Bush choice for family-planning post criticized

surferdude

baraka wrote:

But isn't reasonable to assume ...

No, it's not. See above reply to hippiemom.

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

So you wouldn't based on your morals. I think that's a great way for you to live your life and probably best if you applied it to others. If the appointee has no issue working for an organization that goes against some of his/her beliefs then we should let them. A lot of people actually do a great job of not letting their personal beliefs get in the way of doing a great job.

As far as what makes him qualified, well you should know that most managerial skill sets are not industry or belief specific. But much more tied to communication, strategy identification and implementation, and organizational skills. So this person could be greatly qualified and you want to dismiss him. Does this mean we only want Judges that have been both defence or prosecuting attorneys? Or do we wactually want judges with the right skill set to be good judges?

Ok, you just keep on telling yourself that this sort of staffing decision isn't an attempt by the administration to undermine the agency's mission. Past experience with his appointments to other agencies tells me different.

surferdude

hippiemom wrote:

Ok, you just keep on telling yourself that this sort of staffing decision isn't an attempt by the administration to undermine the agency's mission. Past experience with his appointments to other agencies tells me different.

Bush has a spotty track record. Some appointments like to the Supreme Court have been great, others have been abysmal failures. Some that were roundly criticized have turned out great, like the UN appointment.

Face it, all leaders appoint people to roles to push their agenda even when the agenda is in conflict with the current mandate of the committee or Board or organization. Maybe the appointment was made in hopes of having the mandate reviewed. Why do so called liberals want status quo for this organization? What happened to being progressive and accepting change? Also accept the fact that many people on a daily basis are able to put aside their personal beliefs and do a great job in jobs that seemingly contradict their beliefs.

surferdude

hippiemom wrote:

Ok, you just keep on telling yourself that this sort of staffing decision isn't an attempt by the administration to undermine the agency's mission.

So when a politician you liked made an appointment you agreed with that was possibly going to result in a change in mandate for an agency did you refer to it as "undermining the agency's mission". Or did you embrace the change and say it was for the better?

It's hypocritical to condemn others for behavior you applaud in friends.

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

So when a politician you liked made an appointment you agreed with that was possibly going to result in a change in mandate for an agency did you refer to it as "undermining the agency's mission". Or did you embrace the change and say it was for the better?

It's hypocritical to condemn others for behavior you applaud in friends.

I think if you don't approve of the agency's mission, you should have the balls to say so and fight it out with Congress so that the American people know what you're up to. Reagan pioneered the idea of skipping that part and simply appointing people who have no intention of doing their jobs, so things change without any public debate. Bush has taken it to new heights. I think it's underhanded and no way to operate in a democracy.