icanthearyou 4,462 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 http://news.yahoo.com/senate-democrats-muscle-big-obama-donors-into-ambassadorships-175252008.html In one of their final acts before losing their majority to Republicans, Senate Democrats confirmed as ambassadors on Tuesday two big donors to President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, despite a controversy over their qualifications. David Bryson Mamet won confirmation as envoy to Argentina in a 50-43 vote, while senators agreed 52-42 to send Colleen Bell on her way to Hungary. No Republicans voted for either nominee, and several senators missed both ballots. Before the votes, Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., passionately urged his colleagues to reject Bell’s nomination. He argued that whatever her talents for scooping up campaign cash and for producing “The Bold and the Beautiful,” Bell was “totally unqualified” for the ambassadorship. “She is the producer of a soap opera, has no experience in foreign policy or national security, no familiarity with the language, country or region, has never been there, and lacks meaningful knowledge of history or economics,” McCain thundered on the Senate floor. “I’m sure television viewing is important in Hungary, but the fact is that this nominee is totally unqualified for this position.” His remarks drew an equally passionate rebuttal from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D.-Calif. “Just because somebody is a producer of a very popular show, that doesn’t disqualify them,” Boxer said. “She’s an intelligent woman. She knows how to be successful. She’ll do a good job, and she’ll do very well, I think, in this position, because I know her well and she knows how to make friends, and she’s not angry.” Sen. Mary Landrieu, D.-La., facing an uphill reelection runoff vote, did not cast a ballot. Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent, voted against both nominees. For Mamet and Bell, Tuesday was probably a last shot at confirmation. Republicans have let it be known that Obama campaign donors nominated to important positions should not expect swift confirmation in the next Congress — if they ever get a vote at all. The debate over Mamet and Bell had raged since early 2014, when their confirmation hearings raised questions about their qualifications. Each of them had raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s reelection campaign, after which he announced their nominations. In Mamet’s case, Republican senators zeroed in on the fact that he has never been to Argentina. That was not a major stumbling block: It’s not uncommon even for career diplomats not to have set foot in a country before they are posted there. And nominees have tended not to visit their proposed post ahead of time in order to avoid giving the impression that they consider Senate confirmation a done deal. Bell faced a rougher road after she struggled to answer McCain's question: “What are our strategic interests in Hungary?” Shortly after the votes on Tuesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest called the confirmations “long overdue” and insisted that Bell’s success as a campaign fundraiser was “not the reason that she was chosen.” Bell is “somebody who obviously has succeeded in the business world,” Earnest told reporters. “And she is somebody that the president has confidence will be able to maintain our relationship with the government and the people of Hungary.” Political appointees can make sterling diplomats. By all accounts, Caroline Kennedy has been doing a good job as ambassador to Japan. Charles Rivkin went on from being executive producer of the children's television show “Yo Gabba Gabba!” to a highly regarded stint as ambassador to France — so highly regarded that he won Senate confirmation by a lopsided 92-6 vote earlier this year to be assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs. Obama did not invent the practice of naming bigtime donors to diplomatic posts for which they are questionably qualified. Past presidents have generally maintained a 70-30 ratio of career diplomats to political appointees. In Obama’s second term so far, however, the ratio has been 58.6 percent to 41.4 percent. Back in early 2009, Obama said at a press conference that he expected to nominate “high-quality civil servants.” “Are there going to be political appointees to ambassadorships? There probably will be some. It would be disingenuous for me to suggest that there are not going to be some excellent public servants but who haven't come through the ranks of the civil service,” he said. Some of the political picks have not fared so well. Democratic fundraiser Cynthia Stroum was so “bullying, hostile, and intimidating” that morale at the U.S. embassy in Luxembourg plummeted, according to a State Department inspector general’s report. The report said she focused too much on a bathroom renovation and improperly circumvented State Department rules so that she could be reimbursed for a queen-size mattress. The Southern California finance co-chairwoman of Obama’s 2008 campaign, Nicole Avant, went missing from the embassy in the Bahamas for 276 days between September 2009 and November 2011, according to a January 2012 State Department inspector general’s report. Her absences included 102 “personal leave” days, and 77 business travel days to the United States, only 23 of which were on official orders. At an April 2011 Democratic National Committee fundraiser, Obama gave Avant a shout-out. “And our ambassador to the Bahamas, Nicole Avant, is in the house,” he said, to laughter from the crowd. “It’s a nice gig, isn’t it?” A nice gig? If you can get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Bell was asked what she thought the US's strategic interests in Hungary are. She couldn't name any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 They shouldn't be but they pretty much have been for as long as I can remember and before. I suppose that some of these really aren't that important. I mean what does our ambassador to Fiji do? Seriously though these need to be thought out a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted December 3, 2014 Author Share Posted December 3, 2014 To me, rewarding donors with a title and a government paycheck seems to be an obvious and, easily remedied corruption. Does anyone know how our ambassadors are compensated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 anything and everything is for sale or shakedown with this WH...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 You're right WT but since it is just one type of corruption that has existed for a long time, we the people should just accept it and make no attempt at raising our voices against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
around4ever 4,139 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 It seems like an insult to the country of the ambassadorship if the US Ambassador knows absolutely nothing about the country they are going to. Another international embarrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,800 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 It seems like an insult to the country of the ambassadorship if the US Ambassador knows absolutely nothing about the country they are going to. Another international embarrassment. In most cases, that's a pretty difficult standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,800 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Doesn't change his accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Doesn't change his accountability. Your right, let's make Obama an example. After all, he's already famous for being a "first", huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Bell was asked what she thought the US's strategic interests in Hungary are. She couldn't name any. For once, the ObamaBots may have a valid excuse in defending the selling of an ambassador appointment. Yeah, it's always gone on. But w/ this case, so clear was it shown that Ms Bell really had no clue and probably couldn't point to Hungary on a world map. But I'm thinking maybe Obama wanted to show his appreciation for more obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,800 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Doesn't change his accountability. Your right, let's make Obama an example. After all, he's already famous for being a "first", huh? This is a silly response. Each President is responsible for his own choices, even if collectively they routinely make bad ones. Obama is the current President and these are his recent bad choices. Bush was responsible for his. Republican Senators acting like this is a new practice are hypocritical and playing politics. I'm not. But the fact is, I'm more qualified than these two choices-- I've at least been to those countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Ambassadors seem to fall into 3 categories. - Pure political hacks being paid back for being loyal party members and or successful political fund raisers, or the spouse of one. - People who have needed skills to serve in a post where there are significant issues related to US national security or trade. - Career foreign service officers that are put in the job after many years of foreign service. The political hacks are the ones sent to nice assignments in friendly countries where they may be mostly figureheads while the career foreign service officers do the real work there. What I do not understand is the arrogance of some in the political hack category. They do not even take the time to read a Wikipedia article on the country where they will serve so they have some basic knowledge about the country. Would it be so hard to show up before the senate committee having read a couple of books and articles about the country and gotten a briefing on current issues there? Even take a class on the culture and language of the country??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Doesn't change his accountability. Amen. I have never liked the excuse, "that's the way it has always been done". There is right, wrong, and shades of gray. This is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Doesn't change his accountability. Amen. I have never liked the excuse, "that's the way it has always been done". There is right, wrong, and shades of gray. This is wrong. Agreed. And while it started at the beginning as quiet likes to point out it wasn't nearly as widespread and rampant as it is today. We are nearing Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,800 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Doesn't change his accountability. Amen. I have never liked the excuse, "that's the way it has always been done". There is right, wrong, and shades of gray. This is wrong. Agreed. And while it started at the beginning as quiet likes to point out it wasn't nearly as widespread and rampant as it is today. We are nearing Rome. He's actually close to Reagan on this issue-- was he taking us to Rome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Doesn't change his accountability. Your right, let's make Obama an example. After all, he's already famous for being a "first", huh? This is a silly response. Each President is responsible for his own choices, even if collectively they routinely make bad ones. Obama is the current President and these are his recent bad choices. Bush was responsible for his. Republican Senators acting like this is a new practice are hypocritical and playing politics. I'm not. But the fact is, I'm more qualified than these two choices-- I've at least been to those countries. No it's not. To suggest that any POTUS should suddenly be held personally responsible for the historical role of patronage in our system is silly. If you think it's so important, then you should get your congressman to introduce legislation forbidding it. (Not sure how that would work though.) This is just another variation on paying for political influence in general. I don't like how our system allows for the private campaign contributions which makes that possible. I would much prefer some sort of system that includes public funding and eliminates the influence of money all together. But it's hardly Obama's fault that is the way the system works. How far do you think a political "public funding" bill would get if Obama introduced it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,800 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Doesn't change his accountability. Your right, let's make Obama an example. After all, he's already famous for being a "first", huh? This is a silly response. Each President is responsible for his own choices, even if collectively they routinely make bad ones. Obama is the current President and these are his recent bad choices. Bush was responsible for his. Republican Senators acting like this is a new practice are hypocritical and playing politics. I'm not. But the fact is, I'm more qualified than these two choices-- I've at least been to those countries. No it's not. To suggest that any POTUS should suddenly be held personally responsible for the historical role of patronage in our system is silly. If you think it's so important, then you should get your congressman to introduce legislation forbidding it. (Not sure how that would work though.) This is just another variation on paying for political influence in general. I don't like how our system allows for the private campaign contributions which makes that possible. I would much prefer some sort of system that includes public funding and eliminates the influence of money all together. But it's hardly Obama's fault that is the way the system works. How far do you think a political "public funding" bill would get if Obama introduced it? Each President chooses his own nominees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 No....but it's 2014 and DC is all about that ba$$ Actually, this has been the norm since the country was founded. Exactly. Should they be patronage/spoils rewarded to friends or big $upporters of the winning candidates? ...of course not! Are they, and have they been since 1776 (and throughout written history in most every country)? ....yes indeed. Nothing new here, move along. It's not new, but is still disgusting. And Obama promised it would not be politics as usual. I seriously doubt he is the first. Doesn't change his accountability. Your right, let's make Obama an example. After all, he's already famous for being a "first", huh? This is a silly response. Each President is responsible for his own choices, even if collectively they routinely make bad ones. Obama is the current President and these are his recent bad choices. Bush was responsible for his. Republican Senators acting like this is a new practice are hypocritical and playing politics. I'm not. But the fact is, I'm more qualified than these two choices-- I've at least been to those countries. No it's not. To suggest that any POTUS should suddenly be held personally responsible for the historical role of patronage in our system is silly. If you think it's so important, then you should get your congressman to introduce legislation forbidding it. (Not sure how that would work though.) This is just another variation on paying for political influence in general. I don't like how our system allows for the private campaign contributions which makes that possible. I would much prefer some sort of system that includes public funding and eliminates the influence of money all together. But it's hardly Obama's fault that is the way the system works. How far do you think a political "public funding" bill would get if Obama introduced it? Each President chooses his own nominees. And each President factors in patronage for many of them. This is a systemic issue, not a personal one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.