… but my impotent and ineffectual rage needs an outlet and I can’t think of a better place to vent impotent and ineffectual rage then here in the Pit. And, on a twist to all the current Bush Bashings, this isn’t about the Middle East.
In his unrelenting efforts to ruin our country from both within and without, Bush has added to his collection of inappropriate and just plain stupid nominees to public office.
First, kudos for bashing something that at least, if true, would have been bashworthy. Unfortunately, you left out some key words. The guy opposes aggressive product safety regulation. I understand what that means because I feel the same way: I do not oppose product safety, but I do oppose aggressive product safety regulation. I realize there will be nitpickers who will call this nitpicking, but you’re not one of them. (I hope.) There’s a great big difference in there.
Inappropriate appointments are hardly specific to Bush. I’ve seen every president I can remember accused of the same, Republican and Democrat alike. These weasely appointees always manage to slip into the system somehow.
Nice list Biggirl. I thought the President’s wholesale implementation of Political Commissars for the regulatory agencies last month was a slick method of getting more incompetents into the driver’s seat too.
“Bush said she would bring a distinctive perspective to the high court while strictly interpreting the Constitution and not legislating from the bench.”
Suuuuuuuuuure she won’t. I guess when right-wing judges make rulings they are interpreting
the Constitution fairly and equitably, but when a left-leaning one makes a decision that’s
“legislating from the bench.” :rolleyes:
Guess what Mr. President? The Dems have control of Congress now. Good luck
ramrodding her through the confirmation hearings (I hope, if the Demos have any
sort of spine left).
There are arguably other means to achieve product safety. But aggressive regulation is one of them and Baroody is being named to head the agency in charge of that. Either he’s planning on abandoning his principles or he’s planning on not doing the job he’s being hired for. Neither possibility is a strong recommendation for the man’s character.
Can we have a cite that this bureau is supposed to regulate “aggressively”, as opposed to, say, intelligently? Aggressive does not necessarily equate to good.
Nominating an industry insider like this does cause my radio to start beeping, but without any knowledge about this guy and his own beliefs, it’s hard to say how good or bad his appointment will be.
“Aggressive” and “intelligent” are pretty subjective words. Let’s just say that the role of this agency is to influence product safety via regulation. But what I said stands - if a person doesn’t believe in the mission of his agency, he shouldn’t be working there. If Mr Baroody believes there should be less regulatory control, then he should be continue in his current occupation of speaking to elected officials and trying to persuade them to reduce those regulatory controls.
That makes no sense. Why does someone have to believe that regulation should be at or above the current level in order to take the job? Maybe he thinks there should be less, but still some, regulation-- a position that is probably in accord with Bush’s. Surely you aren’t going to suggest that reasonably people can’t disagree on the precise level of regulation that is best for the county.
A reasonable view, taken in the isolation of this one case. But looking at it in the context of the other appointments cited above paints a more sinister picture. What’s that old saying: Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; three times is enemy action?
I already expressed some skepticism about this guy, so I don’t disagree with you. However, note what I was responding to. Ne**mo was saying that the guy shouldn’t accept the job if he “believes there should be less regulatory control”. Like I said, that particular statement makes no sense.
You don’t see anything wrong with appointing the chief lobbyist for the NAM that actively fight’s regulations to the CPSC? Wouldn’t you call that a conflict of interest?
That’d be like appointing the chief lobbyist for Exxon to head the EPA.
I’ll admit I don’t know the specifics of Baroody’s positions over the years. Maybe he’s been suggesting sutle changes in regulations - a new one’s needed here, an amendment’s needed there, a change in the wording of this one, maybe we should consider eliminating this particular one. But I have a very strong suspicion that his position has been “I never met a regulation I liked and they should all be abolished” - let’s call it aggressive deregulation.
The role of the Consumer Product Safety Commision however is different - it is not their role to determine whether or not a regulation should exist; their role is to enforce the regulations that exist and to determine when they have been violated. And I don’t see how a person who’s opposed to the existence of these regulations can do that job and make these determinations.
If I had a person who was totally opposed to the death penalty and who said he could never envision circumstances under which capital punishment is justified, I wouldn’t nominate that person to be a judge sitting on capital cases. What would I tell him? Pretend you believe something different than what you do when you’re making your decisions? Should I tell a devout Catholic surgeon to pretend he’s not a Catholic when he’s performing abortions?
No, if somebody has moral principles that prevent them from doing a job, they shouldn’t be called upon to do that job. And that’s especially true if their intent is to place their moral principles above the duties of their job and to knowingly subvert their job.