First is, doesn't anybody do their job when vetting these people? Second is, has this sort
of ethically challenged person been nominated all along, but everybody in Washington overlooked it? Third
is, is Washington so filled with crooks and phonies that it is next to impossible
to find anyone qualified to take these posts who is not ethically challenged or has
not broken the rules?One does have to wonder about the vetting process, not just by
Obama's staff but by anyone in Washington. I, for one, don't find ethics to be
a "minor detail", but I have never been in charge of securing the greater good.
I don't know. There are problems with yet another President Obama nominee, this time the
nominee for Chief Information Officer. Maybe it requires an ability to overlook some things to
ensure others. Look at the Sarah Palin vice presidential nomination. Nancy Killefer, Tom Daschle, and
Tim Geithner have all been proven to have cheated on taxes in order to pocket
more money, with Killefer and Daschle choosing (or being privately asked) to step down from
their respective Cabinet nominations. Yet the John McCain campaign officials acted as if they knew
nothing. If we want our politicians to be "clean", ethical, and moral, then we need
to watchdog everything they do, be willing to sacrifice our own local interest for what
is best for our country, and to not ask or expect a politician to ever
"bend the rules" in order to get something done. We can't condemn them for voting
for "pork projects" and then turn around and write our local Congressman asking for government
funding for some local concern. Especially with Daschle and Killefer, whose tax fraud was the
same problem that dogged Geithner and is part of public record.I also have to wonder
if this sort of ethical lapse is common among nominees, because the people who are
suited for these jobs are required to be decisive and driven. And tn requin in a small
political arena such as Alaska, Troopergate could not have been much of a secret. There
is, as of yet, no charges pending for Kundra.This is the fourth Obama nominee that
has been dogged by the stain of bad ethical choices. They don't let "minor details"
stand in their way. Does a preson like President Carter have the odds stacked against
him from the get-go because he is too moral and ethical? And if so, given
the choice, should we chose effectiveness and integrity when and where it counts over absolute
integrity?Before the next election, we need to look and think about these questions. We can't
ask them to fight the dirty fight and then vilify them because they got caught
with mud on their shoes. We have gotten what our lack of attention and oversight
has allowed. We can not, and should not, expect more from them than we expect
from ourselves when we are given less temptation. It is not fair to expect a
politician to live up to conflicting standards. We cannot ask or allow our representatives to
edge too close to that fine line if we want to ensure they stay on
the right side of it.Are we willing, as an electorate, to do all this work?
So far we haven't. While, to be honest, he did inherit a very difficult fiscal
situation and public relations nightmare (post-Watergate cynicism), even his fans have to admit that he
was not a particularly effective president. Nor is it right to expect them to "get
things done" when we tie their hands on the methods they can use to accomplish
the tasks we outline for them. Would we really act any differently if we were
in their place? We would like to think we would, but really, would we? If
we were convinced that no one would get hurt nor would find out, how would
a little cheat here or a "compromise" there be nike pas cher truly wrong if 90-95% of the
time you did your job and looked out for the public interest? Faced with these
challenges, is anyone is Washington clean? Is it even possible? Can one be truly "clean"
and still be effective? The one politician that nearly everyone can agree was morally and
ethically clean is Jimmy Carter. Kundra's replacement, the current chief technology officer of the US,
and this contractor are being charged with bribery of a public official, money laundering, wire
fraud, and conflict of interest, due to the preferential awarding of contracts between the two,
who then falsified and padded bills to be paid by the federal government and split
the overages. Since the amount of business done between the contractor and the government increased
significantly while Kundra held the position of CTO, there is suspicion that he may have
been involved in a similar scheme. Just by their power and position, those in Washington
are faced with ethical dilemmas that few of us will face and they are just
as human. If we don't like what has been done to get them, what are
we going to do about it?Laura Bramble http://www.politicalsimpleton.com Redheads have always been accused
of having a temper. This blog is a journey into the mind of a redhead;
decide for yourself if we have a temper or are just frustrated by what we
see... Vivek Kundra's former offices were raided by the FBI last week and arrests were
made on charges that a former associate of Kundra's and a contractor which Kundra's former
office had done a lot of business with were part of a scheme to defraud
the government. Maybe the people who are suited for these jobs have to be so
strong willed to the point of egocentricity to the point that they just don't see
it as wrong to have an ethical lapse on "non-essential" issues. I am left with
several questions. How could it be a "shock" that her teenage daughter was pregnant? Anyone
who looked at her could tell. Morals and ethics are a slippery slope and can
be subjective; a very fine line separates right from wrong. We have gotten the Washington
we deserve, for better or for worse. But you have to wonder how many of
our past Cabinet officials and politicians had these kind of ethical lapses and that everyone
in Washington knew about them, but let them slide? After all, Obama and others in
Washington expressed their regrets about losing Daschle for the post of head of Health and
Human Services because he was uniquely qualified for the job and would have been highly
effective. We have asked for results without examining how those results were achieved. If no
one on the outside had blown the whistle, would everyone have looked the other way
and passed him through, because, in their mind, his qualifications and suitability was more important
than his ethical track record? How often has this happened in the past?Asking these last
two questions, one other thought arises. Why is the press and the political opposition, who
uncovered all of these recent ethical issues, more thorough than those charged with investigating the
backgrounds of these candidates and nominees? I would have thought that after the first embarrassment
with Geithner that Obama's people would have gone through their files again with a fine
tooth comb and gone deeper in their background checks in order to be sure there
were no more unpleasant surprises. How many politicians would overlook these issues because they are
doing, or have done, the same sort of thing and either don't think it's wrong
or don't want to condemn and draw attention to another who has done the same
as they? Are ethical lapses so common in Washington that it is no big deal
to them, just a part of doing business? I have to believe that this is
so to a degree. http://www.politicalsimpleton.com.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기