What was the federal distribution plan in this posted example?
Those were the weeds I got lost in. Cuomo does seem to be saying, though, that he wants New York to control its own process no matter what plan the White House comes up with.
Weedy perhaps, but not deeply rooted. Making loud noises about running your own distribution plan when, in fact, there is no alternative, is just political framing (and cheap points in the context of a strongly anti-Trump electorate).
mtierney's claim is that the "governors wanted to control the distribution on their turfs to upstage Washington". Absent an actual federal distribution plan, there was nothing to upstage.
I have zero idea what your point is. Can you post what Trump's federal vaccine rollout plan would have been? Who do you think would have been the lead?
Something like EventBrite or airline booking would have been a BIG improvement here in Wisconsin. As it was, the "plan" was to figure out how to sign up with multiple health care providers/pharmacies, the city, the county, the local health dept., and wait to see if you heard back from someone. This assumed you knew about all these outlets and had time and computer availability/skill. The healthcare providers in particular were mostly on a "don't call us, we'll call you" basis -- and in our experience, didn't call.
Fortunately, our local public health folks have managed to have a weekly (online) sign-up opportunity for the past few weeks, AND a phone number for those not up for online. But from my 70+, semi online capable perspective, it has almost seemed as though you had to know somebody to find out how to get access to vaccine. I don't know how the many computer-challenged seniors (and others) living on their own have managed, if they have.
NJ has sounded really good -- and earlier -- in comparison.
Those were the weeds I got lost in. Cuomo does seem to be saying, though, that he wants New York to control its own process no matter what plan the White House comes up with.
"Seems to be saying" as opposed to what he actually said.
Weedy perhaps, but not deeply rooted. Making loud noises about running your own distribution plan when, in fact, there is no alternative, is just political framing (and cheap points in the context of a strongly anti-Trump electorate).
mtierney's claim is that the "governors wanted to control the distribution on their turfs to upstage Washington". Absent an actual federal distribution plan, there was nothing to upstage.
Mtierney rarely does herself favors. Her original comment was that states raised objections about submitting to Washington dictates, and ml1 said he believed that was right. Making loud noises about running your own distribution plan sounds to me — subject to further consideration — like it qualifies, political framing being a given.
None of this takes away from the fact that the White House had no plan regardless. Just part of the historical discussion, is all.
Mtierney rarely does herself favors. Her original comment was that states raised objections about submitting to Washington dictates, and ml1 said he believed that was right. Making loud noises about running your own distribution plan sounds to me — subject to further consideration — like it qualifies, political framing being a given.
None of this takes away from the fact that the White House had no plan regardless. Just part of the historical discussion, is all.
What was the federal distribution plan in this posted example?
Those were the weeds I got lost in. Cuomo does seem to be saying, though, that he wants New York to control its own process no matter what plan the White House comes up with.
From where I stand, there is no argument. I was simply hoping, with a little help, to resolve my uncertainty about some context from the past year that mtierney’s and ml1’s comments raised for me.
Weedy perhaps, but not deeply rooted. Making loud noises about running your own distribution plan when, in fact, there is no alternative, is just political framing (and cheap points in the context of a strongly anti-Trump electorate).
mtierney's claim is that the "governors wanted to control the distribution on their turfs to upstage Washington". Absent an actual federal distribution plan, there was nothing to upstage.
Mtierney rarely does herself favors. Her original comment was that states raised objections about submitting to Washington dictates, and ml1 said he believed that was right. Making loud noises about running your own distribution plan sounds to me — subject to further consideration — like it qualifies, political framing being a given.
None of this takes away from the fact that the White House had no plan regardless. Just part of the historical discussion, is all.
I think that's right on the narrow point, but wrong in the broader one. To me, the relevant part was what you ended with here, "the fact that the White House had no plan regardless".
If someone is focused on evaluating Cuomo's performance, these seem weeds worth getting into. It's one thing for the leader of an extremely Democratic state to rack up free political points by bravely standing up against a non-existent Trump plan. In the light of a governor whose bullying attitude is finding less sympathy than it used to, and who looks to have manipulated important data about the pandemic, this looks different.
Of course, this is all very far from any point mtierney is looking to make -- though that's true of any truly interesting points to be made on this thread. I'll confess that for me this thread is mainly an excuse to indulge in more venting than I do on other threads.
I think that's right on the narrow point, but wrong in the broader one.
The narrow point sounded right to me, too, but I wasn’t able to find examples other than Cuomo, which I botched anyway. Hence, the quixotic effort to satisfy my curiosity on a narrow historical point.
I totally agree that distribution was/still is totally messed up and caused needless extra anxiety to an already scared public. Whether or not the reasons to allow states to manage getting the vaccine out were the cause, it is too early to judge, but it’s appears that is probably the case. I also remember the objections raised to submitting to Washington dictates last year by governors who claimed to know their populations, etc., best.
Objections from last year, regarding business shutdowns, masks, etc. Not vaccine distribution.
I totally agree that distribution was/still is totally messed up and caused needless extra anxiety to an already scared public. Whether or not the reasons to allow states to manage getting the vaccine out were the cause, it is too early to judge, but it’s appears that is probably the case. I also remember the objections raised to submitting to Washington dictates last year by governors who claimed to know their populations, etc., best.
Objections from last year, regarding business shutdowns, masks, etc. Not vaccine distribution.
I totally agree that distribution was/still is totally messed up and caused needless extra anxiety to an already scared public. Whether or not the reasons to allow states to manage getting the vaccine out were the cause, it is too early to judge, but it’s appears that is probably the case. I also remember the objections raised to submitting to Washington dictates last year by governors who claimed to know their populations, etc., best.
my dear friend ml1 and Name That Tune wizard was wrong when he said "I believe that was actually true."
mt's comment had two parts -
1. governor objections
2. submitting to Washington dictates.
The implication being that Trump was being undermined by the governors.
That was fantasy.
There WERE NO Washington dictates to object to. Any objections raised by governors were mostly objections to dealing with the pandemic as per the science - not as per Washington. (and not for nothing, but the objections actually lined up with what Trump personally believed anyway. no masks, no lockdowns, etc.)
I know I'm not saying anything new here, but we seem to be going around in circles.
That regardless of how mtierney, you or I took his comment, he was referring to objections "regarding business shutdowns, masks, etc. Not vaccine distribution."
That regardless of how mtierney, you or I took his comment, he was referring to objections "regarding business shutdowns, masks, etc. Not vaccine distribution."
Spinning is a fine art form here, as is the mtierney must be wrong mantra. Bottom line should be learning what went wrong, how to make sure we fix it, and how, God forbid, we will survive another epidemic, pandemic, etc., without foolish political infighting, should one occur in the future.
Getting my second shot of Moderna tomorrow afternoon. Incidentally, without the help of a woman (a vaccine angel) I have never met, I would still be searching for an appointment. This lady, is only one of a number of “angels” who stepped up to help those unable to help themselves. Word of mouth and the kindness of strangers helped to circumvent distribution plans which were unique in every state, city, county, etc creating chaos.
my dear friend ml1 and Name That Tune wizard was wrong when he said "I believe that was actually true."
mt's comment had two parts -
1. governor objections
2. submitting to Washington dictates.
The implication being that Trump was being undermined by the governors.
That was fantasy.
There WERE NO Washington dictates to object to. Any objections raised by governors were mostly objections to dealing with the pandemic as per the science - not as per Washington. (and not for nothing, but the objections actually lined up with what Trump personally believed anyway. no masks, no lockdowns, etc.)
I know I'm not saying anything new here, but we seem to be going around in circles.
you are correct, there were no federal mandates. It didn't stop GOP governors from complaining about the possibility however.
Bottom line should be learning what went wrong, how to make sure we fix it, and how, God forbid, we will survive another epidemic, pandemic, etc., without foolish political infighting, should one occur in the future.
What, if anything, do you believe the federal government should do differently next time we face a pandemic?
That regardless of how mtierney, you or I took his comment, he was referring to objections "regarding business shutdowns, masks, etc. Not vaccine distribution."
Spinning is a fine art form here, as is the mtierney must be wrong mantra. Bottom line should be learning what went wrong, how to make sure we fix it, and how, God forbid, we will survive another epidemic, pandemic, etc., without foolish political infighting, should one occur in the future.
You've got to be kidding. Obama had set up a Pandemic Office in response to their experience with H1N1 and Ebola, plus wrote a playbook that gave the broad outlines of what to do.
Trump got rid of both of them. Infighting had nothing to do with it.
@mtierney, you wrote your angel helped to circumvent the distribution plans unique in every city - I think you might mean ‘circumnavigate’? ‘Circumvent’ completely changes the meaning of your sentence...
Maybe ml1 was mistaken, too, but if he still recalls that governors raised objections, I’d like to hear him out before calling this a lie.