I'm not asking about Bush specifically, and I'm aware that it is within their authority to appoint whomever they want; that isn't what I'm asking. What I am asking is YOUR personal feeling about Presidents (in general) appointing their friends to be cabinet members. Do you think they are able to remain objective about the friend's job performance, or do you think cronyism is a big problem in American politics?
Again - I AM NOT TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BUSH; I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL U.S. PRESIDENTS.
2007-08-28 03:10:19 · 18 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
pink angel: Man, I wish my life was that simple... everyone is either my best friend or my enemy...
2007-08-28 08:16:22 · update #1
If their friends are competent people who's loyalty is to the constitution of the united states - then I don't have a problem with it.
When they are incompetent crony hacks who's only loyalty is to their president, then they need to hit the road - just like Gonzo just did.
2007-08-28 03:15:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
This is a good question (aside: where'd the hot pic go?)
I guess you could consider this a conflict of interest, because the people selected for these positions are selected on the basis of familiarity or friendship, and not on the basis of qualifications. The only benefit I can think of is the president and their appointee will work together favorably toward common goals. The downside is the most qualified person will not likely get the job.
If you consider this: if by some accident you were made president tomorrow, wouldn't you appoint your friends to various cabinet positions? Probably. Lincoln is the only president I can think of that deviated from strict cronyism.
2007-08-28 03:26:00 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the President needs to appoint people that are capable of doing the job that is assigned to them. I think Bush has not done that.
Part of the problem could be that A. Perhaps the best person for the job does not want it.
B. They may be needed in another important position (Example, Trent Lott may make a great HUD secretary, but he is more important as a a Senator than as a HUD Secretary)
2007-08-28 03:26:05 · answer #3 · answered by Supercell 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm mixed on this one. I personally think that for the majority of Cabinet positions, a President ought to appoint the most qualified individuals for the job, whether they are their friends or not. However, in certain situations having a friend in a position (provided that person is qualified) would allow the President to work more effectively with that person. However, I don't think that would allow them to be truly objective to that person's performance.
2007-08-28 03:50:42 · answer #4 · answered by Owen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
man.. you'd have to take it case by case... some would be able to.. some wouldn't....
I know if I were President the first thing I'd do it appoint my two best friends.. but these people are my best friends because the 3 of us have never had a problem saying exactly what we think and being honest with one another... so I know they wouldn't sugar coat something for me.. nor would I for them.. we'd say what we thought...
but not everyone can do that with their friends.... so yeah.. it would have to be case to case.
2007-08-28 03:21:37 · answer #5 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i agree with cronyism to an extent. the American people have elected you and entrusted you with equipping your administration with people you can count on, and the only people i would trust, i would have to know personally. by the time most candidates get to this level, they should have the kinds of friends in the kinds of places they need them. But, these people must be qualified! if you don't know and trust people that are qualified to fit these positions, you should reach into your network to find people your advisers can vouch for, but they must be qualified!
2007-08-28 03:27:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I voted for Bush knowing he would hire people he knew and trusted. If a candidate is worth voting for we must assume the people he will hire will reflect the policies and character of that candidate. Those who don't consider such things are people I would rather not vote because they don't understand many of the important implications of the votes they cast.
2007-08-28 16:07:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Presidents should appoint people who will give sound advice and are qualified to do the job.
2007-08-28 03:15:52 · answer #8 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
IDK. they have proved that they actually do not understand the thank you to guard one in all those super place for our u . s . a .. Why ought to they conflict this to our u . s . a ., to the international? PPl would desire to make particular that Dubya grew to alter into an fool, truthfully extremely everyone knew his father would desire to have with the aid of no skill been elected as promptly as we've obvious indicators and indicators of predatory administrations ppl are irritating and that they won't look at what they are doing. They use ppl's cultural domestic dog peeves to get them elected and then harm our u . s . a .. 1930. Republican administration. inventory Crash, maximum unemployment. 1991. Republican administration. inventory Crash, 2nd record intense unemployment. 2001. comparable factor, 2008. they don't would desire to hitch the working of our u . s . a ..
2016-10-17 05:01:23 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's one of the facets of the modern Presidency.Sometimes it's a good thing,sometimes not.
John Kennedy had a very good Attorney General in his brother,Bobby.
Bush,in Gonzales,not so much.
And I think the two are the extremes of the scale,good and bad.
2007-08-28 03:16:37 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋