Comments on: Culture of Corruption: Beyond DeLay

By: buma

buma — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:09:12 +0000

Shorter Semanticleo:
Everyone is guilty of cronyism, so don’t investigate any of it unless it has been allowed to proliferate to mega-proportions. And if you think the GOP’s cronyism is wrong, you are just a partisan hack with no conscience.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:09:12 +0000

Semanticleo attempts to deflect the issue.

Jade-

Did you read my post?

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 04:09:19 +0000

Ground Hog Day!

By: rightisright

rightisright — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:09:47 +0000

No investigation needed, Smeantileo.

A leading Republican? GUILTY!!

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:09:43 +0000

Where is the highly-touted moral courage of the conservative movement?

Hmmmm…..

Change the war-weary expression CHICKENHAWKS

To;………CHICKENTALKS! BWAAAACKKK BK BK BWAAAACKKK!!!

By: Jadegold

Jadegold — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:09:22 +0000

Semanticleo attempts to deflect the issue. Has cronyism been around forever? Sure. However, there are levels of cronyism. Appointing your old college roommate to be Ambassador to Bermuda probably isn’t going to cause a problem beyond embarrassing himself at a cocktail party.

However, appointing some no-talent hack to head up an organization or agency that you’ll likely need in the event of a natural disaster or emergency is a little like playing Russian Roulette with most of the chambers loaded.

Regardless, a President–even unelected ones–are ultimately responsible for the people they bring into an administration–whether or not they had direct influence or knowledge of the appointment.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:09:38 +0000

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1109345,00.html Cronyism has been around for generations and is not partial to political party. I know I am off thread in that my comments do not address the specfic issue under discussion. But my focus is on the bigger picture. Is there any sense that an elected leader should be actively engaged in his appointment capacity? Delegating authority is essential for most positions of responsibility. ( The key word here is, responsibility.) Would even modest prudence require one to make informed judgements on positions of importance? Even if promises were made to key players in one's ascendance to power (cronyism, if you will) wouldn't you feel strongly about that appointee having some capability and experience? I don't mean underesecretary of Indian Affairs, or assistant Ambassador to Tajikistan, but a substantive job having a direct connection to the safety security of Americans. How far has it gone? That is the question. And if you to make this partisan(which it inevitably will be) sobeit. It's your conscience