How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There? [TIME magazine]

[truthisfreedom]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1109345,00.html

How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There?
A TIME inquiry finds that at top positions in some vital government agencies, the Bush Administration is putting connections before experience
By MARK THOMPSON, KAREN TUMULTY, MIKE ALLEN / WASHINGTON

Posted Sunday, Sep. 25, 2005

In presidential politics, the victor always gets the spoils, and chief among them is the vast warren of offices that make up the federal bureaucracy. Historically, the U.S. public has never paid much attention to the people the President chooses to sit behind those thousands of desks. A benign cronyism is more or less presumed, with old friends and big donors getting comfortable positions and impressive titles, and with few real consequences for the nation.

But then came Michael Brown. When President Bush's former point man on disasters was discovered to have more expertise about the rules of Arabian horse competition than about the management of a catastrophe, it was a reminder that the competence of government officials who are not household names can have a life or death impact. The Brown debacle has raised pointed questions about whether political connections, not qualifications, have helped an unusually high number of Bush appointees land vitally important jobs in the Federal Government.

The Bush Administration didn't invent cronyism; John F. Kennedy turned the Justice Department over to his brother, while Bill Clinton gave his most ambitious domestic policy initiative to his wife. Jimmy Carter made his old friend Bert Lance his budget director, only to see him hauled in front of the Senate to answer questions on his past banking practices in Georgia, and George H.W. Bush deposited so many friends at the Commerce Department that the agency was known internally as "Bush Gardens." The difference is that this Bush Administration had a plan from day one for remaking the bureaucracy, and has done so with greater success.



this is a must read!

[whistle]

1. Let's start with every Bush appointment

[SledDriver]

7. Let's start with Bush himself. n/t

[depakid]

2. Maybe they should start with the federal courts

As I recall, one judge Bush nominated had had his license to practice suspended for several years!

Of course, some of the blame belongs squarely with the DINO's- they cheerfully voted to approve most of the incompetants- which is yet another reason to oust them from their seats in Congress and the Senate.

That is, if the Dems ever hope to regain any sort of relevancy in the government.

[truthisfreedom]

3. the entire article is riveting... please read it completely. it's worth

your time!

[bananas]

4. The new terror threat - Osama bin Brownie!

[ladylibertee]

5. Really? No, No Way.LOL. I think that in light of all of this, the WH

should release "all" resumes of the people who were hired since Bush.Or, conduct an INDEPENDENT employment verification on all of them.I know this will never happen.I am being highly facetious, but a gal can dream caint she?:P

[Kolesar]

6. No mention of the hacks Bush put in Interior

What Bush did there was to place lawyers and lobbyists from the businesses that they are supposed to regulate.

[fasttense]

8. I read some of it but nine pages was more than I could stand.

"A benign cronyism is more or less presumed," Says whom? I've never presumed that and I'll bet you most American Citizens never presumed that. Just the political journalist presumed it and of course ignored it. That's like saying everyone knew there were no WMD in Iraq. No we didn't. We believed our President.

"The difference is that this Bush Administration had a plan from day one for remaking the bureaucracy," That's not the difference. The difference is that brush puts in lazy, incompetent people. Most presidents (if, as this writer says, they all put in their cronies) have placed fairly competent people. Now and then we had some duds but most of the people placed by past presidents at least looked like they were qualified and attempted to do the job. Brush's Cronies are blatantly unqualified and don't even attempt to do the job.

[calico1]

9. JFK did use cronyism but at least

Bobby Kennedy was capable in his role.