Yeah, I can see that as troubling. Nixon a feud going with the fed chairman occupying that slot, William McChesney Martin, Jr. for a while until he was able to replace him with Arthur F. Burns in 1970. Nixon thought Martin was too independent and he could exercise more control over his friend (Hey! Look! There’s that damnable cronyism again.) Burns. Nixon formed his friendship with Burns (despite Nixon’s anti-semitic streak and Burns being Jewish) while Burns served on Eisenhower’s Council of Economic Advisors.
No. Note the posts to which I had replied. I’m just saying that cronyism has infested every administration, and isn’t limited to Bush. I think that the judgment of qualifications is often a partisan exercise.
There’s no way to squeeze the subjectivity out. We’re talking about something that isn’t precisely measurable - how qualified someone is for a government position. Ultimately, all you can do is compare lists of names with the people you’re in the discussion with, see how well they match up, and try to reach common ground on the names that are on one person’s list of cronies but not on the other’s.
I agree that all recent Presidents, going back to JFK appointing his kid brother Attorney General, have practiced cronyism to varying degrees. (Turned out that RFK turned out to be a fairly good AG, but he didn’t have much of a resume going in.) Abe Fortas, Bert Lance, William French Smith…lots of cronies over time.
You shouldn’t be convinced until someone comes up with a list of Bush cronies that’s got more than just a few names on it.
She’s 60. That’s actually pretty old to be appointed. She may serve for 20 years, true, but I’d be surprised to see a president appoint someone older.
We’d need some sort of proxy, like the level of public outcry, to measure perception of qualification. Perhaps the number of negative references found in a random sample of contemporary press.
We would probably have to assume that these negative references are uncorrelated with the prevailing administration, which is probably a bigger lie than I swallow. I think this sort of quantification exercise as suggested by UncleBeer us not of enormous utility.
I stand corrected.
[hijack] Of course 60 can seem young 
George Burns to a curvy 25 year old chorus girl. “If I were 20 years younger - I’d ask your grandmother for a date.”[/hijack]
I can’t offer quantitative proof that Bush is more cronyistic than other presidents. I will, however, point out that there’s a big difference in how a president appoints his chief of staff and other close aides, in which case he would be remiss in NOT being cronyistic (after all, it benefits the country for the president to be working with people who are familiar with his personal style, etc.), and how he appoints other jobs, particular ones where highly specialized experience and qualifications are needed to best serve the American public (both FEMA and the supreme court fall into this category, although obviously for different reasons).
Who was the last president that lost a major crony to resignation following a nationwide call for the incompetent official’s blood?
Bush.
Do I get a cookie?
Of course you could have used just the first 5 words of that post to get the response you wanted.
Nope. To get the cookie, you have to name the last president, preceding Bush, that lost a major crony to resignation following a nationwide call for the incompetent official’s blood. But then you knew that, didn’t you? You’re just being obtuse in an attempt to get a cookie you without earning it.
O’Connor, unlike Miers, graduated third in her class at Stanford University Law School and served as a judge. There was some basis upon which to judge her scholarly qualifications. You are correct in that they both have been determined to have vaginas.
I am not a Presidential scholar and don’t know which Presidents have used or abused cronyism. I do distinguish between the two. John F. Kennedy’s friends and associates were among the best minds in the country, but even he made bad choices.
I agree that the judgment of qualifications is often a partisan exercise. In the case of Harriet Miers, both parties are still wondering what her qualifications are.
For all we know, she could be another Mike Brown – except she would be in her position permanently.
BTW, I wonder why Bush gave her the duties of Staff Secretary before making her White House Counsel. If she is qualified in 2005 to be one of the Supremes, why wasn’t she chosen to be White House Counsel in 2001?
Depending on how you define “nationwide call” and “major crony”, both of which are highly subjective phrases, one could argue that the last president to be in that situation was Clinton, when Les Aspin resigned as SecDef after less than 1 year in office and the bungling of the military mission in Somalia (see: Blackhawk Down for more details).
Cookie?
There are some who would argue that the time Aspin spent on the house armed services committee, and as chair beginning in 1985, actually provided sufficient work experience to justify his elevation to Secretary of Defense.
If you’re willing to cede Colin Powell as a crony appointment, you might be able to slip Aspin in under the same definition; but it seems quite a stretch.
No cookie.
What about Associate Attorney General Webb Hubbell?
I think a crony resigning in scandal counts as well, don’t you?
Oh, and peanut butter cookies are my favorite. Thanks.
Perhaps the word “crony” is too freighted for this conversation, carries coarse and rude Tammany-like connotations. There are Iowans present, we should be mindful of their delicate sensibilities.
But what have we? Clearly, “confidant” will fit the bill. We are given to understand that GeeDubya thoroughly understands Ms M and her “judicial philosophy” in minute detail: save that he doesn’t know what her views re RvW are, because he never asked the question, having no litmus test, yadda bla yadda bla. This extraordinary form of personal intimacy - so encompassing, and yet so minutely specific - is what we are offered as a basis for judgement. The President offers his personal credibility as guarantee, rather like a torn and slobber soaked tennis ball is offered by a playful puppy.
At the same instant, the WH is in communication with some of our leading Trog Right. Witness the following (by way of Daily Kos… (James Dobson speaking, on his radio show)
So GeeDubya is telling them that Ms M is “one of us”, while simultaneously and bare-faced telling us that he doesn’t know what she thinks.
Conclusion: the Bushiviks know exactly what strain of “judicial philosophy” they are seeking to introduce, the petri dish was clearly marked. They hope to sneak her past scrutiny and avoid a struggle that they might lose, if it comes out that she favors mandatory celibacy for members of Congress.
Then, they can turn to their Trog Right base and claim a mighty victory for the Lord, when it was more like turning back the odometer on a used car.
We fear that such handouts would damage your self-esteem, and stifle your entreneurial spirit.
Well, too late on that last one. I’ve been paid by the government since 1993.
No. This is politics. Of course a president will end up with a few bad apples. John’s on the right track with Aspin’s arguable incompetence. I just think his background puts him in with the ‘circle of grey eminences’, rather than the ‘political payback appointments.’
If only those WMD’s had turned out to be real, the right might have been willing to take the president’s word.
If she favored mandatory retroactive celibacy for their parents, the popular upswelling in her support would be irresistible.