obviously

            we also dont have the same values

            I come from a school of that that a good father encourages hard work, competitiveness, and success

            in our way of thinking, it’s good for parents to encourage success

            i realize we’re not from the same circles. that’s evident

            you people must adore failure instead of success, eh? that explains a lot actually

            1. I come from a school of that that a good father encourages hard work, competitiveness, and success

              1. Rosemary: turned over to a credentialed quack who ruined her with psychosurgery. Spent the last 66 years of her live in an institution. For over two decades, her siblings didn’t know where her father had stashed her.

              2. Kathleen: married against her mother’s (well considered) wishes. Disowned. Killed in a plane crash at age 28.

              3. Joe Jr: killed in action.

              4. John: may have had a creditable service record, but had no occupation other than electoral politics (bar seven months as a wire service reporter). A salable commodity sold like a commodity. Papa hired Arthur Krock to assemble his mess into a senior thesis at Harvard, then to rework it into a trade book which was put on the best-seller list by bulk buying. His father purchased a congressional district for him in 1946. He missed 1/3 of the roll-call votes while he was in the House. He had a stupefying case of satyriasis. When his wife gave birth to their first child (who was stillborn), he was off on a boating excursion with a mess of women to f*ck. He hired his brother-in-law as a campaign manager in 1960, who dealt with the campaign’s creditors with threats.

              5. Robert: only appealing thing about him was that he had 11 children. Unlike his brother, he learned a profession, but spent nearly the entirety of his time at bar in patronage positions and elected offices. A dear friend of mine, a professional campaign hack, was assigned to work with him during his congressional run in 1964. His first meeting with RFK made quite an impression. There was a reason he was pounding the payment for Eugene McCarthy in 1968. His kids were a mess, by and large, and a mess in direct proportion to the amount of contact they had with him.

              6. Edward: worked as a lawyer for all of five months. Lion of the Senate the rest of his life. One of his opponents (Raymond Shamie) pointed out that he was most associated with was national health insurance. “It never got out of subcommittee, and he was chairman of the subcommittee”. About him, Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment. If you seek his monument contemplate her last hours, contemplate the life of his younger son during the 42 years they shared on this Earth, contemplate what’s left of the mother of his children.

              7. Pat: married Peter Lawford of all people. Not sure any of her children had much of an employment history. One damaged his health badly with his appetite for street drugs.

              8. Jean: ordinary society wife. Managed somehow to wangle an ambassadorship. Son credibly accused of rape.

              9. Eunice: someone who managed to accomplish something (founding the Special Olympics) married to someone who could run a business.

              Heckuva job, Joe.

                1. not me, i have never lived in their sectors, and never would even if I was.
                  but i can still find things about them impressive.

              1. a lot of bad things you can say about them but blaming the father for “encouraging competition” is idiotic

                i was impressed with the grandson ? was it? the one who died in a plane accident
                he failed the bar exam twice and finally passed the third time

                what’s impressive about this?

                its impressive to fail miserably and keep on trying.

                i passed mine the first try. i would have been mortified to fail once. i too was in competition with a bunch of lawyers in my family all who passed first time. yes, that’s a sense of competition. it doesn’t hurt people, per se, usually it just drives them harder. but if I had failed twice no way would i have had the audacity to try a third time. to me, this is impressive, the audacity of it.

                for a kid with a big name to do that, is incredible to me. i could only say, good for him, impressive tenacity.

                they have a checkered history but yes there is something genuinely impressive about those people in my mind. i realize i think in roundabout ways.

                1. The patriarch was a man of accomplishment (and a genuine monster). Of his four sons, one died young and the remainder had careers which were a function of their father’s power-drives (and kept going by the network of family retainers and enforcers, and by corruption and abuse of power in and among the Massachusetts political class (aided and abetted by local and national media). None of the daughters were professional women; they’re properly evaluated according to their philanthropy and the quality of their domestic life. Two died young, one had a mixed legacy, two pass. There were nine of them. Two never married, two married disasters, one was at war with propriety during her brief life, one married someone not equal to the demands of her circumstances, and two married people who were passable in domestic circumstances but not particularly scrupulous. Eunice was the only one who married a person who generated well-being around him (though partisans of Jackie and Stephen Smith might make a case for them).

                2. Did I mention the grandchildren? Three or four have managed to navigate the world of business and professional practice satisfactorily. Joseph Kennedy had 28 grandchildren who survived infancy.

          2. Your offensive comment that demeans Joe Jr for his heroism is despicable

            Let the deceased hero have the victory of courage and sacrifice, and don’t blame it on a daddy issue

            your most contemptible remark ever here!~

Leave a Reply