http://news.yahoo.com/anna-wintour-...-ambassador-154255146--abc-news-politics.html So have a few fundraisers and you'll get a government job. Its not about the most qualified, but the biggest funders! George Clooney for Secretary of State, Gweneth Paltrow for Treasury Secretary and Bono for UN Ambassador! This is really sad for a guy that talks incessantly about money interests effecting washington. "The old boss is the same as the new boss....won't get fooled again"
Quick Rocketman1981 - name any of the US Ambassadors to the UK for the last 50 years (no internet searching).
I don't care about what people have done or tradition or any of that nonsense. When people are basically given government positions for fundraising it is wrong. Just like when a President takes off a month a year, I think it is wrong. How can you people not be sickened by the influence of money on these positions? And instead you say "well its always been like that" How progressive!
Who is the most qualified to run around and firefight crises in the United Kingdom? Not like America needs an ambassador like that now that Romney of the London gaffe has been deposed. Funny, because I can also place a near 80% bet that you're against the appointment of Susan Rice, and she is eminently qualified. As for qualifications, don't look twice at the Republicans who have blocked or attempted to block supremely qualified candidates for several positions (a Nobel laurate in economics for the Fed comes to mind.)
It hasn't always been like that. Back when US ambassador to the UK was important for different reasons (we used to fight wars with each other a lot, and it took weeks to get word from washington as what to do, guys llike John Adams held it. Now, with the advent of modern communications (and the US/UK "special relationship"), when Obama wants to talk to the PM, or vice versa, they give each other a ring on the phone (or email) The job of the Minister to the Court of St. James is basically being a cultural ambassador, and consists of going to various receptions and ceremonies and PR events. That's why you, Rocketman1981, couldn't name a single person who has held that office in your lifetime. How in the world can you say Anna Wintour isn't the most qualified person for that job? In fact she's probably the most. For largely ceremonial positions that are there to generate buzz and PR - I can't think of a better corps of people to fill them than celebrities. For ones like Ambassadors to the UN, Afghanistan etc, you need policy people.
Keep Justifying the fact that big money drives Obama's campaign just like any other campaign. And if you pay and raise funds you get a government position! its not about the best and brightest but the deepest pockets I presume. How American!
Don't know much about Susan Rice and don't care about what Republicans do, its what politicians do. Inevitably the Republicans and Democrats are pretty much the same thing anyway. The fact that its so blatant that if you raise money for a campaign, you get a job is sickening to me as an American where its the best person for the job and the best and brightest for each position as opposed to cronyism.
I'm not justifying anything about the campaign. If you want to talk about how Romney got his ass handed to him, start a different thread, or post in one of the old ones. Or even better, consult with my colleague: Spoiler If you want to discuss who should or shouldn't hold the post of Minister to the Court of Saint James, we can discuss it in this thread. You really haven't said anything about why you don't think Wintour isn't qualified to be attending royal weddings etc, other than that she's rich (being rich tends to be considered a plus in such circles, fyi).
Out of curiosity, what do you believe the qualifications are for UK Ambassador? And what do you know about this woman that suggests she's not qualified?
I would really like to see a fundraising chart that shows you how much you raise and what you can possibly get. Just to let people know of course.
So I take that to mean you don't actually know the qualifications of the position or her specific qualifications?
I don't always post, but when I do I'm usually pretty supportive of Obama. Still, I think this is one issue we should all be on the same side of. Ambassadors (and all government positions) should be chosen based on merit, and certainly not given out in exchange for political donations. It must be highly demotivating to workers in the Foreign Service to know that they can be brilliant throughout their careers but lose out on a top position to some rich donor. Here's a fun rundown of some of our most inept ambassadors over time: http://jameslbruno.blogspot.com/2011/03/american-diplomatic-spoils-system.html
But who's to say what merit is for a position that's largely ceremonial in many cases? I don't think the effects on career FSO's are debilitating at all - I doubt it makes a difference. If the FSO wanted to have an impact on policy they would be at a different level of the State Department, not stamping passports overseas.
While I do not like the idea of the spoils of victory, picking a "qualified" ambassador is so arbitrary. Much of the job is based of people skills.
Harumph...I'm with you on this one. I bet this person doesn't even speak the language of this foreign country. Harumph...
Yeah, viewed in this context, I am amenable to the argument. Career FSOs should be given priority, but they won't so long as money runs the system. Curtailing money in politics should be a goal to strive towards.
