In many cases they seemed to be complete morons, who clearly either were not qualified for the job, or worst, had experience in the field, but actually experience being an opponent and activist against the very things the department is supposed to represent.she was in charge of heading.
Was this some sort of perveted sick joke on the american people?
2007-08-30 05:09:59 · 20 answers · asked by ningis n 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
As president, he insisted on always being the smartest guy in the room.
2007-08-30 05:14:09 · answer #1 · answered by lunatic 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Speaking of Morons, you have no room to talk. It is called, "to the victor goes the spoils." That is the whole purpose of political appointees. JFK appointed his brother as attorney general. JFK's father was appointed ambassador to England. It has been going on since our country was founded. MOST political appointees are not qualified in the field that they are appointed in, it is usually as a figure head, and to brief the President on what is being done in that particular department.
2007-08-30 12:20:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Loaded question to say the least, but here goes it.
MOst of them are not morons, they are highly intelligent people. Even bush is intelligent, especially compared to the average joe walking the street.
"but actually experience being an opponent and activist against the very things the department is supposed to represent.she was in charge of heading."
ever hear of promoting change? Maybe he wanted to change govt, like his campaign stated in 2000.
Most of what hes done hasn't worked out, but most experienced and intelligent people will to you.....being lucky is more important than being right.
Bush may or may not be right (most likely not), but he definitely wasn't lucky. And thats where he really looks bad.
Luck is a funny thing
2007-08-30 12:15:37 · answer #3 · answered by Phil M 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Bush carried cronyism to an extreme. His appointments largely depended on a person being a 'yes man' to Bush. This attribute was relied on even above qualifications for a particular post.
Some appointees were deliberately staffed by people opposed to the agency they were leading - because the far right believes that the Federal government EPA and other agencies are too harsh on businesses.
2007-08-30 12:17:04 · answer #4 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well, croneyism has a lot to do with it. One reason why the Katrina disaster was handled so badly was because the head of FEMA was Michael Brown, whom Bush appointed, despite the fact that he had no previous experience in emergency management.
2007-08-30 12:21:32 · answer #5 · answered by tangerine 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Every administration has its share...ask Joycelyn Elders, the Surgeon General for whom English appeared to be a second language, or Janet Reno, the Rambo of Waco...
2007-08-30 12:13:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Of all the questionable claims against Bush, I think this one cannot really be denied. If he was on the TV show The Apprentice being the project manager and his team failed as such, he would be the one being fired at the end.
2007-08-30 12:14:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
afaik, there isn't anyone President Bush could appoint who wouldn't be bashed by the liberal media ... simply because his appointees wouldn't be liberals.
"Bad"? Was Janet (Waco) Reno bad? How about Janet (Elian Gonzales) Reno and her Secretary of State partner in that fiasco?
:-)
2007-08-30 12:14:36 · answer #8 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I don't know what his reasoning behind hiring "non intellegent" people was. I am not a fan of Bush, nor do I think I ever will be.
Of course if I go on I think that I'll have a book written here.
But I think that he's hiring people that are on the same level of intellegence as he has.
2007-08-30 12:14:06 · answer #9 · answered by pinky_lady_2006 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
I guess the same could be said for Clintoon except most of his circle was criminals...
http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintcrimefamily.html
2007-08-30 12:19:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because he's an idiot, remember? Or is that "evil genius?" It kinda goes back and forth with libs.
2007-08-30 12:14:44 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋