Back to the topic at hand, are not all candidates for political office or political appointments carefully vetted? Is this just an Obama thing, or does every President do it?

I grant you that Michael Brown, the FEMA genius was inept at his job, but had it been discovered that he were a pot smoker or had an Algerian mistress whose brother was in al-queda, he would not have got the job even if he were extremely competent.

Obama has publicly admitted to smoking cannabis and snorting coke in his younger years. So I wonder if now, drug questions will be removed from the vetting process.

Will job applicants who admit to having done pot in the past be given government jobs if otherwise qualified, or does the privilege of having tried drugs without repercussions apply only to the President elect?

I was responding primarily to the whole post of sarcasm, not necessarily the infrequent use of.. sarcasm *can' be used effectively, but it can just as easily be used not only ineffectively, but to the detriment of communication. I included the information as an fyi, not a condemnation of Law specifically, only .. well, I guess as potential 'dangerous curve ahead' warning.

I'll pm you the rest.

hopefully you'll let this post in, promise no more here on this topic, but I wanted to be clear that I wasn't accusing.. just informing.

. o O (Damn! Dax knew right away where I was going with that!)


But back to the topic, this Obama vetting could certainly torpedo any ideas that Hillary Clinton is going to named Secretary of State, unless the questionnaire is waived in her case. She and Bill bent over backwards during the primaries to keep the "particulars" of the Clinton Presidential Library donation list and other Clinton enterprises such as the Clinton Foundation Global Initiative from ever becoming public. You think the Clintons are going to change their minds on this secrecy now? I don't think so. Unless, as I said, Obama gives her a pass on certain information.

One wonders how much ideaological vetting there will be? Consider for instance...if Obama gets to fill a Supreme COurt vacancy, will the 2nd Amendment be a litmus test issue for him? Will he screen potential candidates to see how many think the 2nd Amendment conveys an absolute individual right to own firearms of a military character and eliminate those from consideration in favor of those who support a contrary view?

What sort of impact will the circle of advisors with which he surrounds himself have? How much ideaological screening will be done with those individuals and how will that impact the choices Obama makes on the basis of their advice?

Back to the second amendment...well I am all for those vetted, that want to rid the streets of assault rifles....

Not strictly about the 2nd Amendment, CG...its about the impact of the vetting process on the sort of advice President Obama gets from those cleared to be his advisors. What impact does the vetting process have on that advice. Consider...if part of the vetting process is to strictly eliminate any potential conflict of interests, how will that impact potential appointees who have ties to and thus real world experience in the business world? How will that impact the quality of economic advice President Obama recieves from those cleared to actually be in a position to give him that advice?

I believe Obama is trying to have a "Lincolnesque" cabinet, in that I believe he's not afraid to appoint people who may disagree with him on various issues. The Bush administration appointed only ideologues, and those who disagreed, like Powell, were quick to leave the administration.

As far as Supreme Court appointments, I doubt that Obama will personally vet candidates based on their second amendment stance, but I'm pretty sure he'll take that into consideration when appointing him. And I think that rather than Obama, Congress will do the asking. Whether or not a person's absolute stand on the second amendment would disqualify him in the eyes of the Obama camp is yet to be learned.

Please don't interpret this to mean I think Obama wants to ban guns. I don't think he does. But I also don't think he'd be eager to appoint a judge who thinks it's constitutional for people to keep anti-tank missiles in their backyards.

Exactly, Dax, Obama is rather unlikely to be the one personally vetting potential appointees. His staffers will be doing it. SO, the question remains...what sort of impact will the vetting process to which the staff is subjected have on Obama's decisions about appointments among other things? Or, to put it another way, how will the screening process for Obama's inner circle of advisors impact the climate within any Obama administration?

As an example. Consider the decision to appoint Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. The CoS has an enormous impact on any President's agenda. He serves as the primary "gate keeper" for the President, determining who gets in to see the President, when, and for how long. From that position, an individual can rather carefully control exactly what information is fed to a President and thereby influence what decisions he makes. Obviously the power is not absolute but it is, I think you will agree, a position of substantial influence. With that in mind, the person who is appointed to that position becomes a person of interest. In the case of Emanuel, he is known as a rather strong partisan hardliner. How will that influence the decisions Obama makes? How will it influence the decisions the rest of the staff makes? Obviously it is impossible to tell just yet and only time will reveal how things play out inside the Obama WHite House. Still...the vetting questionaire is illuminating because it reveals a little bit of the mind set of the new Administration and a little bit about how the power brokers will be selected.