Make Big $$$ In Washington!

[PanTheMan]

http://www.cronyjobs.com/

GET YOUR DREAM-JOB TODAY!

[wendybeth]

"NAME: Julie Myers
POSITION: Director: Immigration & Customs
SALARY: $122,500/year (pending)
TESTIMONIAL: "OMIGOD, like, CronyJobs is SOOOO AWESOME! After I helped Ken Starr crucify that semen geyser Bill Clinton, I got hired in the Bush White House. And I made coffee so well there, now I get to manage the 20,000 agents who keep America's borders as impenetrable as the boss's daughters!"


Heh heh.....:snap:

[Mousey Girl]

Dang...Too bad I am no good at office politics. ;)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I really don't doubt that cronyism is a large part of every administration, regardless of party.

[scaeagles]

True, CP.

With the former head of FEMA Michael Brown, I don't even think it was cronyism, unless cronyism is the same as a political payoff. Maybe it is.

But a lot of what is or could be defined as cronyism may not be. If I am President, do I go with the people I know? I know what they are capable of, what they beleive, and if they can do the job I want for them. Or do I go with unknowns who are recommended to me? I would probably opt to go with those I knew. I think anyone would.

[Prudence]

I might suggest a definition of "crony" as an appointee whose financial contributions exceed their professional qualifications.

[Ghoulish Delight]

True, CP.

With the former head of FEMA Michael Brown, I don't even think it was cronyism, unless cronyism is the same as a political payoff. Maybe it is.

But a lot of what is or could be defined as cronyism may not be. If I am President, do I go with the people I know? I know what they are capable of, what they beleive, and if they can do the job I want for them. Or do I go with unknowns who are recommended to me? I would probably opt to go with those I knew. I think anyone would.I think the defining factor is, are the people you know qualified. In the case of Brown, it certainly doesn't look like it. In the case of Miers, who the hell knows.

[wendybeth]

True, CP.

With the former head of FEMA Michael Brown, I don't even think it was cronyism, unless cronyism is the same as a political payoff. Maybe it is.

But a lot of what is or could be defined as cronyism may not be. If I am President, do I go with the people I know? I know what they are capable of, what they beleive, and if they can do the job I want for them. Or do I go with unknowns who are recommended to me? I would probably opt to go with those I knew. I think anyone would.

I suspect Harriet Meirs may be the first Supreme Court judge whose main qualification for the post was that she gives good greeting card (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/11/miers.ap/index.html). What a suck-up.:rolleyes:

I've no problem with what you say Scaeagles- to a large degree it's true. The problem is that one is likely to find themselves surrounded by sycophants rather than qualified people.

[PanTheMan]

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told George W. Bush in a 1997 birthday card that he was "the best governor ever" and, in a separate note to her boss, said she hoped his twin daughters recognize their parents are "cool."

Oh Golly Gee, GW, You are the Best EVER! Thanks for that court job, Love and kisses, XOXOXOXO, Harriet.....lol....

[scaeagles]

I saw that and thought it was funny. Why is this worthy of being an AP story at all? A birthday card????

[PanTheMan]

They are going to pick apart her every move...lol

I still don't think she is qualified. I wonder what is in Alberto Gonzales closet, that he wasn't nominated.... must be something good....

[SacTown Chronic]

200k a year but you gotta kiss Dubya's ass? Puhlease. I'd rather suck the devil's cheese encrusted <text deleted>.

[PanTheMan]

Ivy League Smegma.....Mmmmmmmmmm Good ..

[Alex]

I hope I'm never held to things I've said in birthday, get well, and going away cards in my life.

The only thing worse would be if I had to live up to the things I wrote in people yearbooks back in high school.

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court nominee said to friend "BFF" but it didn't last the summer!

or

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court nominee said in going away card "The office won't be the same without you" when in fact he didn't even remember the person's name.

[Reaver]

I always find it amusing how an opposing side always sees the administration's choices as "cronies". When the administration leans their way, they become simply "appointees". So much bitterness, from both sides at times. Just poor sportsmanship. the appointee could be the most qualified person on earth, and they'd still be a "cronie". Just sad...

[Ghoulish Delight]

I always find it amusing how an opposing side always sees the administration's choices as "cronies". When the administration leans their way, they become simply "appointees". So much bitterness, from both sides at times. Just poor sportsmanship. the appointee could be the most qualified person on earth, and they'd still be a "cronie". Just sad...
Show me evidence that Harriet Miers is the most qualified person and I'll be satisfied. Fact is, there is none. She has no experience or record that can point one way or the other.

[Nephythys]

Miers aside, his comment is valid. You don't have to think Miers is the best qualified to know that-

[Reaver]

Show me evidence that Harriet Miers is the most qualified person and I'll be satisfied. Fact is, there is none. She has no experience or record that can point one way or the other.

I never said she was. Didn't even imply such. Simply making an observation that even if a particular appointee is the most qualified, it is irrelevant to the opposing party, and they become "cronies"...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Fair enough, I agree. But generalizations about history aside, with one pretty clear-cut case of crony apointeeism by Bush (Brown), he's invited close scrutiny upon all his nominees.

[wendybeth]

I believe the greeting card story is indicative of how very little information there is out there on Harriet. People are looking for anything on her that might explain this nomination.

[Nephythys]

did you see the Dobson quotes? That most everyone else asked to be removed from consideration?

[Reaver]

Well, I agree. I certainly can't figure it out. So many qualified possibilities, and Bush pics her... I'd like to think there's some sort of strategery at work here, but I've hoped for that too many times with Bush, only to find none. And I'm a Bush supporter! Yikes.

[Not Afraid]

I just have to love the semantics war. Croney, extreme right, blah blah blah. Granted, sometimes it is actually a proper label, but most of the time, it's just extreme and comforting to the user.

[PanTheMan]

If Dobson and Bush say the #1 reason in Picking Miers is her "Religion" , does this make us a Theocratic State yet?

Last time i checked, the only mention of Religion in the constitution is that it be SEPERATE from Government, not incorporated with it.

The only other reason, is that Bush will have a "Proxy" vote for maybe the next 20 years on the court. A direct violation of all conflict of intrest laws.

[Reaver]

If Dobson and Bush say the #1 reason in Picking Miers is her "Religion" , does this make us a Theocratic State yet?

Last time i checked, the only mention of Religion in the constitution is that it be SEPERATE from Government, not incorporated with it.

The only other reason, is that Bush will have a "Proxy" vote for maybe the next 20 years on the court. A direct violation of all conflict of intrest laws.

Ok, first, the separation of church and state was originally intended to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. It was meant as a way to keep the government from backing one religion and forcing it on the general public, as was the case in England. Having some Christian people in Govenment is nothing close to this. So far, I've not heard any of them even mention a specific religion. "Christian" covers a wide array of religions...

Second, Bush is only going to be around for another few years. Why would he want a "proxy" vote set up for when he's not around? And even if he did, getting people who's doctrines are similar to his in power is hardly a violation of conflict of interest. If you think the country should be run a certain way, you put people in place that will run it that way. No conflict. And every president since Washington has done the same thing...

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The only other reason, is that Bush will have a "Proxy" vote for maybe the next 20 years on the court. A direct violation of all conflict of intrest laws.???

If someone nominates someone to a position, it will be someone they like, and probably agree with, yes? Wouldn't anything else be silly? Why is nominating someone that he likes to the job a violation of conflict of interest? It's what he's supposed to do.

What do you expect, exactly?

If you want to discuss a viable issue, discuss whether or not she's qualified.

[Name]

Ok, first, the separation of church and state was originally intended to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. It was meant as a way to keep the government from backing one religion and forcing it on the general public, as was the case in England. Having some Christian people in Govenment is nothing close to this. So far, I've not heard any of them even mention a specific religion. "Christian" covers a wide array of religions...

You sir, have contradicted yourself a bit, for you cannot keep governnment out of religion, then allow religion into government, and not then have the religion be "forced" on the general public....

Government policies always impact the general public, and if religion is in government guiding choices, then the minorities of the general public will be left out of the process. And we start getting laws that diminish the abilities of the other religions to practice as they would like. Or we get what we have now, a government that thinks the union of two people should be dependant on the sex of those two people, based solely on a religious viewpoint.

Having christian people in government is not a bad thing at all, but basing all your decisions off your religious viewpoints is a little narrow minded. I respect the religious man that respects other points of view, its the ones that diminish other points of view that get my goat.

Christian may be a broad term used to describe many different sects of religion, but it is mainly used to describe the following of the teaching of one man...... many of which the religions have fallen from the basic message of that man long ago.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

???

If someone nominates someone to a position, it will be someone they like, and probably agree with, yes? Wouldn't anything else be silly? Why is nominating someone that he likes to the job a violation of conflict of interest? It's what he's supposed to do.

What do you expect, exactly?

If you want to discuss a viable issue, discuss whether or not she's qualified.
I'd love a response to this, Pan.

[PanTheMan]

First off, I dont believe the Position should be political, as Robert Bork Stated last night on Hardball. it should be a judicial appointment, not a political one. however reality is a different story.

If I were President , would i want one of my Buddies on the Court? Sure. Would I actually be self involved enough to put my own intrests over the nations? No.

As you know, as just about everyone here knows, I lean left. I also know the People who put Bush in office lean Right. I fully Expected the next SC Justice to be Alberto Gonzales. A Conservative. Would I "Like" it? probably Not. But Given that Bush is who we have as President, Bush should put someone who represents THE PEOPLE who put Bush in office, not a Justice who represents Bush himself. Gonzales is a qualified person, who like him or not (not) deserves the nod LONG ahead of Miers.

Give Miers another Crony Job...perhaps Ambassador to Fiji?