Attorney General Gonzales resigns

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Rudey

You don't randomly hire a headhunter to do a global search like you would for an executive in the business world.

Actually, it's appeared to me often in the past that the political parties have acted as huge headhunters. They have vetted candidates and come up with people they felt (hoped?) were the very best for the country and who could pass scrutiny in the Senate from both parties.

Again, it's an opinion, but it seems to me that our current President is more interested in rewarding people who were in his administration or his cronies when he was Governor of Texas.

[AKA_Monet]

Wonder what Bill Maher has to say about all this? Hmmmmm???

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Wonder what Bill Maher has to say about all this? Hmmmmm???

probably something funny


his old show was better

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

"Republicans and Democrats alike had demanded his resignation over the botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firings of U.S. attorneys, but President Bush had defiantly stood by his Texas friend until accepting his resignation Friday."

With all due respect, Mr. President, I have nothing against Texans, but there are other very well qualified people here in the United States (oops, I mean the rest of the United States -- I just couldn't help myself) with which to fill government posts.

I see in the first post that speculation is that Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security will replace Gonzales and that Clay Johnson will replace Chertoff.

"Johnson, a longtime friend of Bush, served as the president's chief of staff and appointments secretary when Bush was governor of Texas and was executive director of the Bush-Cheney transition team."

Is it really necessary to be a long time friend of the President to be competent, or is what we are seeing a President taking care of his political pals?

Agree or disagree, it's a legitimate question in my opinion.

Not all of Bush's friends have been from Texas. Michael Brown, the former FEMA Director was from Oklahoma. (But I think he was a friend of a friend.)That appointment also worked out really well. Hmm...wait, no it didn't.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by bluefish81

But I think he was a friend of a friend

Hey, "Brownie" did a great job. Want to buy some ice?

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Actually, it's appeared to me often in the past that the political parties have acted as huge headhunters. They have vetted candidates and come up with people they felt (hoped?) were the very best for the country and who could pass scrutiny in the Senate from both parties.

Again, it's an opinion, but it seems to me that our current President is more interested in rewarding people who were in his administration or his cronies when he was Governor of Texas.

I'd love to see how many candidates are offered positions in a cabinet based on party nominations as opposed to nominations by the President. Everything I've seen has been otherwise. The Pres picks who he likes best that won't get rejected. My favorite reward is the "Ambassador to France".

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Rudey

I'd love to see how many candidates are offered positions in a cabinet based on party nominations as opposed to nominations by the President. Everything I've seen has been otherwise. The Pres picks who he likes best that won't get rejected. My favorite reward is the "Ambassador to France".

You misunderstand (don't you?)

I'm talking about the President and his party advisors checking on a number of top candidates through outsources with some expertise in a given field. For instance the AMA for Surgeon General or the ABA for Attorney General. Obviously, it isn't the place the party to nominate, but rather to advise. My feeling is that President Bush either isn't soliciting that kind of advice, or isn't listening.

He just apparantely has a lot of friends.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

You misunderstand (don't you?)

I'm talking about the President and his party advisors checking on a number of top candidates through outsources with some expertise in a given field. For instance the AMA for Surgeon General or the ABA for Attorney General. Obviously, it isn't the place the party to nominate, but rather to advise. My feeling is that President Bush either isn't soliciting that kind of advice, or isn't listening.

He just apparantely has a lot of friends.

With notable exception of FEMA/Brown, I would say that most of Bush's nominations are wholly defensible on the grounds of "some expertise in a given field" - honestly I think all of you are railing against a political institution, and not anything that is related to Bush.