What you are suggesting is a direct violation of 18 USC 211, which prohibits the exchange of campaign contributions for appointive office.
Now, if there is no quid pro quo between support for a presidential candidate and later appointment to any office – whether Secretary of Commerce, an ambassadorship, or whatever, then it is all perfectly legal.
While this is usually the case, it’s not always true.
Beyond that, the only ambassadorships that are political are those to the “nice” spots…Luxembourg or the UK, not Liberia so much. And I wouldn’t say they’re outright bought, but they do tend to go to people who have donated money to the President. If you look at the last few ambassadors to Luxembourg, for instance, the most recent one is Cynthia Stroum, who was a bug donor to Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. The one before was Ann Wagner, former Missouri Republican chair and big donor to Bush’s 2004 campaign, and before her, Peter Terpeluk, Jr, who was a 2000 Bush “Pioneer”.
Those appointments are not so much “bought”, but handed out as rewards for politcal allies.
“You raised a million dollars for my campaign? Here, vacation in Luxembourg for a few years on the Government’s dime!” “You ran the voter drive for that flipped State X for me? Here go to the UK and develop some foriegn experience for your Senate campaign in two years.”
That’s exactly what happens. It’s not as gross as slipping the Prez a million bucks and getting a consulate in Tahiti.
There’s this cable written by the US “Man in Dagestan”, detailing in a masterful and entertaining way an important wedding in one of the hottest spots on the planet. Whoever this diplomat is, he’s no amateur (and no amateur drinker if he even tried to keep up with the locals for form’s sake):
This is true - My Mother’s cousin was a career diplomat, who was appointed Ambassador because his extensive work in a particular country.
So, you think that a diplomat documenting what a foreign head of state is really like is totally useless? Doesn’t it matter if the guy is a genius, or corrupt, or someone who can’t say “good morning” without notes?
As for it being in writing, you realize that there are frequently a few timezones between an embassy and Washington, that the people needing the information aren’t going to be on the phone, and that diplomatic cables are traditionally highly secret until released?
The point was that we over classify. It had been a trend for many years and well reported . I apologize if you are unable to handle hyperbole. In the future i will check to see if you are in the thread and then dummy it down to your level.
re: Ambassadors/State Dept…
I’m kind of going out on a limb here, but could it possibly be that all these extremely high-falutin’ people we got on the job might be a little too high and mighty to have a real sense of what regular folks on the ground think in some of these places?
We do seem to miss the mark more than you’d think we would on this stuff. I’m not saying we should hire Jethro, but is it possible that State Dept. folks are a little too fancy-pants to be accurately supposing the motivations of non-fancy-pants commoners? Or maybe the underlings do OK, but their bosses screw things up?
I suspect most people appointed as ambassadors for political reasons consider the salary they get trivial. The prestige probably has a lot to do with it.
Its more like 10% Its selective but a LOT of federal government service is selective.
“Generalist candidates take the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT), a written exam testing their knowledge of U.S. and world affairs. Those who pass the FSOT (25 to 30 percent of candidates)[11][12] have their resume and life experiences screened by the Qualifications Evaluation Panel (QEP). After the screening process, approximately one third of those that pass the FSOT are invited to an oral assessment, administered in person in Washington, D.C. and other major cities throughout the United States. Approximately 10% of the original applicants at the written exam will ultimately pass the oral assessment.[11]”
Ambassadorships can and have been effectively bought.
Its true for the ones that are purchased.
Cite that they have been purchased?
Really? Then who’s the U.S. Ambassador to Klendathu?
Careerists work their way up to those “high-falutin’” positions over many years. Most start in the visa mill, which means they are talking to and working with locals every single day. When they finally move on to a specialty such as economics or political postitions, they are still working with local officials every single day and become very knowledgeable about regional issues. With any luck, these folks end up as an ambassador or DCM to a country in their area of expertise. Doesn’t always happen, but even so, they have the background and ability to quickly come up to speed on a country’s politics, etc. Granted, some career ambassadors would better serve their country by working in a post office in Indiana, but most are competent professionals.
Quiet, Ralphie. The adults are talking.
Wait, is Magellan01 an ambassador now?
I don’t think this is accurate. About a year ago, I met the current US ambassador to Russia. He had been appointed under the Bush administration, and he talked about the process of being appointed under a new administration. He said that they get an official cable from the new president, either asking them to serve the new president, or asking them to resign their post. Usually career diplomats are asked to keep their spots, while political appointees are asked to resign.
I forget why we’re talking about this now.