Wow, talk about “do as I say, not as I do” .
WASHINGTON — Want a top job in the Obama administration? Only pack rats need apply, preferably those not packing controversy.
A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.
Some of the questions provide particularly good insight into the thinking of the coming Obama administration concerning such things as gun rights, the bailout, privacy rights, and the ability of a job applicant to know everything that’s ever been said about them ever.
Were I a potential applicant, I believe I’d invoke the “Obama Rule” on the application and use exactly the same excuses not to answer his questions that he used not to answer our questions about his past.
I can just see it now.
(18) Please specifically describe any affiliation you, your spouse or any immediate member of your family have, or have had, with any financial, banking, mortgage, of insurance institution that is currently the subject of federal government intervention as part of the ongoing economic crisis. This question includes, but is not limited to, the following: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and Washington Mutual.
A: You know what I think? I think we gotta move forward. You know, this conversation doesn’t help my kids. You know, it doesn’t help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how we’re going to better fund education.
(47) Have you or your spouse ever been accused, formally or informally, of any violation of government or agency procedure (specifically including security violations)?
A: Part of what I hope to do in this position and as your employee is to get us beyond these divisions that distract us from our common challenges and our common opportunities and move the country forward.
(59) Do you or any of your family members own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage?
A: I knew that the closer I got to the change I seek, the more I’d see of the politics we’re trying to end — the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter to people’s lives, the stunts and the tactics that ask us to fear instead of hope.
They could hardly deny me. After all, if it worked for Barack and Michelle Obama, it would work for me, too. Otherwise, they’re just a pair of hypocrites who allow one standard of disclosure to a potential employer for themselves and a far different and more intrusve one for everyone else?
Also, Question 46 is a humdinger. I’d love to see President-Elect Obama answer it himself.
(46) Have any members of your family or close social or business associates been arrested for, charged with, and/or convicted of a crime, other than a minor traffic violation? If so, please identify each such arrest, charge, or conviction. Please provide the same information for anyone under your professional supervision, or any one of your superiors.
Heh, he does have some big brass ones for putting that on the questionnaire, doesn’t he? I think he might just need an extra sheet of paper or two for that one himself. It would be nice, though, to see him, for the first time in his life, make an accounting of all the scummy friends and associates he’s built up over the years. Maybe if he saw all those names marching down the paper, he’d have himself a real come to Jesus moment. That would be change I could believe in.
And doesn’t the second part of that question seem to invite all sorts of privacy invasions? The White House has no right to that sort of information about uninvolved people who just happened to be unfortunate enough to fall under the supervision of a potential Obama minion. Were I someone who was supervised by one of these applicants, and I found out that they had divulged my private criminal history information to the federal government without my permission, there’d be a few different kinds of hell to pay.
But, as we’ve seen with Joe Wurzelbacher and Helen Jones-Kelley, progressives don’t hesitate to violate whatever rules they deem necessary to get what they want. Your privacy is not their concern.
(via memeorandum)
Tags: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Joe Wurzelbacher, Michelle Obama, President Barack Obama, Progressives
“It would be nice, though, to see him, for the first time in his life, make an accounting of all the scummy friends and associates he’s built up over the years.”
I really don’t see how he has failed to do so. And let’s be clear about this, most of his friends aren’t scummy, but some are. So are some of mine. So are everyone’s. None of us ever go through our lives without meeting some unsavory people. Hell, I’ve met Arlen Spector. Talk about a scumbag. Pompous, self righteous, and a poseur who’s willing to give in on any principles he claims to have when party loyalty deserves it. I should have spit on him when I met him, but politeness dictated otherwise. He was a Senator, after all. But let’s face it, I’ve met crime bosses who have more integrity. As you travel in more complex circles, you meet a lot of people outside of what you do. And the ones doing the illegal stuff aren’t much different than the ones who do the legal stuff. It’s legal to hire slave labor, for instance. You just have to do it in another country. Ambramhoff didn’t get convicted for the slave operations he helps run in the Mariana Islands. He only got popped for bribery. The reason? The Mariana Islands have their own rules and slavery has been legislated out of existence. Not truly out of existence, of course. Simply that their laws are such that no amount of slavery could possibly be legally defined as such. The slavery continues. But it doesn’t exist, legally. Good thing DeLay has stayed out of jail so he can run the operation. And despite going through a criminal conviction, Abramhoff has shown us less of his financial records than Obama. But, granted, Ambranhoff’s records are far more complex and involve governments that we are afraid to offend (China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, etc).
But how is this hypocritical? He’s asking people to go through what he has already done. His enemies have already dug up pretty much everything, and Fox news broadcasted even the unsubstantiated portions every hour of every day. It didn’t work. But Fox News won’t give up. They will do the same for every person in the administration. And that’s exactly why Obama wants that information up front. I know you want Obama to slip up and appoint someone with a darker than usual past, but Obama won’t give you that pleasure. They simply want to know everything that Fox News will find out. And they want to know it before Fox News does. That’s smart.
And it’s not hypocritical. Obama’s has been through as much scrutiny (probably more) than any president in history. If that’s not good enough, what would be? And given that you didn’t apply this level of scrutiny to Bush or McCain, would you in the future apply such a level of scrutiny to the next Republican candidate? You didn’t this time. You didn’t even touch McCain’s chummy relationship with Pinochet. Or the anti-American films McCain recorded. With your strong belief that torture produces accurate information, it’s hard to believe that you would think anything McCain said on those recordings were anything less than John’s true beliefs. But you wouldn’t investigate that. Nor would you even think about discussing the absurd number of planes John crashed. Or Keating. Or the marriage mixu that resulted in him being legally a polygamist.
You’re only angry because strict scrutiny and the dragging of $100 bills through trailers parks didn’t result in what you wanted. Sorry. But if you really want a pristine politician, vote for Dennis Kucinich. If you want an effective politician, expect some rough edges. And if you want a terrorist, look at Rahm Emanuel’s father. I guess it really is true that Obama will let terrorist sympathizers into the White House. But who’d have have thought they’d be Jews?
Name one that is not scummy…
You always bring up McCain like our side was in love with him….that’s not how it is over here, pal. That’s YOUR side; fainting in His presence; singing hymns of praise to Him; planning a holiday to celebrate Him; and now, worst of all…selling gold coins and commerative plates with the Chosen One’s picture on it (buy 1 get 1 free!!) during commercial breaks on Fox News.
No, our side is well aware of these issues you keep bringing up. That’s why most of us on this side think McCain is a douche bag….after making a well informed investigation into the facts available of both candidates, we decided McCain was slightly less smelly than The One.
And your attempt to redirect to a bunch of has-beens is weak. It is your guy in there now – so don’t be surprised if we focus on his many short-comings. Not that your side will hear anyway of it over all the singing….
“Obama’s has been through as much scrutiny (probably more) than any president in history. If that’s not good enough, what would be? And given that you didn’t apply this level of scrutiny to Bush or McCain[.]”
That’s rich.
fireweed, you and Cheesestick feel free to have at the fantasies in his comment. There are a lot there, so pace yourselves. I don’t want you to get worn out!
One warning, though. I’m guessing that he’s yanking our chains a bit. There’s no way he can seriously maintain, for example, that Barack Obama was more closely investigated during the election than George Bush. I must have missed that hard-hitting expose on the college drug dealer that Obama wrote about. I know I didn’t miss the dozen articles (at least) on George Bush’s alcohol problems in 2000 or 2004.
No point really…he knows he can’t answer my first questions; which was to name any friend Obama has that’s not scummy. So he won’t come back to this thread. That’s how you win an argument in lefty-land. Make a statement that you can’t back up with facts & then ignore the rest of the discussion.
Cheesestick, I think we all know this too well. I’ve lost count how many lefties have made comments that are followed only by snarky and snide comments when they are asked to back it up. Or else they run away.
Same old story.
[...] jobs” economy is laughable. So how did he end up in the White House? How did he get past the most intrusive vetting questionnaire in the history of vetting questionnaires? Well, it’s pretty clear that the White House thought him perfectly mainstream, which should [...]