(07-25-2016 12:50 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 12:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Both parties do it, and have done it for a long time.

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Poli...thing-new.


On average, these numbers show that presidential ambassadorial appointments have come from the career foreign service roughly 67.54 percent of the time and from “political” appointments roughly 32.54 percent of the time. Among presidents who have served a full eight years in office, the average has been 68.05 percent career appointees and 31.95 percent “political” appointees. Not all of these political appointees have been donors or buddies of the president, of course, but many of them have.

The US ambassador to Mexico during much of the Reagan administration, for example, was John Gavin, a former Hollywood actor who was close to Reagan personally. The US ambassador to the Bahamas during a good portion of the Clinton Administration was Sidney Williams, a former professional football player who also happens to be the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters. The ambassador to Belize during George W. Bush’s second term was Robert Dieter, the president’s former roommate at Yale. So, yes, Bell’s appointment to the ambassadorship in Hungary is political, but that’s not unusual given recent history and Obama’s “political” vs. career appointment ratio isn’t all that different from the recent historical norm.

That is your take on this? Really?

Of course it is.........so long as it's his team getting caught in pay to play - that makes it okay.

What a crooked system we have allowed this country to evolve into. It's likely always gone on to some degree, but today.........won't be long before each team watches the crooked ba$tards take envelopes of money on film and then cry "but the other team does it, so it's okay if mine does" rather than demand they go to jail if caught.

(07-25-2016 12:51 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 12:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Not happy about it but not surprised. I've long been opposed to DWS and she's damaged the party. Obama was going to remove her in 2012 but she threatened to allege misogyny and anti Semitism so he thought it just wasn't worth the fight. Thank God she's out.

But didn't Obama stand up and say something about wanting to have her in his foxhole?

I take it that you put no blame of this on Hillary, just DWS.

Of course he wants her in his foxhole. If she's somewhere else, she's liable to shoot him by mistake!

(07-25-2016 12:51 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 12:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Not happy about it but not surprised. I've long been opposed to DWS and she's damaged the party. Obama was going to remove her in 2012 but she threatened to allege misogyny and anti Semitism so he thought it just wasn't worth the fight. Thank God she's out.

But didn't Obama stand up and say something about wanting to have her in his foxhole?

I take it that you put no blame of this on Hillary, just DWS.

Yeah he said that right after he appointed her.

It's not Hillary's job to be neutral. She was doing all she could to win, just as we Bernie supporters were. But DWS, as chair, was supposed to act as a neutral arbiter and party administrator. That was clearly never the case, despite her public statements, and this just confirms the suspicions held by so many of us.

So were you all up in arms when W fired all those Democratic US Attorneys? Cronyism and patronage is old as time. I'm not saying it's right and both parties should probably get together and do something about it.

(07-25-2016 01:29 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So were you all up in arms when W fired all those Democratic US Attorneys? Cronyism and patronage is old as time. I'm not saying it's right and both parties should probably get together and do something about it.

To be clear...I left the Republican party due to "W" and McCain. I have not returned.

(07-25-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Isnt this how its always been?

I was thinking this is how ambassadors are chosen.

Both parties are guilty with people buying spots on the administration. Even some of the so called Tea Party Republicans. They were never an outsider, but an insider who was elected in office before.

Most so-called "Tea Party republicans" have little or nothing to do with the original goals of the TEA Party. Anybody who is a strong social conservative (Ted Cruz) who claims to be a "Tea Party republican" is misusing the brand. The TEA Party was about fiscal conservatism and limited government, with no social conservative platform plank, probably more libertarian than anything. Use of government power to enforce clearly religious standards is anathema to the original TEA Party. I was a member back then, and I knew plenty of members who were black, hispanic, gay, lesbian, druggies, democrats, all sorts of things that the people who now claim to be "Tea Party republicans" despise. The movement got its start, at least in Montgomery County, as opposition to the Bush bank bailout and TARP. But after getting their asses handed to them in 2008, lots of neocons latched onto the name (but not the ideas) because it was the only thing they had going for them. I think the perfect term for those who hijacked the TEA Party brand is Teabaggers.

(07-25-2016 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Most so-called "Tea Party republicans" have little or nothing to do with the original goals of the TEA Party. Anybody who is a strong social conservative (Ted Cruz) who claims to be a "Tea Party republican" is misusing the brand. The TEA Party was about fiscal conservatism and limited government, with no social conservative platform plank, probably more libertarian than anything. Use of government power to enforce clearly religious standards is anathema to the original TEA Party. I was a member back then, and I knew plenty of members who were black, hispanic, gay, lesbian, druggies, democrats, all sorts of things that the people who now claim to be "Tea Party republicans" despise. The movement got its start, at least in Montgomery County, as opposition to the Bush bank bailout and TARP. But after getting their asses handed to them in 2008, lots of neocons latched onto the name (but not the ideas) because it was the only thing they had going for them. I think the perfect term for those who hijacked the TEA Party brand is Teabaggers.

(07-25-2016 12:50 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 12:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Both parties do it, and have done it for a long time.

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Poli...thing-new.


On average, these numbers show that presidential ambassadorial appointments have come from the career foreign service roughly 67.54 percent of the time and from “political” appointments roughly 32.54 percent of the time. Among presidents who have served a full eight years in office, the average has been 68.05 percent career appointees and 31.95 percent “political” appointees. Not all of these political appointees have been donors or buddies of the president, of course, but many of them have.

The US ambassador to Mexico during much of the Reagan administration, for example, was John Gavin, a former Hollywood actor who was close to Reagan personally. The US ambassador to the Bahamas during a good portion of the Clinton Administration was Sidney Williams, a former professional football player who also happens to be the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters. The ambassador to Belize during George W. Bush’s second term was Robert Dieter, the president’s former roommate at Yale. So, yes, Bell’s appointment to the ambassadorship in Hungary is political, but that’s not unusual given recent history and Obama’s “political” vs. career appointment ratio isn’t all that different from the recent historical norm.

That is your take on this? Really?

Yea, that's pretty laughable.

Are some appointments, like getting to go spend a couple years in switzerland on the governments dime patronage positions? Uhhh, yea, sure. Always have been.

Are they negotiated up front- pay for play? You give me/us this amount, make such and such a "donation" and we'll give you the Ambassadorship to xxxxland in exchange? Haha, yea. No.

""I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden," "I'm not just giving it up for (expletive) nothing."

Blagojevich said in a conversation secretly recorded by government agents.

That'll get you poke time! Not the outdoor fun type.

(07-25-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Isnt this how its always been?

Pretty much, but this is the first time I can think of that its been found in writing.

(07-25-2016 05:53 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 11:29 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Isnt this how its always been?

Pretty much, but this is the first time I can think of that its been found in writing.

The things these idiots actually put in writing show not just a total lack of judgment detachment from the real world (which it is) but an utter disdain for the fact that the sheeple would ever find out.

Baaaaa. Found out. Now get out of public service permanently you d-bags.

Judge not less you be judged.

(07-25-2016 12:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Both parties do it, and have done it for a long time.

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Poli...thing-new.


On average, these numbers show that presidential ambassadorial appointments have come from the career foreign service roughly 67.54 percent of the time and from “political” appointments roughly 32.54 percent of the time. Among presidents who have served a full eight years in office, the average has been 68.05 percent career appointees and 31.95 percent “political” appointees. Not all of these political appointees have been donors or buddies of the president, of course, but many of them have.

The US ambassador to Mexico during much of the Reagan administration, for example, was John Gavin, a former Hollywood actor who was close to Reagan personally. The US ambassador to the Bahamas during a good portion of the Clinton Administration was Sidney Williams, a former professional football player who also happens to be the husband of Rep. Maxine Waters. The ambassador to Belize during George W. Bush’s second term was Robert Dieter, the president’s former roommate at Yale. So, yes, Bell’s appointment to the ambassadorship in Hungary is political, but that’s not unusual given recent history and Obama’s “political” vs. career appointment ratio isn’t all that different from the recent historical norm.

I didn't even finish reading the thread before feeling the need to set the record straight on this. Ambassadorships are given out by the president, who has the ability, set forth in the constitution to do so. They are also subject to congressional oversight. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

(07-25-2016 07:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Judge not less you be judged.

Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler.

(07-25-2016 12:50 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It's wrong and distasteful, but Fo Shizzle seemed to suggest it just went on with Dems so I corrected the record.

I was being snarky at Fit. I don't doubt for a second the GOP is equally as sleazy behind the scenes.