He may be qualified, but what consolation is that to the scores of other qualified people who didn't have the same size checkbook?
You are making a lot of assumptions with this statement. Have you seen his CV? Do you know the requirements of the job? Does financial contribution bar him from being considered? May the President only appoint those he has no previous interaction with to these positions? Is this a job with an application process or an appointment process? What other "applicants" were considered?
Ok, you lost me. This guy worked with Obama during the campaign with the following title: "Chairman of the Technology, Media and Telecommunications policy working group that created the Obama Technology and Innovation Plan" according to Wikipedia. During the campaign he proved that he was able to effectively understand and utilize communication technology to the fullest, paving the way for a junior senator to become president of the United States. Afterwards, Obama continued to utilize his talent as the head of the Federal Communications Commission. How in heaven's name is this dodgy?
Uhm...if a guy is qualified for the job and he dresses nicer than another equally-qualified guy, he will probably get the job. Why? Because he had the money to buy nicer clothes? OHNOES!
More money = getting the job pretty often, just not always directly. Honestly, if two candidates are equally qualified for the job, why shouldn't you give the job to the person who gives your company (or administration) a gift, or takes you out to dinner? I only see a substantive problem with it if the guy who pays you is actually less qualified than the other guy. When the substantive factors that would qualify people for the job are equal, people start looking at superficial factors. Look at how Scott was picking between the two companies offering him a job; everyone told him to go for the place with the hot ladies! How is that any different?
Your example of the FCC head was clearly because he had served as a adviser of Obama during the campaign and is a different issue then money raising..
Huh? He brought in over $500k to the campaign! Do you guys honestly think that this was irrelevant to being chosen for the spot? If so, Wonderland looks like a sane universe compared to the logic used here.
Even if you take the FCC guy out of the equation, I have a fundamental problem with rich people getting preference for jobs. To me, this is a basic issue of equality. This is the type of thing that I don't "excuse" away. It was bad that Bush did it, and it is bad that Obama did it. And government has a greater duty in regard to equality than private business. Government is supposed to be for the people.
If you guys want to sit idly and accept blatant class discrimination, that's fine. I've made my point and nobody is going to change my mind, so there is no point in arguing to we're blue in the face. And, Nuri, there is a difference between dressing nicely and bringing over $500,000 to the job interview.
Just a note, the word "brought in" should be examined, How much can a individual contribute to a campaign. # $2,300 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election. # $28,500 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
So when a guy says he brought in a certain amount of money it means he found donors who would help contribute to the campaign, that's a little different then some rich dude who wants a job contributing 500,000 dollars...
Also, I know there's a difference, dude. I'm simply saying that people choosing someone based on additional contributions AFTER the material qualifications for the job have been met isn't really something I'm terribly concerned about. Unless you can show that a guy definitely would not have gotten the job without that contribution, you have no standing for your complaint.
He was on the campaign team. His job was to use communication technology to bring in votes and donations, which he has appeared to have done very successfully. His crime now is being good at his job? Isn't that why we wanted him to be the head of the FCC?
But right:
I've made my point; don't confuse me with the facts.
Also: I'm sorry that we're not incensed at the thought of giving seemingly trivial ambassador positions to big-ticket supporters. Yes, butthurt career diplomats have every right to complain. I mean, why send a singer to do an actor's job? I get it.
I think my favorite part was this:
Equally disappointing — but perhaps more expected — to career diplomats is that the distribution of assignments shows no sign of changing: The political appointees get the big mansions in big-name countries, while the careerists pack off to Haiti, Zimbabwe, Serbia and other less inviting postings.
Indeed, the Obama is shipping the skilled career diplomats off to countries where their skills might be needed instead of the cushy positions that won't generate much friction. Oh the horror of moving talent to where it can be more effectively utilized.
Of course, the article couldn't help but then try to soften the blow:
To be sure, many of ObamaÂ’s new ambassadors are accomplished executives who were schooled in the nuances of diplomacy in corporate boardrooms rather than in foreign capitals.
And several of ObamaÂ’s chosen diplomats have foreign policy backgrounds and are noted experts in their new areas of work.
"So they're all skilled or whatever, but look how much money they raised!!" Consider me less than impressed.
Listen, expecting one man to bounce into Washington and change every wrong in a 200 year old system is the definition of living in Wonderland. Supporters like myself are willing to take incremental progress on core issues before worrying about things like ambassador appointments.
Finally, here's my bulleted Obama dump-list for you, since you seem to believe that we're all blind zealots incapable of criticizing the new Jesus:
Gay Rights. Shit or get off the pot, Obama. You've been so unimpressive on this front it's almost criminal.
Afghanistan. He campaigned on it being strategically important, so it's not a surprise so much as it is a continued disappointment. With the number of domestic issues we're dealing with the idea of ramping up any foreign incursion seems like a lackluster plan.
Too soft on the Republicans. If he had been saying "Public Option" since January 21st we would have an honest-to-god law by now. The Dems should have run Republicans into the ground like railroad spikes on a number of domestic issues (abortion, health care) while they had the political capital, but instead were content playing pussyfoot with the party that had no problem steamrolling them straight into the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.
Listen, expecting one man to bounce into Washington and change every wrong in a 200 year old system is the definition of living in Wonderland.
But imagine if, every time he hit a roadblock, instead of working behind the scenes or backing off a little, he immediately held a press conference and called the roadblocks out, harshly and publicly. He could Hojo it, but he doesn't. His route is probably more effective in the long-run, but there's a chance that the Hojo strategy would shake things up now.
Gay Rights. Shit or get off the pot, Obama. You've been so unimpressive on this front it's almost criminal.
He should just straight-up support gay marriage, and in fact parallel it to the black civil rights movement and call anyone who disagrees a bigot. The right would lose their shit so bad the teabaggers would look like intelligent, concerned citizens by comparison, and he could get a lot of other work done (like health care reform) behind the scenes while they warglebargled about teh gays.
Afghanistan. He campaigned on it being strategically important, so it's not a surprise so much as it is a continued disappointment. With the number of domestic issues we're dealing with the idea of ramping up any foreign incursion seems like a lackluster plan.
Honestly, ramping up is probably the best option politically (nevermind morally). It steals the thunder from the right on security issues, and we're doing good there. Granted, we shouldn't have allowed elections, and we should have basically run the nation as occupiers for several years before handing off power, nevermind not invading another country before we had a handle on this one, but the past is immutable, and we're where we are with what we have now.
Every president has pulled shit like this; it's not surprising and I don't think it's reason to worry.
I disagree with this. Every time he follows a bad tradition, he's giving up an opportunity to dilute the right's media message and effect real, lasting change. "But.. Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter did it" is never an excuse: things need to change.
Maybe after 2012, he'll go nuts on everybody (especially if the right schisms out completely and the Republicans put up a bona fide nutjob), but it's hard to gauge.
I'd buy the "you can't change everything" excuse for some issues. However, how much fallout would there be if he said that he was going to give jobs to the most qualified people? Could any American take him to task on this? When it comes to patronage, correcting the wrongs would have been about as easy as it gets. Yet he didn't. So instead of saying that it's trivial, ask why Obama couldn't change something trivial. The argument that it's trivial is an argument for change, not for inequality.
Whatever the correct answer is, can there be any doubt that being president of the USA is one of the hardest jobs in the world?
As for Afghanistan, here is a concern. (And I don't pretend to have thought this out entirely - it's too early in the morning.) If it is a given that the country will descend into chaos when we leave, and Americans will continue to get killed while we occupy, should we just leave? If we can truly stabalize the country, then I suppose it is worth it. But that's the question. Is stabalization after our withdrawl possible? And then there is the question of degrees of chaos. If we can lessen the degree to which chaos ensues, is it worth continued occupation? Tough choices, indeed. It would be nice if the UN could take over and have a meaningful presence. I have no problem with specific anti-terrorism intervention, but I'd love to see a true multi-national peace keeping force having a presence in the country as a whole. It would be even better if there was a middle-eastern peace keeping force, such as they have tried in Africa. The problem is that these regional forces often suffer from a lack of resources, training, and political will.
I'd buy the "you can't change everything" excuse for some issues. However, how much fallout would there be if he said that he was going to give jobs to the most qualified people? Could any American take him to task on this? When it comes to patronage, correcting the wrongs would have been about as easy as it gets. Yet he didn't. So instead of saying that it's trivial, ask why Obama couldn'tchangesomething trivial. The argument that it's trivial is an argument for change, not for inequality.
I believe you are upset that you were passed up for ambassador of the Bahamas....(I would be too)
Is your conflict still with just the ambassadors or are you still talking about the whole system?
The right would lose their shit so bad the teabaggers would look like intelligent, concerned citizens by comparison, and he could get a lot of other work done (like health care reform) behind the scenes while they warglebargled about teh gays.
Yes, because we need more decapitations and gang assault. We haven't had enough of it lately, so our president should really do something to push the buttons of fanatics and drive them to extreme behavior to try to prove their points.
I'm all for doing something about gay rights. I just don't think purposefully driving the conservative right into a rabid frenzy is a safe way to do it. When you back people into a corner, they very often respond with unreasonable violence. It might make them look crazy, but it can do a lot of damage to innocent people, too.
And don't think that hate crime legislation is going to put a damper on that kind of violence, either. These people are already crazy and mad at their government...the government's laws aren't going to stop them.
I believe you are upset that you were passed up for ambassador of the Bahamas....(I would be too)
I believe I have made my point about trivializing economic discrimination. No point in arguing the matter further. Would you be so cheeky if this was based on race, sexual orientation, etc.?
Yes, because we need more decapitations and gang assault. We haven't had enough of it lately, so our president should really do something to push the buttons of fanatics and drive them to extreme behavior to try to prove their points.
We should push as hard as possible. When the crazies come out of the woodwork with their crazy, we arrest them. It's the right thing to do, and we should never demure from the right thing just because the opposition to it will be violent. If a person truly commits violent acts as a result of the stated opinion of a government official, they were beyond help, and the stating of the opinion can in no way be considered responsible for the act.
I'm all for doing something about gay rights. I just don't think purposefully driving the conservative right into a rabid frenzy is a safe way to do it.
If they'll honestly be driven in to a violent frenzy because the president supports gay rights, then there's nothing to be done but let them. They're obviously a danger to society, and any deference in any realm we make to them is only legitimizing their power to hold back progressive policies. Should the civil rights movement have backed down when the south rose up in violence?
These people are already crazy and mad at their government...the government's laws aren't going to stop them.
Then they're a liability forever, and we'll always have to defer to them for one reason or another. No government policy should ever be altered due to the threat of violence from citizens: it legitimizes threats of violence as a political tool.
What I'd like to see is someone Either proving that it was a case of "These guys have the money, they get the job" because frankly, No matter how much you waffle on about how obvious it is, or how foolish it is to assume it's not, yadda yadda yadda, without proof, all you have is idle arm-chair politics speculation.
What I'd like to see is someone Either proving that it was a case of "These guys have the money, they get the job" because frankly, No matter how much you waffle on about how obvious it is, or how foolish it is to assume it's not, yadda yadda yadda, without proof, all you have is idle arm-chair politics speculation.
Are you trolling here, or are you just oblivious to a long standing political tradition?
A couple of quotes from the article:
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said it is unfair to judge the Obama administration by its first wave of ambassadorial nominations, because most of the openings involve traditional political posts recently vacated by Bush administration appointees.
"Political post" does not mean "best and most qualified person for the post."
But Dave Levinthal, communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics, said, “At least to date, it’s clear that a notable number of the ambassador nominees have been bundlers, and more have been donors. Those numbers appear to speak for themselves.”
"Genachowski grew up in Great Neck, New York and received his B.A. in history in 1985 magna cum laude, from Columbia College, Columbia University, where he was an editor of the Columbia Daily Spectator. He received his J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, where he was a notes editor at the Harvard Law Review[2] when it was headed by Barack Obama, who graduated in the same year. After graduating from Harvard, also magna cum laude, Genachowski clerked for the Honorable Abner J. Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then at the U.S. Supreme Court for two years, for Justices William J. Brennan and David Souter.[3]"
Oh just to go back to this topic again, read this part of his background carefully....... He is a old college friend and co-worker of Barack Obama. If I became president would you be upset if Rym became the head of the FCC after also working on my campaign? Someone I know and trust to do a good job at whatever position he was appointed to.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said it is unfair to judge the Obama administration by its first wave of ambassadorial nominations, because most of the openings involve traditional political posts recently vacated by Bush administration appointees.
"Political post" does not mean "best and most qualified person for the post."
I'm willing to buy that, considering "political post" here seems to be referring to the nature of a position and not a person.
As in, "the position of United States ambassador to the United Kingdom was a traditional political post in the 1970's, as opposed to the position of ambassador to the People's Republic of China, which the U.S. did not recognize as a legitimate state at the time."
EDIT: What the heck, I'll bite: Who do you believe is better and more qualified for the ambassadorial positions in Trinidad and Tobago, France, Spain, etc., than the people recently appointed?
I honestly can't debate with people that have a fundamental inability to understand the political process.
Let me quote the first paragraph of the Politico article: He may have promised to change Washington, but President Barack Obama is continuing one of its most renowned patronage traditions: bestowing prized ambassadorships on big donors.
As for your question as to who is better or more qualified - that's not my burden. The burden is on the person who put big donors into these positions to prove that they were the most qualified. And, frankly, even if they are qualified, using money donated as the selection criteria is wrong. That's my point.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but there is no reason to throw common sense and intelligence out the window when it comes to defending Obama. Obama did what everyone before him has done. He rewarded big time donors with ambassador positions. I believe this is wrong. Bush was wrong to do it. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, etc. were all wrong. It's not a party issue.
I honestly can't debate with people that have a fundamental inability to understand the political process.
Let me quote the first paragraph of the Politico article: He may have promised to change Washington, but President Barack Obama is continuing one of its most renowned patronage traditions: bestowing prized ambassadorships on big donors.
So, what's the standard that you expect Obama to uphold? Do you expect him to change every aspect of every political process before his first year is over? It's fruitless to debate someone who has that kind of an expectation.
As for your question as to who is better or more qualified - that's not my burden. The burden is on the person who put big donors into these positions to prove that they were the most qualified. And, frankly, even if theyarequalified, using money donated as the selection criteria is wrong. That's my point.
Churba asked you if you had any proof that anyone used donated money as the selection criteria. Do you have such proof or is this just another speculation based on the fact that you hate Obama?
I'm not trying to be a jerk here,
You don't have to try. It comes naturally to you. You have a real talent for it.
but there is no reason to throw common sense and intelligence out the window when it comes to defending Obama.
No one has. It's just that no one but you cares who was appointed to which ambassadorship or why such person was appointed. It just really doesn't make any difference, unless you thought you were in line but unfairly passed over. Then you'd have a gripe. As it stands, you criticism has less weight with most people here than a criticism that he tied his necktie in a Half-Wndsor instead of a Four-in Hand.
So, what's the standard that you expect Obama to uphold? Do you expect him to change every aspect of every political process before his first year is over? It's fruitless to debate someone who has that kind of an expectation.
I don't expect him to change everything, but I still have the right to be disappointed when injustices are not changed.
Churba asked you if you had any proof that anyone used donated money as the selection criteria. Do you have such proof or is this just another speculation based on the fact that you hate Obama?
I don't hate Obama. I referred to the administration itself admitting that they made political appointments. What more proof do you need? If you believe that donations were irrelevant to these appointments, then I question your fundamental intelligence. Not trying to be confrontational, but as I said earlier, I can't imagine you would be ignorant of decades of political history.
You don't have to try. It comes naturally to you. You have a real talent for it.
That's right. You're the good guy here. Was this really necessary? Weren't you the one who said: "Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I guess that's what you do when you're on the losing side of an argument."
By your own standards, you are admitting that you are on the losing side of this argument.
It's just that no one but you cares who was appointed to which ambassadorship or why such person was appointed. It just really doesn't make any difference, unless you thought you were in line but unfairly passed over.
Wrong. Just plain wrong. Ignoring discrimination based on class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc just because you are not affected is wrong. I never thought I would be attacked for pointing out my concern that money is buying access. Like I said, you can be okay with that. But I think it's wrong. Attack me if you will, but I'm proud to be disappointed in such a process. I said earlier that Bush did it - so it's not a party issue. It's a fundamental issue of discrimination. And I'm against discrimination in any form - even if I wasn't personally affected. By your standard, JFK was just a whining jerk when he deployed the National Guard to fight segregation in the south. After all, he wasn't being affected. I'm proud to have a similar outlook.
Here is what an intelligent Obama supporter would say: "I don't like it, but there are issues that are more important to me at this time."
Someone who tosses aside intelligence to follow a cult of personality would say: "He didn't do that. And even if he did, there is nothing wrong with it. You are a jerk for bringing this up."
I don't expect him to change everything, but I still have the right to be disappointed when injustices are not changed.
If that's your standard, get ready for a life of disappointment. No one, not even King Arthur, Buddha, or Jesus has rid the world of injustice.
I never thought I would be attacked for pointing out my concern that money is buying access.
K, money has bought access since before Roman times. No one denies that it's wrong, but everyone understands that it will never change. Never. Again, no one here denies that it's wrong for money to buy access. The only thing anyone has said in response to your concern about ambassodor dude is (1) you have no proof that ambassador dude bought his ambassodorship, and (2) even if you did, who cares?
What more proof do you need? If you believe that donations were irrelevant to these appointments, then I question your fundamental intelligence.
So, your proof is "If you don't agree with me, then you're stupid"? Isn't that one of those logical fallacy thingees?
Here is what an intelligent Obama supporter would say: "I don't like it, but there are issues that are more important to me at this time."
That's pretty much what everyone here has been saying to you since you brought this up, with the exception of pointing out that you have no proof.
The only other thing I have to say about ambassadors is: Wasn't Spock an ambassador? Wasn't his dad an ambassador too? That sounds pretty fishy to me. Do you think Spock bought his ambassadorship? That green-blooded bastard!
I've addressed the proof argument. Again, the administration itself has admitted to doing this. Please stop ignoring this fact.
That's pretty much what everyone here has been saying to you since you brought this up
Fair enough. The line is crossed, however, with ad hominems such as the ones you have used. As a general rule, it's best to refrain from attacking someone who is a voice for equality. Trying to squelch a message of equality says much more about you than the message itself.
At the risk of confusing correlation with causation, who is most likely to get fired? Most companies fire the people that are less productive and less intelligent. The valuable employees remain. Maybe that is why Democrats are more likely to be unemployed.
Comments
*waits patiently
More money = getting the job pretty often, just not always directly. Honestly, if two candidates are equally qualified for the job, why shouldn't you give the job to the person who gives your company (or administration) a gift, or takes you out to dinner? I only see a substantive problem with it if the guy who pays you is actually less qualified than the other guy. When the substantive factors that would qualify people for the job are equal, people start looking at superficial factors. Look at how Scott was picking between the two companies offering him a job; everyone told him to go for the place with the hot ladies! How is that any different?
Even if you take the FCC guy out of the equation, I have a fundamental problem with rich people getting preference for jobs. To me, this is a basic issue of equality. This is the type of thing that I don't "excuse" away. It was bad that Bush did it, and it is bad that Obama did it. And government has a greater duty in regard to equality than private business. Government is supposed to be for the people.
If you guys want to sit idly and accept blatant class discrimination, that's fine. I've made my point and nobody is going to change my mind, so there is no point in arguing to we're blue in the face. And, Nuri, there is a difference between dressing nicely and bringing over $500,000 to the job interview.
Just a note, the word "brought in" should be examined, How much can a individual contribute to a campaign.
# $2,300 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
# $28,500 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
So when a guy says he brought in a certain amount of money it means he found donors who would help contribute to the campaign, that's a little different then some rich dude who wants a job contributing 500,000 dollars...
Also, I know there's a difference, dude. I'm simply saying that people choosing someone based on additional contributions AFTER the material qualifications for the job have been met isn't really something I'm terribly concerned about. Unless you can show that a guy definitely would not have gotten the job without that contribution, you have no standing for your complaint.
But right:
I think my favorite part was this: Indeed, the Obama is shipping the skilled career diplomats off to countries where their skills might be needed instead of the cushy positions that won't generate much friction. Oh the horror of moving talent to where it can be more effectively utilized.
Of course, the article couldn't help but then try to soften the blow: "So they're all skilled or whatever, but look how much money they raised!!" Consider me less than impressed.
Listen, expecting one man to bounce into Washington and change every wrong in a 200 year old system is the definition of living in Wonderland. Supporters like myself are willing to take incremental progress on core issues before worrying about things like ambassador appointments.
Finally, here's my bulleted Obama dump-list for you, since you seem to believe that we're all blind zealots incapable of criticizing the new Jesus:
Maybe after 2012, he'll go nuts on everybody (especially if the right schisms out completely and the Republicans put up a bona fide nutjob), but it's hard to gauge.
I'd buy the "you can't change everything" excuse for some issues. However, how much fallout would there be if he said that he was going to give jobs to the most qualified people? Could any American take him to task on this? When it comes to patronage, correcting the wrongs would have been about as easy as it gets. Yet he didn't. So instead of saying that it's trivial, ask why Obama couldn't change something trivial. The argument that it's trivial is an argument for change, not for inequality.
Whatever the correct answer is, can there be any doubt that being president of the USA is one of the hardest jobs in the world?
As for Afghanistan, here is a concern. (And I don't pretend to have thought this out entirely - it's too early in the morning.) If it is a given that the country will descend into chaos when we leave, and Americans will continue to get killed while we occupy, should we just leave? If we can truly stabalize the country, then I suppose it is worth it. But that's the question. Is stabalization after our withdrawl possible? And then there is the question of degrees of chaos. If we can lessen the degree to which chaos ensues, is it worth continued occupation? Tough choices, indeed. It would be nice if the UN could take over and have a meaningful presence. I have no problem with specific anti-terrorism intervention, but I'd love to see a true multi-national peace keeping force having a presence in the country as a whole. It would be even better if there was a middle-eastern peace keeping force, such as they have tried in Africa. The problem is that these regional forces often suffer from a lack of resources, training, and political will.
Is your conflict still with just the ambassadors or are you still talking about the whole system?
I'm all for doing something about gay rights. I just don't think purposefully driving the conservative right into a rabid frenzy is a safe way to do it. When you back people into a corner, they very often respond with unreasonable violence. It might make them look crazy, but it can do a lot of damage to innocent people, too.
And don't think that hate crime legislation is going to put a damper on that kind of violence, either. These people are already crazy and mad at their government...the government's laws aren't going to stop them.
A couple of quotes from the article:
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said it is unfair to judge the Obama administration by its first wave of ambassadorial nominations, because most of the openings involve traditional political posts recently vacated by Bush administration appointees.
"Political post" does not mean "best and most qualified person for the post."
But Dave Levinthal, communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics, said, “At least to date, it’s clear that a notable number of the ambassador nominees have been bundlers, and more have been donors. Those numbers appear to speak for themselves.”
Oh just to go back to this topic again, read this part of his background carefully....... He is a old college friend and co-worker of Barack Obama. If I became president would you be upset if Rym became the head of the FCC after also working on my campaign? Someone I know and trust to do a good job at whatever position he was appointed to.
As in, "the position of United States ambassador to the United Kingdom was a traditional political post in the 1970's, as opposed to the position of ambassador to the People's Republic of China, which the U.S. did not recognize as a legitimate state at the time."
EDIT: What the heck, I'll bite: Who do you believe is better and more qualified for the ambassadorial positions in Trinidad and Tobago, France, Spain, etc., than the people recently appointed?
Let me quote the first paragraph of the Politico article:
He may have promised to change Washington, but President Barack Obama is continuing one of its most renowned patronage traditions: bestowing prized ambassadorships on big donors.
As for your question as to who is better or more qualified - that's not my burden. The burden is on the person who put big donors into these positions to prove that they were the most qualified. And, frankly, even if they are qualified, using money donated as the selection criteria is wrong. That's my point.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but there is no reason to throw common sense and intelligence out the window when it comes to defending Obama. Obama did what everyone before him has done. He rewarded big time donors with ambassador positions. I believe this is wrong. Bush was wrong to do it. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, etc. were all wrong. It's not a party issue.
"Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I guess that's what you do when you're on the losing side of an argument."
By your own standards, you are admitting that you are on the losing side of this argument. Wrong. Just plain wrong. Ignoring discrimination based on class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc just because you are not affected is wrong. I never thought I would be attacked for pointing out my concern that money is buying access. Like I said, you can be okay with that. But I think it's wrong. Attack me if you will, but I'm proud to be disappointed in such a process. I said earlier that Bush did it - so it's not a party issue. It's a fundamental issue of discrimination. And I'm against discrimination in any form - even if I wasn't personally affected. By your standard, JFK was just a whining jerk when he deployed the National Guard to fight segregation in the south. After all, he wasn't being affected. I'm proud to have a similar outlook.
Here is what an intelligent Obama supporter would say:
"I don't like it, but there are issues that are more important to me at this time."
Someone who tosses aside intelligence to follow a cult of personality would say:
"He didn't do that. And even if he did, there is nothing wrong with it. You are a jerk for bringing this up."
Which one are you?
The only other thing I have to say about ambassadors is: Wasn't Spock an ambassador? Wasn't his dad an ambassador too? That sounds pretty fishy to me. Do you think Spock bought his ambassadorship? That green-blooded bastard!