This vetting process reminds me of the McCarthy hearings. It's purpose is suspect, and not for any

[CK_John]

public good. It is designed to protect against someone making an embarrassing decision in the selection of their staff. It also attracts only ultra risk adverse personalities.

It is a back to the 50's type of conformity that gave us nothing but the gray flannel suits in corporate management. A legion of go along to get along people, no free thinkers. A don't rock the boat professional cadre.

The public record is good enough (arrest, civil filing, etc) and the ballot box.

[cali]

1. yes, yes. Obama is the second coming of Joe McCarthy.

what a profoundly stupid op.

[Ian David]

2. The McCarthy hearings weren't Opt-in.

Anyone who does not wish to be vetted can simply say, "No, thank you. I like my privacy and don't need the job that much. Please lock the door to my sex and bondage dungeon before you leave."

[babylonsister]

3. You nailed it. One and the same. We've been so disillusioned, thanks

for setting us straight.

[MaineDem]

4. It's nothing like the McCarthy hearings. Good lord!

The public good is served if the vetting is done. Pure and simple.

[SurfingAtWork]

5. If you'd like to believe there is a vindictiveness about it, well then thats your right

But like it or not the press will vet everone Obama picks. I'd prefer his administration find out and address any potentially embarassing issues, rather than the press discover them so they can have a big scandal, and take the wind out of Obama's sails.

[Mass]

6. Really? Nobody in the vetting process risks their life or career.

Nobody is going to be ostracized for a job in the country. This administration is trying to get people who are qualified and will not be an embarrassment to the country. This is not what my understanding of McCarthyism is.

[Metric System]

9. I don't agree with the OP's post however many commentators have stated that if you want a future in

Washington, you WON'T be filling out that questionnaire.

[WI_DEM]

7. It's no different than the leaks or vetting of any other administration

that has come to office. Maybe it's because it's Obama that you find it so wrong given your track record.

[DevonRex]

8. I swear to God this place has REALLY gone insane. Now Obama is McCarthy.

Another poster wants loyalty and cronyism to guide appointments rather than competence and qualifications.

I don't know how much longer I can last if this BS keeps up.

[Lucky 13]

10. Yeah, Palin showed us all that vetting is completely unnecessary.

:sarcasm:

It's important for a new administration (and all administrations, govt entities, non-profits, etc) to avoid conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest. There is the POTENTIAL for huge conflicts of interest over Bill's overseas deals and Hillary being SOS. The vetting process is absolutely crucial.

What's more, it's Obama's administration and he can select his appointees based on any criteria he wants. Don't like it? Too f-ing bad.

[CK_John]

13. Ben Franklen would never have been selected either. n/t.

[Lucky 13]

16. First, it's Franklin, not Franklen. Second... why do you say that?

[CK_John]

20. Let's say Ben had quite a reputation in his day. n/t

[cali]

17. ridiculous statement. Ben Franklin was an 18th century man

had he grown up in 20th century America, who knows whether or not he'd have been selected as a cabinet member, or for that matter whether or not he'd have gone into politics.

[Bicoastal]

23. Maybe, but we never would have had Aaron Burr either.

That guy was very nearly our President, ya know--1800 was the Gore/Bush of the powdered wig era.

[CK_John]

24. Hamilton would probably agree. n/t

[Barack_America]

11. Exactly. And why shouldn't our country negotiate favorable treaties...

...with countries Bill does business with?

I mean, look at how well Iraq turned out for Cheney's friends and our country as a whole.

Financial deregulation and secrecy has just been great for our country in general.

[Cosmic Charlie]

12. no vetting, no position

easy as pie.

I'm sure Bill Richardson has no problem at all being vetted.

[CK_John]

15. Another no pee in a bottle, no job argument. n/t

[Cosmic Charlie]

27. I don't know about you, but I would like to know if the person I'm hiring is a Crackhead

[Bicoastal]

28. Or worse, a untrustworthy toe-sucking backstabber, e.g. Dick Morris. nt

[Cosmic Charlie]

31. ewwwww, I feel like I need to shower after thinking about Dick sucking toes

Tanks fer nuttin! ;)

[4themind]

14. Hmm

The ballot box? Can you explain what you mean by that? I do know that these positions are not directly chosen at the ballot box, even though the person who wants to appoint them is (the president). Additionally, the senate has an independent advisory and consent consent role( for cabinet appointments if your critique extends to this group as well) . One could argue that since the senate has the power to "vet" it makes sense to do his own "vetting" to try and predict what any concerns might be. This would not only save himself from personal embarrassment, but it would mean less legislative time devoted to these hearings (& taken away from other things) if his vetting takes care of the questions that the committee may have had. I guess I'd need to know more about what you mean by public record, and why that is sufficient(if that's an accurate representation of your position). A potential judge's views on abortion may not be a part of "public record" does that mean that it should not be a question that should be considered? Again, assuming that your critique extends to cabinet appointments (or future judicial appointments etc.)

[Ichingcarpenter]

18. GDP has gone insane

[DevonRex]

19. What the hell has happened here in the last few days?

Did you read the post about "the most qualified meme?"

Did I take a wrong turn on the internets?

[Lucky 13]

22. PUMA sites are shutting down. nt

[tigereye]

21. ummm

:wtf:


I'm not sure it's quite McCarthy-esque... Remember Clinton's first 60 days? Obama is trying to avoid some of that -

[phleshdef]

25. Right because Obama is targeting political opponents under the guise of vetting...

Oh wait, no, he isn't. He is conducting a responsible job interview for highly sensitive positions that warrant such thoroughness.

I almost thought you were onto something, but luckily the crack high wore off whilst making this post.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[abumbyanyothername]

29. Well the haters aren't much better.

Myself, I am willing to wait and see what the President-elect has to say about this rumored appointment.

And I will be backing him, either way.

[rvablue]

30. I'm a Clinton supporter and I think you and the OP are pathetic

and now I'm an Obama supporter.


and do you have any reason to believe the OP is a "Clinton supporter" and if you do, why do you think it is fair to smear every single DUer who supported Hillary and now are in sheer delight that Obama is President.