The genesis of that crisis is that we have lost perspective on what the criteria for selecting and approving government officials ought to be. Financial trivia, minutiae from people's personal lives and political litmus tests have grown in importance while character, experience, intelligence, creativity and wisdom have fallen by the wayside. Ridiculous threshold obstacles stand alongside obscene ones and when taken with the relentless personal attacks associated with high level jobs in Washington -- the low pay, and the extreme difficulty of getting anything done -- we are seeing even those selected for senior jobs turn away in droves. We are at a moment of not one but an extraordinary array of great crises and challenges for America and we are effectively keeping the people we need most out of the positions we most need filled.
That's in the defense/foreign policy area, which is comparatively well-advanced in finding staff compared to Treasury. At least in those areas, a powerful government position is the apotheosis of the field, which means that people are often willing to put up with the hassles. In areas where there are more lucrative options with near-equal prestige--i.e., nearly all the rest of them--it's getting harder and harder.
This new tradition of bulldogging every appointee in the hope of embarrassing the president has to stop. We should be focusing on whether or not the nominee can do the job, not whether there is some small breach of an onerous regulation in his history that can possibly be dug up. It feels good in the short term, but when ability to find a native-born nanny becomes a more important qualification for the presidential candidate than experience relevant to the job to be done, it's time for a national rethink.
Thank God you're not at all involved in anything remotely related to national security.
Well, yeah, if his nanny thought the PRC was too soft on dissenters and that the Jews were out to get her, no reasonable person would hold it against him.
Time to call it what it is: unpatriotic.
Megan, considering the "bulldogging" Bush got for 8 years, and the arrogance and lies from Obama thus far, you think vetting his choices for important government positions is bulldogging?
Perhaps if NotMyPresident weren't a left wing socialist hack with hack associates, he wouldn't be getting bulldogged. Oh well....
What goes around, comes around.
You repeatedly say that it is necessary to do a rethink with regard to punishing nominees for foreign nannies, etc. However, aren't some of these "minor" violations just threshold issues that every potential nominee should be able to clear? Average Americans have to deal with these onerous regulations every day. Are these potential nominees so supremely qualified that we couldn't possibly find a law abiding alternative candidate? Also, if the connected are basically exempt from these laws, how can we ever hope that the numerous stupid and onerous regulations on the books ever get eliminated?
Isn't it fair to expect that those trusted to enforce the law should obey it?
If the laws are so complicated that our gifted and highly educated leaders cannot be expected to obey them, perhaps be need to simplify the law and recue its scope.
Oy, that should have read
Isn't it fair to expect that those trusted to enforce the law should obey it?
If the laws are so complicated that our gifted and highly educated leaders cannot be expected to obey them, perhaps we need to simplify the law and reduce its scope.
So far as I know, the "small breach of an onerous regulation" in Freeman's history was that he supported the Chinese Communist regime's crackdown on the Tiennamen Square protesters and he had,through long-standing financial ties, basically become another mouthpiece for the House of Saud in Washington.
All of which is not to mention his fairly extreme antipathy to Israel, evidence of which can be found in the Walt-and-Mearsheimer-esque diatribe he directed towards the "Israel Lobby" in his withdrawal statement.
If you feel that rather extreme sympathy for the Chinese Communist's fight agaist Democracy along with being totally compromised by the Saudi's is not disqualifying for the role of determining what intelligence the President should see, then I just don't know what you might think the qualifications should be.
On the Treasury side, I know you advocate ignoring people's disregard of the law if they seem otherwise qualified, but I just have to wonder how close we are getting to undermining the very foundations of a civilized society when we decree that following the laws they are tasked with enforcing and creating is not necessary for our elite government functionairies while at the same time we revamp our tax code to get to the point where 50% of the folk pay no taxes and thus feel free to vote for whatever spending strikes their fancy.
It seems that you are, at that point, getting to a place where the majority of voters have no strong tie to making sure government regulation (tax, at the very least) is sensible b/c it does not apply to them and, at the other end of the scale, neither do the politicians and bureaucrats who devise the law as it doesn't apply to them either.
How long do you suppose such a system would last before the minority who actually follow the law and pay all the taxes decide to start defending their own self-interest by undermining the system? And since they would be the only folk still supporting the system, what would you have left if they did?
I think a far better question is that if the pool of otherwise qualified candidates for positions at Treasury has problems complying with IRS rules, why shouldn't we simplify those rules?
As Blighter points out above, Freeman's policy views are the issue, not "small breaches of onerous regulations". The fact that Chas Freeman blames the US for 9/11 should be enough to render him unfit for office. He would have been a fine Saudi Ambassador to the US, though.
I am far more disturbed by the prospect that a large fraction of the nation's political class views systematic and deliberate violations of immigration and tax laws as "trivialities" than I am by the Obama administration's difficulty filling its political appointee positions.
This reminds me of the Democratic arguments that we should have ignored Bill Clinton's behavior, because it was "only about sex."
No! It is about character, trust, and self discipline. If the president publicly and repeatedly lies to the public, his closest advisors, and even his wife, why should we trust anything else that he says?
Similarly, if cabinet nominees have shown themselves to be dishonest, untrustworthy, and perhaps not even capable of following the laws that ordinary citizens have to comply with every day, then why should we assume that this behavior will not carry over into their performance?
People applying for political jobs should be required to pay their taxes, obey labor laws when they hire people, and keep their personal finances clean. An infraction in the distant past shouldn't be a barrier if the person has reformed, owned up to it, paid any penalties, and avoided repeating the offense. Same applies to use of illegal drugs or alcohol problems in the distant past.
But anyone who has an ongoing problem in any of these areas, who hasn't owned up to past problems, or who kept the past problem going long after a sensible person would have fixed it, should be barred from office.
Heck, people like that shouldn't be able to get security clearances for a GS-11 job.
Or are we saying that people at the top reaches of American society shouldn't be held to the same standard as the entry-level hires in the organizations they run?
Megan,
You are right. For the good of the country, the Senate should only reject presidential appointees for serious character shortcomings or significant doubts about the candidates ability to get the job done.
However, Chas Freeman's withdrawal is not a good example for making this case. There were serious ethical concerns about Freeman's work for a Saudi financed think tank and with his membership on a board of a Chinese corporation. Freeman may have been chosen for these positions because he favored positions favored by the Saudis and the Chinese or he may have tailored his opinions to favor his employer (the essence of the ethical concern), but there can be no doubt Freeman's expressed views on matters concerning the Chinese treatment of dissent are extreme. (Freeman believes China is too soft on political dissent.) While Freeman's expressed views on the Middle East may not be outside the mainstream, they are at best on the fringe and are a dramatic departure from the positions of any prior Democrat or Republican administration since the 1950s. So, in Freeman, there might have been the types of issues that would properly merit a very hard look by the Senate prior to confirmation.
Lastly, while I agree that the Senate should grant the President a lot of deference in confirming appointees, I have no faith that will happen. This has been a growing battle since at least the Bork nomination in the Reagan administration. The Democrats greatly escalated the battle in the Bush administration -- using for the first time threats of filibuster to kill Bush's judicial nominations for ideological reasons. After regaining the Senate in 2006, the Democrats didn't even have the courtesy to pretend they were rejecting candidates for anything but ideology. Don't expect the Republicans to turn the other cheek. Their base won't let them.
I also find it interesting that Chas Freeman's positive enthusiasm (not just excusing) of Douglas McArthur's firing upon the Bonus Army was accepted by so many on the Left as well.
Remember, he said:
A sometimes forgotten but accepted fact is that President Hoover ordered the Army assault stopped, however, Gen. MacArthur—feeling this free-speech exercise was a Communist attempt at overthrowing the U.S. Government—ignored the President and ordered a new attack.
Yet Chas Freeman sides "with Douglas McArthur" on this. I don't think someone who sides with a general who fired upon peaceful protestors with the American military deserves to be in that position.
Nanny problems have not derailed any Obama nominees. This is straw argument. And there has been no organized attempt to bulldog Obama's nominees that I'm aware of. If there was it was a miserable failure - the New York Times first mentioned the Freeman nomination when they reported his withdrawl. They had reported NONE of the criticisms of him.
The general tone here is "Obama's done a poor job of nominating people - and it's our fault, for expecting too much of him and of them".
Maybe Obama's just not that into governing, as opposed to campaigning.
He believes, furthermore that the general was right to fire upon US civilians, overriding the order of the President. And that's not policy?
Oh well.
And yes, anyone who has worked in a job requiring a security clearance, whether government or contractor, (or heck, anyone who has paid his taxes), has a right to be annoyed at people in high places getting away with things that the ordinary people couldn't.
Classic blogger post...high minded post about how wouldn't it be great if X intractable problem was fixed.
Yes, Virginia it would, and it would be nice if Republicans didn't want the economy to tank in order to improve their individual electoral prospects, but they do.
Not to be too snarky, because I totally agree with you. But it belies your apparent naivite regarding Republicans that you think this is in doubt enough to warrant a discursive posting.
After Pearl Harbour, government jobs were filled on the single criterion of ability to do the job. There was on shortage of applicants at salaries which were often a dollar a year. Some of those appointed had substantial scandals in their records. More directly to the point, it was said then that FDR had filled jobs at the beginning of his Administration in the same way. Matbe the Obama tean need to make getting the job done their explicit priority.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
If the administration believes that whatever offense is a "legal triviality" then it should make a damn good show of getting rid of whatever legality is bothering them. I agree that the tax code is complicated and its easy to make a mistake, and that it isn't really important where ones nanny happens to be born. What I don't agree is that most people have to follow those silly rules, while the elite do not.
maguro:
And you don't think it is awfully weird that the guy leading the charge against Freeman is now on trial for espionage?
Joe Klein's conscience-- another supporter of the US military firing upon US protestors on the National Mall.
Megan,
Of the recently rejected or withdrawn nominees, whar are some instances of misconduct or tax evasion should the confirmation process overlook?
For example, should we overlook Daschels' tax fraud? How about Geithner's? I'd love to see a look at what the disqualifying difference should be.
This new tradition of bulldogging every appointee in the hope of embarrassing the president has to stop.
Or else what, exactly?
I love the purity and graciousness exhibited here. I'm sure that for those of you who have jobs, I could make the case for "character, trust, and self discipline" as being essential to your success.
I'm also sure that for each and every person posting here, I could make find (given the time and resources) something in your recent past that I could twist, spin, and manipulate into a perfectly plausible case that you're unfit for government service.
And with enough PAC money, I could orchestrate a beautiful whispering campaign to slice and dice, then publicize one of your prior statements into some view that constitutes an "unpardonable" sin in polite company.
All that's true, but none of it means you're not doing a good job at work.
The point isn't to remove all standards for public service. The point is to get rid of the "gotcha" mentality that elminates half the talent pool for public service, and frightens off another 40%. When you don't distinguish between the trivial and the substantive, between targets of opportunity and real problems, you're left with the second-rate, the line-toers, the milquetoast, and those who've successfully closeted their skeletons.
AIPAC has scalps on its wall, but we don't have a better government.
Megan, the more successful, and closer to inside, powerful people you get, the more you apologize for them.
A few years ago you might have said that if we can't find qualified people who have a clean record and are willing to serve, then that's a clear signal that government is corrupt, attracts and engenders further corruption, and furthermore, constitutes a reason for favoring smaller government.
Sadly, you have all missed the iceberg here. Mr. Freeman wasn't sunk because of these things, he was sunk because he speaks regularly and forcefully against current U.S. policy regarding Israel. Gleen Greenwald has the latest on his blog. All the things mentioned above were part of an organized campaign to discredit Mr. Freeman, without directly attacking him on this key issue. That it succeeded, and is intellecually dishonest at best, speaks volumes about the sad state of American foreign policy.
The Dems claim that the Bushes are in the pocket of the Saudis (with some justification) - yet they want a guy who is literally on the Saudi payroll to be helming the intelligence committee? This is not about transgressions in Freeman's past - this is about what he believes, what he is and what he will do. He is the Dem equivalent of a Bircher, or worse - hell, I think the Dems are a bunch of idiots on foreign policy, but I'm not even sure it is fair to characterize Freeman as a Dem at all - he's more like a Pulnut with Yellow Fever.
DB, is it trivial to have a Treasury Secretary claiming that his ability to grasp the U.S. tax code falls short of what strippers and truck drivers are able to handle? A Treasury Secretary who then appears in front of the Senate to bloviate about the importance of tax code compliance and enforcement?
Regarding Freeman, this something he said in September 2003.....
"I should also say I've been very impressed by the extent to which Saudi Arabia, in the wake of 9/11, has engaged in introspection and taken on some tough problems that it had avoided addressing for many decades. [...]
I'm sorry to say that I do not see the same level of introspection and consideration by Americans of what it is we might do to reduce friction with countries and peoples in the Middle East. [...] Actually, I think we could learn a lot from the Saudis in terms of facing up to the need to take a good hard look at ourselves and our behavior."
This is akin to Fort or Carter nominating a guy to be Secretary of Agriculture after the guy stated that the U.S. had a lot to learn from the Soviets with regard to farm production. I can't peer into the hearts of people who opposed Freeman and know their true motives, but I do know that Freeman is either a dunce or a dishonest hack. Good riddance.
So, Philip H., what you're saying is that it's okay to be on the Saudi payroll, support the crushing at Tiananmen Square, and support the US Army firing on the Bonus Army veterans, so long as Jews oppose you?
Would you have opposed Mr. Freeman on the basis of those other things if only AIPAC and the Jews hadn't been involved?
Sure, I'm upset that enough other people don't seriously care about that horrific statement about the Bonus Army, about being on Saudi payroll, or about Tiananmen Square. That doesn't make me support Mr. Freeman just because I think not enough people are opposing him for the right reasons.
In any case, your theory may be wrong anyway. Newsweek's sources claim that Speaker Pelosi's opposition came about because of Tiananmen Square. Of course, the Speaker and Newsweek could just be lying too...
@David Walser: [T]here can be no doubt Freeman's expressed views on matters concerning the Chinese treatment of dissent are extreme. (Freeman believes China is too soft on political dissent.)
What Freeman actually said is that the Chinese should not have allowed things to escalate in Tiananmen Square to the point that they lost control of the capital. This view is actually pretty common among China watchers: Henry Kissinger was widely criticized for expressing a similar view just after the Tiananmen Square crackdown. I tend to agree that that view is too sympathetic to the Chinese Communists, but you don't hear Freeman's critics urging that Kissinger is beyond the bounds of polite society.
@Holdfast: The Dems claim that the Bushes are in the pocket of the Saudis (with some justification) - yet they want a guy who is literally on the Saudi payroll to be helming the intelligence committee?
I do not think you understand the meaning of the word "literally." (Freeman is the chair of a think tank that has received funding from the Saudis.) In any event, there is no serious argument that Freeman's views have been bought. His views on Middle Eastern politics may be right or wrong, and should be debated on that basis, rather than dismissed on the basis of some spurious conflict of interest.
My pathology teacher used to give us questions of the style, 'The gall bladder is friable and bile acid is water soluble' to which the answers would include 'True, true and related' and 'True, true and unrelated.' I suppose the idea is/was that operationally the stringing of 'true' statements together does not mean that they are conditional or related. Hopefully this contention is 'true' and related to your post which is false overall in its truth value.
DB Cooper said: "I love the purity and graciousness exhibited here. I'm sure that for those of you who have jobs, I could make the case for "character, trust, and self discipline" as being essential to your success.
I'm also sure that for each and every person posting here, I could make find (given the time and resources) something in your recent past that I could twist, spin, and manipulate into a perfectly plausible case that you're unfit for government service."
You're missing the point. Character, trust and self discipline are important characteristics for someone in a position of national leadership, more important than for some other careers. The citizenry needs to know that it can trust the public servant charged with making very important decisions to make those decisions honestly and competently, and not to lie about their motivations.
I worked for 32 years in R&D. If I had been caught lying publicly about an extramarital affair, my friends would have scorned me, but it would not have affected my job position at all, because my personal morality would not have impacted my job performance. But, if I was caught falsifying data, I would have been fired immediately, because it was crucial that my data be trustworthy. And, people were fired occasionally for exactly that reason.
And by the way, you are wrong about finding something in my past that would disqualify me for public service. That was a very bad assumption on your part. Believe it or not, there are actually a large number of people in this country who obey the laws to the best of their ability, and pay their taxes on time.
Phillip H. when a man says titanically stupid things, as Freeman has, it is he, and not his critics, who have discredited him. That a man who makes a practice of saying titanically stupid things could even be considered for such a post says volumes about the sad state of American foregign policy. Must we be ruled by morons?
I care not about nannies or youthful drug use or, generally, anything that happened a while ago, was apologized for and dealt with a while ago, and is no longer an issue.
But too many of these people can't even rise to that bar - Geithner didn't bother to deal with his tax problem until it was an obstacle to power.
@Will Allen:
Must we be ruled by morons?
You know the saying: Everyone gets the government they deserve...
Col Sanders
Uncle Bill, I am still quite confident that I could cobble together a disqualifying case against you, regardless of the fact that you obey the laws to the best of their ability, and pay their taxes on time. I suspect Tim Geithner would've said the same thing - and meant it.
The point is: This stuff is so selective, bias-driven, and arbitrary that we don't know which sins are truly disqualifying and which aren't. We sweep them all up in one big "gotcha" net.
Will Allen: I could not disagree more. We NEED people who say things that are, by your definition, "titanically stupid." We assume that, from time to time, he says some titanically brilliant things, too. If you silence such issues, you get the kind of unquestioning intelligence groupthink that led to the Iraq War.
when a man says titanically stupid things, as Freeman has, it is he, and not his critics, who have discredited him.
I trust that no one here has ever said anything stupid.
Have you ever wondered why no one in public life risks saying anything meaningful any more?
According to wikipedia:
Speculation began in the early 19th century that Thomas Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his quadroon slave Sally Hemings, half-sister to his late wife, and had six children with her.
Clearly if the allegation is true Jefferson should never have been entrusted with public office...
Summary of many comments so far: Megan's point about nanny problems is a reasonable one. Using "Chas Freeman" as the lead of the article was a mistake.
Are people really suggesting that Mrs Clinton should not have been appointed unless she owned up to, and apologised for, her Cattle Futures scam? I mean, this is a woman who heroically survived enemy fire in the Balkans.
Meghan, DC is changing you for the worse.
Freeman's problems were not parking tickets or failure to pay his nanny's FICA, although I do think that not paying an employee's FICA is actually defrauding both the employee and the government, hardly a trivial matter. He was hired for a job having to do with national security. His stated views, not mis-statements and not taken out of context, are not in synch with mainstream views on foreign policy. It is fair for people to take issue with his views, just as he is free to hold those views. Freeman was not denied the position, he withdrew because he could not take the criticism that is due to anyone who has an important White House position.
The Treasury nominess, as far as I know, did have tax problems. Look it up. Treasury's job is to collect taxes and enforce the tax laws. The Vice President said that paying taxes is patriotic. Little people beyond the Washington Beltway comply with the laws in part because they are patriotic and in part because they fear agents of the US Treasury.
I like you. You really should move back to NYC or some other place where people have real jobs.
All,
i'm not saying anything that other Atlantic Authors aren't saying. Railroading a guy out of public service because you don't like what he says is ok by me - so long as you are HONEST about it. Hiding behind supposed tax issues (unproven), or speeches (misquoted) on one subject when you really object for other reasons is LYING. That's where my problem exists.
DB, contrarianism at the risk of being wrong is fine, and indeed needed. Defending Freeman's appointment for this post is akin to stating that a creationist, who had asserted that the Earth is 6000 years old, is who is needed for the position of Science Advisor to the President.
What really galls is that some describe Freeman as being a proponent of Realism. What sort of perversion of language is that? Hell, if the numbskullery that Freeman often produces, like what I quoted above, is an example of Realism, I say we get Secretary Clinton some high grade peyote, stat!
Philip H., where did you purhcase your finely calibrated motive-o-meter, which allows you to peer into the souls of people who you don't know, and thus unerringly discern the real reasons all the critics of Freeman have for opposing his appointment to this job?
Does everyone say stupid things at some times in their life? Sure. We aren't talking about some off the cuff remarks at a cocktail party here, however. We are talking about scheduled interviews, in which there was plenty of time to antcipate the questions that would be asked, and then WERE asked. To anaswer in a manner which suggests you have had a psychotic episode does not engender confidence.
Methinks the obamafiles are out trying to plug holes in the leaky boat that is the presidency of NotMyPresident.
Take it up with Newsweek and Speaker Pelosi, then, as they insist that her (very important) opposition was about China. They're liars, too?
But if that's where your problem exists, fine. Just answer one way or the other, Philip H. Aside from all the "opponents were motivated by the wrong reason" crap, and your allegations that they wouldn't care if someone on their team made his other statements, do you think his statements on Tiananmen and the Bonus Army were disqualifying? Do you at least disagree with them?
Aren't a lot of you missing Philip H.'s point? Do you really think he means to be taken at face value? He's written some pretty good satire there, and the uncertainty as to whether it really is satire only makes it better.
Freeman was a hideous, unbelievably inapporpriate choice. He is not a good case for argument as others have pointed out.
Geithner is not a guy who screwed up on his taxes, he is an out and out crook. He *knew* he owed, he was *provided with cash* to pay his taxes, but he didn't pay, he just pocketed it. It's very easy to deal with complicated tax issues, you just have a CPA do it. It's not cheap but you will be in compliance, and if you're not in compliance, you can plausibly blame someone else.
If you want to hire a domestic and don't want to be troubled with the tax and insurance payments, just go to an employment agency. This may well cost you 50% more than just paying the employee cash, but just paying them cash is *illegal*.
The views of many people in politics are definitely not in synch with the mainstream views on many subjects. Are you saying they should somehow be disqualified from holding office? Or, failing that, should they be carefully shunted aside into positions where they have no authority to act on those peculiar views?
And how do you decide which opinions outside the mainstream are unimportant, and which inside the mainstream are?
I give people with power no, absolutely no, utterly unconditionally no leeway in anything. They will perform the best with a lynch mob behind them jeering.
These are the commanders behind people with guns, either literally or figuratively. If they are careless about paperwork, may your house be the one torn down, or blown up or raided by mistake. Oops, wrong paper, wrong address. Or maybe your bank account frozen or emptied. Sorry. Or your means of making a living destroyed by shortsighted application of rules. Oh, we apologize.
Didn't you write about your experience with some powerful bureaucracy that made your life miserable and difficult over some stupid mistake?
Derek
What Jim said re: domestics. If you can't afford to hire a maid or nanny while complying with labor laws, you can't afford a maid or nanny.
Most of us can't. And here's the thing -- we don't have them. We don't evade the rules to get them on the cheap. There's no right to have domestics, any more than there's a right to any other consumer item.
Apparently there are some people in this society who think they are exempt from this rule. If they end up running large organizations, I wonder what they will tell their Human Resources departments to do.
When those "peculiar views" include "the US Army should be deployed, using bayonets and tear gas (okay, adamsite, more of a 'vomit gas') to despatch protesters from the National Mall, even if we have to kill three including a baby, even contrary to the President's order to stop," then, yes, he should be kept away from any position where he might have authority to act on those peculiar views.
Do people even study the Bonus Army these days? Do you not realize the horror of his "standing with Douglas MacArthur" against them?
Jim wrote:
Hear! Hear! Hiring a CPA is a very good idea. (I'm in the book.) Jim's right. I'm not cheap. But, if you'll pay my hourly rate, I'll let you blame me all you want. I even allow you to rant about your taxes being too high without retorting that you voted for Obama. I'm really decent that way (for paying clients).I admit I can't help hearing "peculiar views" without thinking of that "peculiar institution." Would someone who held those views be acceptable to you?
Caesar's Wife ? well, yes and no:
1) Except for those people who are into denying
the validity of any fact which contradicts
their position, this particular individual
ia clearly disqualified by his own words.
2) There is a relevant scene in Macbeth, about
criteria for choosing a leader in a time of
crisis.
Come to think, there is a whole play, Hamlet,
about the refusal to lead in time of crisis.
3) The Gracchi brothers were Romans, too;
they tried to avert the fall of the Empire,
and were murdered by the very mobs they were
trying to rescue.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Read what I responded to, and read my reply.
Carefully, since you seem to be somewhat confused as to what I was saying.
OK, how about bulldogging the liars, the cheats, and the suckups to thug dictatorships?
Or, even better, have Mr. Obama appoint people with integrity as well as talent. Or is that too much to ask?
I'll add to the consensus for getting rid of these "onerous regulations" that seem to be tripping up so many nominees. If they can't be bothered to follow the rules, why the ()&*()*^ should the rest of us be required to do so?
Democrats can dish it out but they can't take it. First of all, with regard to Chas Freeman, there were some very real and serious conflicts of interest in regard to his past employment with the Saudis and he has pretty extreme positions on issues pertaining to Israel.
If Mr. Rothkopf is thinking about other appointments, Geithner got confirmed to run the agency that collects our taxes and has the authority to punish tax payers for tax evasion. That being the case, Geithner's offense was defintely non-trivial. Eric Holder had participated in the fraudulent Marc Rich Pardon, lied on his written responses about his lobbying work for Rod Blagojevich, etc. and he was confirmed as well. Tom Daschle failed to declare $128,000 of income and had been an unregistered lobbyist for medical firms despite Obama's campaign promise not to staff his administration with lobbyists.
I wonder if anyone remembers a certain confirmation hearing where the Republican nominee was deprived of an up or down vote because several years before he had allegedly been mean to a colleague (who was a strident liberal and who opposed his nomination) several years before. John Bolton's offenses were, indeed trivial. How about another Republican nominee who's privacy was invaded when his video tape rental records were scrutinized and where he was forced to defend against factually unsubstantiated allegations that he had said the words "pubic hair" in front of a co-worker and allegedly asked her out on a date (neither of which would withstand a motion for summary judgment)? Clarence Thomas's offenses were trivial although we all know that they were pre-text for the fact that he was a black man who had strayed off of the liberal plantation. That same offense was the basis for Miguel Estrada being denied an up or down vote after being grilled by the Democrat controlled judiciary committee in 2002. Democrat committee staffers wrote their infamous memo asserting the main reson for Democrat oppostion to Estrada was that he was hispanic.
Just as a matter of karma, Democrats should be forced to deal with this crap for eternity. As for the country, Geithner hasn't turned out very well so I am not too worried that we lost the services of people like Freeman or Zoe Baird.
I should have said that Daschle failed to pay $128,000 in taxes. The income that he failed to declare and on which that tax was due was much higher.
As a libertarian, how is stopping ALL nominees not an unalloyed good? A paralyzed government is a good government (see all the theory supporting divided partisan control of congress).
Beyond that though, everyone in government should fully abide by the law, with some distant in time waiver depending on severity (nanny problems, tax, or credit 15+ years ago... meh, killing a young women in your car means banning for life from all branches, Sen. Kennedy). The military's zero-defect mentality should apply across ALL government employees, whether or not it's directly related to their job. They are representatives of the state and should abide by EVERY rule. If it is impossible to do so, then that's a lesson for the rulemakers.
A number of people have argued that everyone is guilty of multiple misdemeanors and felonies thanks to the complexity of federal law and regulation. That speaks to the diseased state of our government - overweening and intrusive. Cut it back so that nominees can actually have fully complied with the law and we'd have a better country.
As it stands, opposing every nominee that hasn't complied with the law is a duty of every citizen as the only means of regaining control of the country. I fully support reverse onus investigations of every legislator and bureaucrat as a means of furthering this goal - if they have to prove that they're innocent, they'll be more careful and produce a lucid set of laws that you can comply with.
It is morally understandable for the powerless to ignore laws they had little role in enacting.
It is completely inexcusable for the powerful to ignore their own laws.
Sadly Tim Geithner and Bill Ayers walk free today, to great acclaim from the powerful - but if someone named Hector or Tyrone were to commit similar crimes, they would be behind bars for the rest of their lives.
Well yeah, it would probably good if the Israel lobby didn't run a hatchet job on candidates who show even the slightest inclination not to toe the hardline Likudist line, but that's not going to happen, particularly while the American intelligence establishment downright refuses to agree that Iran is a nuclear-armed superpower poised to annihilate Israel.
This thread is a testament to how good a job they did, and how much reading rightwing propaganda can affect the weakminded, because most of the comments on Freeman here are utter bullshit.
I mean, fucksake, being chairman of a thinktank that has been funded by strong American ally Saudi Arabia is bad, but being chairman of a thinktank funded by strong American ally Israel would be... ?
Dr. Zen-- another person who favors the US Army attacking peaceful protestors in the National Mall with bayonets and gas. Since Chas Freeman does not dispute that he "stands with Douglas MacArthur" against the Bonus Army.
The people who attack him only because of Israel may be hypocrites, but people who defend him only because they hate Israel are surely no better.
Because you're ignorant of history, I suppose. Most people are ignorant of the Bonus Army, but it is still surprising that people would have no idea what the reference to the "peculiar institution" would be.
I did read your reply. What you responded to claimed that Chas Freeman was unable to "take the criticism that is due to anyone who has an important White House position." That "[t]t is fair for people to take issue with his views, just as he is free to hold those views."
And yet you responded with a non seqitur claiming that the person you were responding to thought that Chas Freeman should be disqualified from office, which is not what the person you were responding to said at all.
Chas Freeman has a perfect right to hold his views, and defend them. Other people have a perfect right to object.
In my case, his comments about the Bonus Army are absolutely not the kind I want anyone in the government to have. They may indeed have not been publicized were it not for his views on Israel, but that doesn't unsay them. I wouldn't support someone who turned out to be a terrible racist and a supporter of segregation and slavery, just because I disagreed with the motives of those who discovered the muck.
Motives in oppositional politics aren't pure, just as the motives of lawyers are not. Democrats find out terrible things about Republicans out of partisan motives (and a majority hoped that Bush would fail), just as Republicans do the reverse. And honestly, for all its warts, I feel that it's better than a situation where things are not discovered just because everybody's buddy-buddy and David Rothkopf knows Chas Freeman personally, as he notes.
I'm also sure that for each and every person posting here, I could make find (given the time and resources) something in your recent past that I could twist, spin, and manipulate into a perfectly plausible case that you're unfit for government service.
You might be able to smear someone to the point his character looks unfit for office, but that's different than pointing out someone who has broken the law. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people who are charged with enforcing the law to obey it. If the Democrats can't come up with people who don't cheat on their taxes then maybe they should hire Republicans.
Good post. Sometimes, common sense is indeed a blogger's best friends.
The amount of scrutiny is getting ridiculous. One of the rejected appointees had late taxes in the amount of $1000. Does anybody believe this was deliberate tax evasion?
As for the arguments about not obeying the law - I'm an atheist, but this looks like a case of "let him who is without sin...".
There are penalties for breaking the law, and not all of them have an unwritten rule stating "by the way, this person is, from now on, ineligible for a government position". We really have more serious things to worry about.
Sigh. John, you really need to drop the aggression. I suspect that's why you come off looking so poorly in our clashes. Anyway, since you brought it up, I'll note that you don't seem to be as literate or well-read as I. Not that I claim to be particularly literate or well read ;-)
Let's look up the definition of 'peculiar', shall we:
Note that 'peculiar' and 'peculiar institution' aren't even the same type word; the first is an adjective; the second more like a noun. What you wrote, in fact, was a complete non sequitur.
Obviously you did not bother to read what I wrote or what I was responding to, let alone bother to read carefully. Look at what was originally written:
Look in particular (a synonym for 'peculiar', ironically) at the bolded part, which is what I was responding to. And what did I say?
There are many reasons to oppose an opinion, but it strikes me that opposing it just because it's not a 'mainstream view' is not a particularly good one. Particularly (;-) since a lot of people have this habit of arrogating to themselves the decision of what constitutes mainstream and what does not, often without any research into what the mainstream view really is(or even if it is applicable.)
You might oppose the nomination because:
But I'm guessing (assuming for the sake of argument that your characterization is accurate) that you would still oppose the nomination, even if what you described above was not particularly out of synch with the mainstream.
Really, John, when I say read what I wrote carefully, you might consider as an option actually follow my advice. As it is, you - again - come off looking rather foolish.
Now, did you actually want to discuss what I was really talking about, or was this just an attempt to get back at me?
Hmmm. Geithner evaded about $150K in taxes — or was it Dashell? Oh, yeah, it was both of them. Freeman said the Chinese should have massacred the Tien an Men Square protesters sooner. Just today the FBI raided the office of Obama's new CTO.
I agree with you in general that this can be taken a little far, but I don't think this administration is making your case very well.
and it would be nice if Republicans didn't want the economy to tank in order to improve their individual electoral prospects, but they do.
Funny how you couldn't substantiate that in a factual manner. Want to guess as to why that is?
and it would be nice if Republicans Democrats didn't want the economy Operation Iraqi Freedom to tank in order to improve their individual electoral prospects, but they do.
Anyway, I fixed it for you.
One of the rejected appointees had late taxes in the amount of $1000. Does anybody believe this was deliberate tax evasion?
OK - let's see you try that excuse with the IRS.
And you are evading the central point - that those who shriek the loudest about how we need to raise taxes are the ones who avoid paying. Call them "tax chickenhawks".
Charlie
Hard to disagree with those. But there have been other people deemed inappropriate for minor irregularities. Specifically in Geithner's staff, I think people clearly should prefer an exceptional business record over a spotless personal tax record.
He brought this on himself with the Geithner nomination and confirmation. Who could put a tax cheat in charge of the IRS? No Republican President could even get close to getting away with that.
Given the appointees record, nomination by Obama should be prima facie evidence of serial felonious tax evasion, and should be prosecuted as such. Hell an aggressive prosecutor should be indicting Geithner and Daschle right now, just as a regular person would have.
Arrest them all. They make the law, they should bloody well follow it.
... also disqualifying for the position of chair of the NIC. Really, can't we find someone for such a sensitive position who isn't paid by a foreign state?
It is all well and good to say "This new tradition of bulldogging every appointee in the hope of embarrassing the president has to stop. "
But Washington draws the sharks and they are all swimming lazily around until blood is thrown in the water then who knows who bit first. It got worse about 15 years ago and it won't stop until someone goes nuclear. I hope it will stop, but not optimistic.
Blaine
Is it bull-dogging to inquire whether an appointee has paid his or her taxes, in full and on time? Is it unfair to call the several Obama appointees with troublesome histories on this point "tax cheats"?
Is it bull-dogging for the minority to have a full and fair opportunity to question nominees, and consider whether to use the filibuster? In 2001 and 2005, this was called a basic constitutional right, the checks and balances designed by the founders. Now, you've joined the voices calling it "hounding" or its cousin "obstruction".
Such a shame. This is ordinarily an insightful blog.
That's funny about the "onerous regulation" thing - you know, ANY regulation being considered onerous since we all know that EVERY regulation exists to protect us from our own stupidity or the EVIL corporations (who provide our jobs, hmmm). Its also funny to hear an Obama supporter lament that certain special people are not accorded the privilege (def. private law) to which they became entitled while we weren't paying attention. Oh, the unwashed masses! Why can't they just grovel compliantly in silence before their government overlords! And that "bull-dogging" comment? Priceless! jt007 and bulging bracket - keep up the good work.
I can forgive "some small breach of an onerous regulation" only if the transgressor commits to the repeal of that regulation on the basis that it is onerous. Failing that, it is rank hypocrisy to advocate such regulations upon the liberty of others, yet expect special dispensation when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
And no, the Cabinet is not Caesar's wife. It is Caesar himself.
The reality is that on the Democrat side of the fence you can't throw a brick w/o hitting a drunk, a tax cheat, or a druggie/ex-druggie. In the late 1960s anti-establishment, "STICK IT TO THE MAN!" types were attracted to the party. The GOP has its fair share of those, too, but they know that if they jaywalk the story winds up on the front page above the fold so they're more careful about that sort of thing. With the Democrats that Obama wrote in his own autobiography that "he did a little blow" +in college doesn't raise an eyebrow. GWB got skewered in the media on the very (unfounded) rumor that he did cocaine.
The criticisms of Chas Freeman had a direct bearing on his fitness for the specific position of chief analyst and filter of intelligence information. If someone associated with AIPAC had been under consideration for that post, Freeman would have been among the first to howl in opposition. Neither would be an appropriate choice.
The criticisms of Geithner had a direct bearing on his fitness for the position of Treasury Secretary. Putting a tax cheat in charge of the IRS is to confound the public trust. His laissez faire attitude as head of the Fed. Reserve Bank in New York, may yet prove to have been a telling preview of his performance in office.
The sheer scale of Daschle's non-compliance speaks directly to his character and wisdom.
Richardson's suspicious business dealings spoke directly to his fitness as a chief regulator of both domestic and international commerce.
None of the above represent petty concerns. The "new tradition" you formulate is both an oxymoron and an inaccuracy.
So the Democrats filibustering a Supreme Court nominee in order to prevent the Senate from providing Advice and Consent is acceptable; people questioning an Obama nominee's background is unpatriotic (and probably racist).
Got it.
It sure is a shame that all these people are undergoing the same vetting process as Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.