Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My, my, my...I guess Reagan, Bush I and Clinton were all of men high honor and praise. No my friend, they all have similar modus operandi and are cut from the same cloth....Nixon got busted. The only thing that's really change since Bush II became president is the instanteneous stream of information that is constantly eyeballing and characterizing elected officials....internet forums, blogs, twitter, biased news networks, etc......it's much easier to villianize people and perpetuate "stories" and conspiracy theories.
Qualifications? Reagon was an actor, no political experience prior to becoming governor of California. You don't really need a bunch of experience, some style, charisma and be in the right social circles....hell, that's usually the success story behind many people and businesses.
So if Fox win this gig, it by no means is setting precedent. For the history revisonist and those with selective memory, it's always been this way. If Billy Carter (Jimmy Carter's brother) hadn't been a raging aloholic, I'm sure Jimmy would've found a prominent role for him.
Yep. Good points all.
I personally have considered the public as simply "lucky" when a political appointment is actually a decent one! However, I rarely have seen any President appoint the brightest and best --including to the Supreme Court.
The biggest political "pay off" appt. in this administration was Hillary Clinton as sec of State. I think few would argue that the country was fortunate to have her in the role. She was immensely qualified. So sometimes, the political bargains struck behind closed doors end up being excellent choices.
We don't hear as much about other appointments. I daresay few on this forum would even notice who was appointed Sec of Transportation if Foxx's name hadn't come into the conversation. People basically don't pay attention. I bet if you polled the man on the street, only about 20% or so could tell you the name of the US Attorney General.
I consider these political appts to be a big deal, as these are the folks who shape policy and legislation. However, most folks don't even think about such things, nor do they care. I think they see all elections and subsequent appointments as little more than a horse race, lol. Implications of those appointments are not even on the radar. It's just a matter of your horse winning, come what may afterwards.
And really, no reason to care. Not like anyone out there on the political horizon really cares what the public thinks. Once the voting is over, it's back to business as usual -- lobbyists and political payoffs rule -- until the next election, lol.
Thanks Capt Obvious... lol "Who you know" has and always will be what it is about... politics imitates life - or is it the other way around? Either way, at the end of the day - it's been proven time and time again that it comes down to who you know. It happens at all levels in both the private and public sector. When an upper management position flips, are people really shocked when the new guy brings in his own people to run the department? The fact that this concept is thrown into this thread like this is new and it only started happening in the past couple of administrations... or even a few before that - it's pure folly. I mean - come on.
Foxx wouldn't be the first light on qualifications appointee in politics... and he wouldn't be the last. Charlotte represent.
Thanks Capt Obvious... lol "Who you know" has and always will be what it is about... politics imitates life - or is it the other way around? Either way, at the end of the day - it's been proven time and time again that it comes down to who you know. It happens at all levels in both the private and public sector. When an upper management position flips, are people really shocked when the new guy brings in his own people to run the department? The fact that this concept is thrown into this thread like this is new and it only started happening in the past couple of administrations... or even a few before that - it's pure folly. I mean - come on.
Foxx wouldn't be the first light on qualifications appointee in politics... and he wouldn't be the last. Charlotte represent.
Apparently it's not so obvious to some, especially when it comes to "certain" people. if you seem too intelligent, you're labeled "elitest"..if you're 1 year short of a stated 10 year experience requirment, you're rendered unqualified. Gotta keep moving the goal post to satisfy perception.
Apparently it's not so obvious to some, especially when it comes to "certain" people. if you seem too intelligent, you're labeled "elitest"..if you're 1 year short of a stated 10 year experience requirment, you're rendered unqualified. Gotta keep moving the goal post to satisfy perception.
I don't know about moving the goal posts-- seems more often it has been a matter of lowering expectations and standards than raising the requirements when it comes to who gets a politically appointed job.
i definitely don't think folks are labeled "elitists" simply b/c they are intelligent and have impressive degrees.
Did anyone call Condi Rice an "elitist?" I don't think so.
Thanks Capt Obvious... lol "Who you know" has and always will be what it is about... politics imitates life - or is it the other way around? Either way, at the end of the day - it's been proven time and time again that it comes down to who you know. It happens at all levels in both the private and public sector. When an upper management position flips, are people really shocked when the new guy brings in his own people to run the department? The fact that this concept is thrown into this thread like this is new and it only started happening in the past couple of administrations... or even a few before that - it's pure folly. I mean - come on.
Foxx wouldn't be the first light on qualifications appointee in politics... and he wouldn't be the last. Charlotte represent.
I know right
since the beginning of time it's been all about who you know...
..and maybe I'm clueless but I never thought Hillary Clinton was qualified for Sec of State. She is popular but she hasn't accomplished anything beyond tolerating Bill's sex life.
My, my, my...I guess Reagan, Bush I and Clinton were all of men high honor and praise. No my friend, they all have similar modus operandi and are cut from the same cloth......
How silly. I didn't go any further back than Bush because my point was made and there is no need to give a history of every president of the 20th century. If I had just limited my post to just Obama, there would have been rants on about Bush did. I was hoping that would take of people wishing to turn what I said into some sort of partisan rant. Guess I made a mistake on that notion.
No matter. Ironically you seem to agree that Foxx is a political hack, not suited for the job given your comparisons to past mistakes by presidents as justification for his selection.
For the record, IMO, the last president that did more for the people than special interests, was Jimmy Carter. For that, he has been demonized, by both sides, for more than 3 decades. Yet he did more for the common person, than any president since.
I don't know about moving the goal posts-- seems more often it has been a matter of lowering expectations and standards than raising the requirements when it comes to who gets a politically appointed job.
i definitely don't think folks are labeled "elitists" simply b/c they are intelligent and have impressive degrees.
Did anyone call Condi Rice an "elitist?" I don't think so.
expectations haven't been lowered.. we just have more avenues to hear and voice are displeasure with government when our guy loses.
When a Dem wins... GOP (and Libertarians) cry foul and point out how the corruption in the administration.
When GOP wins... DEMS (and Libertarians) cry foul and point out how the corruption in the administration.
Condi wasn't called an elitist because the LEFT doesn't look down on higher education. The far right are the ones who call educated politicians elitist..
I hope Foxx gets the job. It would be great for Charlotte.
since the beginning of time it's been all about who you know...
..and maybe I'm clueless but I never thought Hillary Clinton was qualified for Sec of State. She is popular but she hasn't accomplished anything beyond tolerating Bill's sex life.
oh please. Hillary is a very savvy attorney and she was recognized as one of the most effective Senators while in that office. Not only that, she was more qualified for President than Obama, who did not even serve a full term in the Senate and has never practiced law.
And no, it is not always a matter of who you know. If your work is outstanding, people will seek you out. Not everyone who makes it to the top got there by knowing someone or sleeping with someone, lol.
How silly. I didn't go any further back than Bush because my point was made and there is no need to give a history of every president of the 20th century. If I had just limited my post to just Obama, there would have been rants on about Bush did. I was hoping that would take of people wishing to turn what I said into some sort of partisan rant. Guess I made a mistake on that notion.
No matter. Ironically you seem to agree that Foxx is a political hack, not suited for the job given your comparisons to past mistakes by presidents as justification for his selection.
For the record, IMO, the last president that did more for the people than special interests, was Jimmy Carter. For that, he has been demonized, by both sides, for more than 3 decades. Yet he did more for the common person, than any president since.
Good post.
I don't think Foxx is a 100% political hack but he has some hack in him..... you don't rise in politics without a little hack in you.
oh please. Hillary is a very savvy attorney and she was recognized as one of the most effective Senators while in that office. Not only that, she was more qualified for President than Obama, who did not even serve a full term in the Senate and has never practiced law.
And no, it is not always a matter of who you know. If your work is outstanding, people will seek you out. Not everyone who makes it to the top got there by knowing someone or sleeping with someone, lol.
She was an effective carpetbagger but that doesn't make her qualified for Sec of State...
and more qualified than Obama? Hmm... not so sure about that. Obama is a savvy politician and he showed in the primaries that he knew how to put together an effective team. Hillary's team was AWFUL... she is still in debt and they didn't even know the rules for primary voting.
She may be a better lawyer but she isn't a better politician IMO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
