Cronyism

[frizzed]

I have LIVED and been directly affetced by cronyism in my job and in my pocketbook.

This is an attack - You are ugly and your momma dresses you funny. Posting responses and disagreements are not attacks.

[cnnplus5]

This is an attack - You are ugly and your momma dresses you funny. Posting responses and disagreements are not attacks.

LOL - thankyou!

[mighty]

Yes, cronyism is wrong, but there seems to be no law against it (unfortunately). Please educate me if I'm wrong.

This may be a different topic, but can anyone tell me what W has done right? I'm an independent and trying to keep an open mind, but for the life of me, I can't think of anything good that this president has done. Again, educate me if I'm wrong.

[the4moores]

This may be a different topic, but can anyone tell me what W has done right? I'm an independent and trying to keep an open mind, but for the life of me, I can't think of anything good that this president has done. Again, educate me if I'm wrong.

that would be a great topic for a different thread. I think I could add a few. start a new thread in the politics forum

[the4moores]

"Heckuva job" there... JENG
I really appreciate you taking the time to read and inform yourself of the lengths that the Bush administration has gone to stocking our government with inexperienced friends who are more loyal to their respective political party than the needs of our country.

HIllary Clinton was put in charge of health care and Bobby Kennedy was made AG.

Perhaps you didn't notice the word "inexperienced" in my reference to cronyism. And while I'm glad you could point out an example from over 40 years ago in the kennedy administration, a much better example would have been Kennedy appointing Robert S. McNamara as Secretary of Defense, as we all know what a disaster that was.(Vietnam)

I'm glad JENG expressed herself so elquently and thoroughly that nrkeck, blessedx3, mom2j&m felt the need not to add one iota of their own thoughts to this discussion. I personally found your responses to be shallow and vapid. And while you are certainly entitled to your opinions, I'm appalled at the apparent partisanship and lack of honest approach to the subject.

Numerous people were pardoned by Bill Clinton after contributing money.

Interesting, but off topic, post in new thread if you want "pardons" discussed.

I know people want to blame Bush for everything, but I don't think he invented cronyism.

We are not talking about blaming Bush for everything. We are discussing the vast cronyism that this administration has perpetrated upon the american people and what effects that has had. It really does help a discussion when you've read the supporting materials (my links). There are repercussions to appointing inexperienced people, take FEMA for example.
http://www.realnews.org/index.php-optio ... id=222.htm

Cronyism is a facet of human nature and politics. Doesn't make it right, it just is.

Your correct. It doesn't make it right and that's why I'm trying to bring it to peoples attention. I am disheartened by the state of fatalism that is expressed here on the boards about variousissues that affect all of us. The cronyism that is rampant in this administration does affect us. Need i mention the scandals that have rocked the DHS, FEMA, FDA, EPA, HHS, GSA or anything at all about IRAQ reconstruction and military contracts due to cronyism? Hey, it's only your tax dollars and our security at risk.

I can agree that all administrations have had some degree of cronyism. Every president brings in close friends and trusted advisers to the White House, because they need people they can rely on. But Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy. Appointing cronies to positions often times is used to advance the agenda of the person making the appointment.

But this administration's premium on political loyalty over substantive experience only makes things worse: A report last year by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee found that in the president's first five years in office, the number of political appointees hired without public scrutiny or congressional approval increased by one-third. (It had declined by 17 percent under Clinton.)
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfron ... rying.html

Hey, I realize there's not a lot of time in the day to devote to researching and informing ourselves on important issues, especially after taking care of the house, making meals, raising our kids, etc... But I've been surprised that several of the replies on this subject are more akin to kneejerk reactions from people who can't take justified criticism of their political party's cronyism.

[ub_]

I've yet to see one thread of a conservative slamming a liberal candidate even though we have plenty to say - that's called respect!

I've seen posts slamming liberal candidates, especially Hillary Clinton. You are right that people do slam Bush, but it has gone both ways even if you haven't seen those threads.

[annieinkansas]

fivemoores, thanks for taking the time to provide all the links to the information.

It's a small thing, but it has always bothered me that Bush even went so far as to appoint a crony to run PBS. PBS? This link is short and sweet. Read at least the first couple graphs.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm

[vengholm]

I'm really getting tired of this word being overused! Pleeeaaaase! no one is attacking anyone.

I say "attacked" because what I saw was a well written, well researched, well thought out argument, and in response I saw "well Clinton did it". To echo what 4moores said, the point is that when Clinton did it, he chose experienced cronies.

it has been proven over and over again on several different threads on this board that if you say anything remotely complimentary of GW you get blasted.

It has also been proven that if you say something negative about GW you get blasted.

I've yet to see one thread of a conservative slamming a liberal candidate even though we have plenty to say -

If you have something to say, say it. I've seen plenty slamming liberals. What about that joke someone posted about Hillary? What about the thread that outlined the so-called incompetence of Obama? What about the thread that asked who your favorite Republican candidate was? It's there, you're just not reading them.

Attacked, yes. I say attacked because one person posts a great topic, whether you agree or not, and the five posts that follow are all about how she is wrong, and praises the one that points out she is wrong. But there is no research, no facts, to back up why you think it's wrong.

Cronyism is a facet of human nature and politics. Doesn't make it right, it just is.

So you see something wrong, and you just allow it to be wrong? Is that what we're doing now? Murder is a facet of human nature, too. So is stealing. So is rape. These things are not right, but they exist. So let's allow them to exist?

It's wrong, no matter who it is; Clinton, Bush, George Washington... The fact is that it's wrong. Bush brought rare form to the idea. People should be aware and be outraged so that it stops.

So, I'm sorry if you think I've overused the word, but I'm just telling you all what I see. I'm tired of tip-toeing around about things.

[jeng]

I think when individuals imply that others are children and then make sarcastic remarks about people in their response post, that is more of an attack.

I wasn't defending GW cronyism. I was just pointing out that he is not the only one who does it. Have any of you ever gotten a job because of who you knew, not what you knew? Or asked friends for recommendations or tips about job openings?

I did actually look at your links, 4Moores (one of which doesn't work). I take exception to your sources which are basically biased. Slate--owned by the left-leaning Washington Post. Huffington--everyone knows how she leans. NY Times, same story. And PFAW, can't get more liberal than that. I actually had some sources that expounded on cronyism in other administrations (and I am not just talking about Clinton), but they were not as objective as I would have liked. I am picky about my sources because everyone on every side tends to have an agenda. For example, if I were to post a bunch of sources written by Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, how seriously would they be taken? As a conservative, I like to try to find more objective sources. And I didn't have the time at that moment to search out more, so I just did a little post.

In addition to that, in the past I have posted responses defending and supporting my views and gotten condemned for it. It is a waste of time. (There is a thread already on GW, BTW, from a while back). People oftentimes don't want to hear any other views or they resort to personal attacks. My little post to this thread was simply to point out that it is not unique to Bush or to any administration.

Now I have to go renew my vow not to post on any political thread.

[TutusbyT]

My thing with the posts of people supporting GW are that they are typically just bashing Clinton. "GW lied", "well so did Clinton". There are no statements with research behind them to show why you think GW is doing such a "great" job. I completely agree they simply sound childish. Sort of like a mom asking why their child bit another child, "well she did it first". Does that make it OK??

The 4 Moores and VKitty have posted some great links and thought out research on these subjects. I have learned a lot of things I didn't know from these women and really respect them for the time and effort they put into it.

And I would like someone, anyone to find a news site that isn't supportive of their views. That is the way it works. You have to take everything with a grain of salt that you read. But their are sources out there who at least have evidence. Not just "this is the way it is".

And yes I do think GW has done a bad job. And that he is responsible for us being at war and in an economic mess. (are we still not in a recession???, I think not) Yes he had help getting there, but ultimately it is his responsibility as head of this country. And a large part of his problem is his put his buddies who don't know what they are doing either in positions of power, so he is doubly responsible.