I should say that you summarized his government service, not that you brought it up. You weren’t the first to do so.
I was born in 1969. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Robert Kennedy’s connections. It seems the people he served was pleased with his performance, seeing how he got elected and all. Now tell us again how it’s relevant to Perry and wife. Even Bush and Ashcroft have waxed poetic about Kennedy’s accomplishements and honor.
It’s strange that you can’t seem to hold more than one thought in your head at time. Others, however, aren’t necessarily so limited. It stinks of nepotism and it stinks of inpropriety. This is a man who lobbied for a defense contractor and will now be in a position to benefit that same contractor. Of course with Cheney’s connections to Halliburton not posing much of an ethical problem for so many, I guess this won’t even register. Fox, Henhouse. What chickens?
By the way, this is from the OP, so, yes, I did bring it up.
MM, I take it you’re not going to tell us why you tried to insinuate that RFK was generally comparable to this Perry guy? You’ve been asked enough times by now that it’s clear you know you’ve been caught in a common RW act of intellectual tawdriness but lack the honesty to admit it even to yourself.
Yes, I was the first to lay out RFK’s government service here. Got any guesses why I thought it necessary? Here’s a hint: Perhaps it was your crack that DC named a stadium after him, not because he was a popularly-elected Senator (and, I should have mentioned, probable Presidential nominee and almost-probable President) who had been assassinated, but simply because he was JFK’s brother. It would do you well to accept responsibility for that remark, the way an honorable man would, even if you choose not to explain it. As it is, you’ve simply told us you’re a smarmy little weasel.
Remember the First Rule of Holes, “chucklehead”. :rolleyes"
I was born in 1970. My view of history and world events isn’t limited by my lifespan, though. And it’s really easy to draw parallels here. Both men are young lawyers who got administration or legislative jobs in bodies where relatives were pretty highly placed.
Jack Kennedy was a congressman and a senator in the 1950’s, at the time Robert Kennedy worked as a lawyer in the legislative branch. He then gave his brother a Cabinet post. If they were Republicans, you’d be spitting nails - as you are when the names are Perry and Cheney.
Of course, your failure to see this might stem from a lack of historical vision or a need to score some cheap rhetorical points.
I ask you again to provide me the law or regulation broken. I’m afraid “it stinks” doesn’t quite satisfy me.
He wasn’t always those things, you know. And this is why we can make a proper comparison.
At the time of his appointment as attorney general, Robert Kennedy was 45 years old, roughly the same age as Philip Perry, near as I can tell. So they were both at this stage of their life talented young lawyers in high government service, with highly placed relatives in power as well.
All those other things about Robert Kennedy - his Senate service, presidential campaign and assassination, came after this point in his life. And it’s not a great stretch to say that the high profile achieved from his Cabinet seat helped him in his bids for higher office.
Let’s just stipulate for a second that both men got a foot in the door because of family connections (It certainly seems likely in both cases). Wouldn’t this have gotten them only so far? And wouldn’t the rest of their successes have been the product of their own talent and hard work?
So again, I have to ask, how is the help that Robert Kennedy got from his highly placed relatives somehow right and proper, and the help Philip Perry got is proof is festering government corruption? It can’t be because the Kennedys are sainted Democrats and the Cheney family low and corrupt Republicans, now can it? This argument is just way too facile.
Can you explain how bringing up Kennedy is anything but a tu quoque? It doen’t matter whether or not Kennedy was able and qualified or chosen out of nepotism. IT IS IRRELEVANT to the present day cronyism of the Bush Administration or do you mean to suggest that Perry is singularly qualified to the position where he can influence decisions made concerning his former and probably future employer?
Again, please provide evidence that the appointment breaks current ethics rules, or is otherwise illegal.
This is the third time I have asked. I think a reply might be in order, otherwise this line of argument should be suspended.
Is that an admission that DC did not, after all, name the stadium after him essentially because of nepotism, as you suggested strongly earlier? It would be nice of you to say so, but it’s clear you’re having trouble.
You also assume that RFK got the public-service jobs he did, at a young age, because of his father and brother. It may be so, but it may not be, either. You surely are aware of his own high profile in his Senate staff work, especially with the Teamsters/Hoffa investigations, and if not you ought to go find out.
Nor is it automatically improper to hire a highly-qualified person because he’s related to another highly-qualified person, although appearances must be kept in mind. Are you asserting that Perry is, in fact, the best possible candidate for the job? If not, is your excuse that “the other guys” did something superficially comparable 45 years ago?
Good one. Another example of current RW reasoning is that anyone who hasn’t actually been convicted of something both major and relevant cannot have his qualifications questioned at all. IOKIYAR, ya know.
What was that bullshit about “restoring honor and dignity” again?
You don’t know what ‘ethics rules’ are all about, do you?
Must something be illegal for you to consider it unethical?
from the U.S. Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office
Note #14. Being named General Counsel of a Department you lobbied on behalf of a contractor seems to give the appearance of impropriety to me.
No, something mustn’t be illegal for me to consider it a problem. However, I won’t insist officials on my side hew to a rule unless I make sure that those on the other side are similarly hamstrung. The way to do that is to change the law.
The law in this case places stringent regulations on those who move from the public to the private sector. Those who move in the opposite direction aren’t restrained in quite the same way - all they face are disclosure and confidentiality requirements. It’s a problem known as the “reverse revolving door,” and it’s pretty well known.
Now, this law might need to be tightened up, and I might agree with a specific proposal to do so. But I won’t fault a man for following the law, especially when Democratic lobbyists took similar advantage of it without a peep of protest from some folks here.
Appropriate of nothing much, JFK said, when criticized about naming his brother to head the justice department, that “I see no problem with giving my brother some experience as Attorney General before he goes out to practice law.” - source: The Kennedy Wit/the Humor and Wisdom of John F. Kennedy by Bill Adler 
How about you explain them, then? This oughta be good.