He must avoid, to a fault, the _appearance_ of supporting a system of patronage.

I’m afraid we’re long past that. In 2000, the presidential candidates were the son of a former President and the son of a former Senator – and I couldn’t see where either one of them was qualified.

Manju: or we could’ve stumbled upon a deeper scandel. How independent was the independent reviewer? were the other 3 canddiates just rubes to allow the gf to advance? Dis she lie on her cv, as davids evidence suggests? Either way, the info should’ve been disclosed. Perhaps he should lose his charmanship.

No one makes it to the US Senate who can’t figure that ruse out. Name no more than two winners at most, so that the preferred candidate will make the top 3 cut and the senator can claim it wasn’t a rigged game. And the name of the “independent reviewer” hasn’t been disclosed. (You don’t really think the “independent reviewer” might not have been “independent,” do you.)

Baucus might deserve to be a “charman,” but he’s a chairman and in no jeopard of losing his chairmanship. (Anyone think that Charlie Rangel should continue as a chairman for another day over in the House?)

I guess it depends on the standard.

pireader: You say the initial list had six candidates. Then the process was only tainted if Ms Hanes didn’t merit a spot on that list. But the independent reviewer ranked her in the top half of that list, so presumably she did deserve to be on it.

or we could’ve stumbled upon a deeper scandel. How independent was the independent reviewer? were the other 3 canddiates just rubes to allow the gf to advance? Dis she lie on her cv, as davids evidence suggests?

Either way, the info should’ve been disclosed. Perhaps he should lose his charmanship.

I think your logic is flawed.

You say the initial list had six candidates. Then the process was only tainted if Ms Hanes didn’t merit a spot on that list. But the independent reviewer ranked her in the top half of that list, so presumably she did deserve to be on it.

I doubt the relevant district could produce a half-dozen strong candidates.

That is pretty condescending and manifestly untrue. I know personally over ten Montana lawyers that would be strong candidates — and I live in another state.

It still matters since it poisons the selection process. Baucus submitted 6 names to an independent reviewer who then picked 3 candidates to be interviewed by both Montana senators. That means a qualifyed individual last out on an opportunity to be considered because Baucus’ girlfriend took up the slot. Baucus then interviewed his own girlfriend.

I doubt the relevant district could produce a half-dozen strong candidates.

pireader: Maybe it would be unethical for Max Baucus to appoint his lover as US Attorney; or maybe not. That doesn’t matter, since the President makes the appointment, not him. Baucus just suggested her name.

It still matters since it poisons the selection process. Baucus submitted 6 names to an independent reviewer who then picked 3 candidates to be interviewed by both Montana senators. That means a qualifyed individual last out on an opportunity to be considered because Baucus’ girlfriend took up the slot. Baucus then interviewed his own girlfriend.

112.EH says:
Letalis: Absolutely the regulations concerning such structures and relationships are too permissive. Lobbying should be a radioactive profession.

Sure, why not just get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment guaranteeing free speech, and the silly government not abridging clause.

Dude, that is soooooo 18th Century dead white dudeish.

He only began dating the woman who had worked for him since 2002, after they both seperated from their respective spouses.

On the surface, this seems almost noble, no?

But in common parlance dating means a couple are prepared to be seen in public and, therefore, proclaiming their relationship to the world.

It does not mean they weren’t having sex on the side whilst both were still married.

That said, I just can’t get excited here. Keep in mind that the primary credential for the woman who was almost the Democratic nominee for President last year, and is now our Secretary of State was that she was married to a powerful politician (and apparently slept with him at least once).

The U.S. Attorney position is political. I will bet that if you looked throughout the country, you would find plenty of them who had meager prosecution backgrounds before being nominated and confirmed. Not just this Administration, but routinely. Just look at all the former USAs who went on to higher office.

And the poster above who pointed to Senatorial Privilege is right – if you have Senators of the same party as the President in a state, they pretty much control who at least gets nominated. I think it is supposed to work that the opposite party Senators have some say here, but my impression is that in recent years, this has been observed more in the breach.

Finally, as to Ensign. Keep in mind that he is the “clean” Senator in Nevada. Of course, that isn’t that hard, when the other Senator is often called “Dingy Harry”.

But that does bring up the double standard – how many Democratic Senators have similar sexual problems that are hushed up by the media? I am thinking right now about a former Senator and Presidential candidate whose affair was apparently hushed up for a year or so, until exposed broadly by alternative media. How many girlfriends do you think that Saint Teddy (Kennedy) had during his long term in office?

ArthurKirkland: 1)Sen. Baucus exhibited exceptionally bad judgment in recommending his bedmate for United States Attorney.2)Her resume appears to compound the problem.3)If he did not disclose the personal relationship to those who would consider his recommendation, his conduct should be investigated formally and might warrant a resignation.It would probably be tough to walk past Sens. Vitter and Ensign on the way out, but ‘he did something just as bad’ has never been my favorite excuse.4)It has been disappointing to observe an increase in the volume of posts by Conspirators that consist of crudely fashioned, crudely aimed, partisan firebombs.5)I believe Babe Ruth to be the greatest baseball player in major league baseball history, by a substantial margin, much of which consists of his pitching.

Five points well put. Much as it pains me to agree that a Yankee was the greatest baseball player in major league history, he was- in large part due to his pitching for my beloved Red Sox.

Heh:

Well, one doesn’t have to be an expert in a field to teach that field (and of course, I’m sure a law professor doesn’t teach you to be a lawyer, he teaches you about a specific subject of law). I have a good friend who has taught physics for 10 years now at a university. He originally started as a TA while majoring in CS. He’s never “practiced” physics (though he did end up with a double major in CS and physics), but he’s an excellent teacher of it by all accounts :)

I think a much greater subject matter expertise vs practical or “clinical” skills disconnect is possible and common in law schools than in medical schools, except where “adjunct” faculty are concerned in the former. (The adjuncts are usually the ones who do it day in and day out in the real world for a living.) It is possible for someone to be a medical school professor in a clinical speciality and have gone off into a narrow area of research years before and no longer be very clinically competent, but most medical school professors are practicing in their specialities and clinically competent, having completed years of clinical training at progressively higher levels in the course of residencies and fellowships. On the other hand, one can be a law school professor with no practical experience of the law, even the subject they are teaching, only scholarly accomplishment, that is “book learning” if you will. A professor who teaches property may know more about the subject matter of property, and be very well qualified to teach it to students who will graduate and go on to learn the practical stuff from mentors and/or OJT.

A little later, the program manager of the granting agency called me and asked me to be a reviewer on some grants. One of the things he wanted me to do was review the progress on the grant I was cut out of. I laughed and told him I would recuse myself from this particular grant — as far as I was concerned, this guy was an unethical prick, could kiss my ass, and I believed he didn’t have the competence to fulfill the conditions of the grant on his own. The program manager laughed and said he *still* wanted me as a reviewer.

“You’ve got to be kidding” I said, “I am furious at this guy and think he has no ethics whatsoever.”

“That’s fine,” he replied “I want you as a reviewer because I know that you will do your best to find any errors he makes and be as critical as possible. I’ll just read your comments knowing that you are biased against him, and ignore most of it.”

“Well, OK,” I said, “As long as you know that I’m not pretending to be fair here.”

“No problem.”

And, sure enough, that’s what happened. I tried to be fair, but had no qualms about being as critical as possible, and the manager “rephrased” my comments to allow the grantee to respond. I loved the look in they guy’s eyes when he saw me across the table at his one-year review…

I am personally familiar with a situation a few years back where a powerful lobbyist had a girlfriend as the head of a prominent office in one agency, a former staffer as the head of a prominent office in another agency, and yet another former staffer in as the head of a prominent office in another agency. All three owed their jobs to the lobbyist. Of course, whenever his business came to the girlfriend’s agency, she recused herself from the matter – and her deputy (who she appointed to that job and who was also one of the lobbyist’s former staffers) handled it.

Cozy, huh?

in the Senate because he beat a guy named Bernstein.

Really? Off with his head!

I didn’t mean any disrespect. I guess I was surprised that you never heard of him, considering that Ensign is (1) famous, (2) a top leader of the Republican Party and (3) in the Senate because he beat a guy named Bernstein.

However, I’m much more comfortable with an AUSA who is loyal to someone because she’s doing him than an AUSA who is loyal to her “imaginary friend”. Jesus Christ Dave, in an office that tolerates zealots and hacks like the U.S. Attorney’s office… if this kind of thing gets your hackles up, then PLEASE turn some of those fantastic research and writing skills into knives with which you dissect the entire DOJ. I’d love to see you rip into the real hacks in that department.

If this is the catalyst for your interest in doing so, then it is a positive thing after all.

This ignores the basic reason why political leaders put their family, friends and supporters into key jobs, rather than doing a pure talent search — loyalty

U.S. attorneys are among the political appointees who one would least want to feel loyalty to, and especially act on loyalty to, their patron Senators. These guys and gals (like all prosecutors) have an awful lot of power, that can easily be abused, misused, or not used when it should be. To what extent the need for “loyalty” forgives what would otherwise appear to be corruption is a fair question; but the answer with regard to U.S. attorneys is that they shouldn’t be “loyal” to anything but the law and the Constitution.

AP release, Washington: “Both remaining members of the Senate resigned in disgrace today when…”

if Mr. Baucus was not on the front lines of the health care debate, he would be as obscure to Mr. Bernstein as Mr. Ensign is

Baucus is on the front lines of the health care debate? Actually, I knew that, but only because after I wrote the original post, I read some other commentary on Baucus that noted this.

Don de Drain: But the fact that David B just can’t find the time to learn anything about Sen. Ensign but has the time to learn and blog about Sen. Baucus, while professing to not follow politics, does not change the fact that Baucus deserves criticism. 

Agreed, but lets just look at the facts of the “scandal.” A guy recommended his girlfriend for a job. Someone else got the job in SEPTEMBER. It is a big freak out NOW? By a guy who wants to write on political issues, but can’t be bothered to know who John Ensign is?

Yes, Baucus deserves to be criticized for recommending his girlfriend for a job. I guess.

Maybe my perspective is a little skewed… I actually got laid in college (enough that I stayed there for seven years) and didn’t settle down and get married until I was 38. I’ve gotten job interviews set up by girls I was banging, and I’ve gotten bangees job interviews too. I never thought anything was wrong with it, and I still don’t.

I think it crosses a line if you bang someone *in order* to get a job interview. Or if you give someone a recommendation *just because* they are doing you.

But, if you’re a person who has a job that generally requires some degree of education, and you are sexually active, you’re likely to have a fair number of sexual partners who have some education and experience themselves. Why should anyone be disqualified from you saying they would make a good candidate just because they did you? And, are you obligated to say “hey, she would make a good candidate … but by the way, she sure gives great head too … and I oughta know!”

Come on… really?

Its a dumb thing to harp on… and I think that if Mr. Baucus was not on the front lines of the health care debate, he would be as obscure to Mr. Bernstein as Mr. Ensign is. And this “story” is about as newsworthy and as classy as the Tiger Woods coverage.

I agree that much of the criticism of Baucus is motivated in part by partisanship (like the original post here). Plus there is the “press factor.” The best summary of this factor I have ever read was recently written by Matt Taibbi at the following link: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/page/2/ where he addresses the “media conspiracy” against Sarah Palin.

But the fact that David B just can’t find the time to learn anything about Sen. Ensign but has the time to learn and blog about Sen. Baucus, while professing to not follow politics, does not change the fact that Baucus deserves criticism.

The existence of David B’s biases, whether he acknowledges them or not, does not excuse Sen. Baucus’ conduct.

My point was not to slap Bernstein for being a two-year lawyer who became a prof though. My point was that a guy with two years’ experience grew into his chair rather snugly. Accordingly, why is this AUSA candidate unqualified? In a DOJ that hired Monica Goodling, Mary Beth Buchanan, and Brent Ward, I’m just failing to see why this is so “scandalous” that some guy nominated his girlfriend for a job that she seems to be quite qualified to do.

The issue doesn’t seem to be experience. The issue seems to be the concern over whether or not it’s proper for a senator to nominate to the president someone they’re having a sexual relationship with for a political-appointee position. Then it goes one further to the fact that this was a relationship which would not have been known to other senators/staffers or the public had the nomination progressed. Is it likely it would have come out? I’d like to hope so, but seeing how long some of these guys get away with this stuff I’m not so sure.

This goes back to what I said about even an appearance of impropriety. Elected officials above all should be staying out of this easy-to-avoid trap.

If you want to look at it from the other side, even the most qualified candidate that gets a position in this way will always have lingering questions and doubts about how they got the position. How can anyone ever be certain they got the position because of their qualifications and not because of their relationship with the one who nominated them? It’s easy to say that *SHOULDN’T* be the case, but I can’t remember seeing a case where it wasn’t :)

I’m not saying that she’d be my first choice. But, come on, hasn’t everyone recommended a girlfriend or a boyfriend for a position for which they might be qualified.

No, that’s the thing. “everyone” hasn’t done that. I can’t say if it’s the minority or majority position, but I know many who would, as I’ve said, avoid even the appearance of impropriety (from both sides of the desk).

Don de Drain: I would hope that you agree that the failure to disclose is a serious, serious problem, regardless of whether or not it violated any law.

I agree. I don’t think that this makes Baucus smell like a rose. And, I have some serious questions about his girlfriend’s conduct in Iowa. I’m just saying that the whining about this “scandal” certainly seems motivated by something other than a belief in ethics, openness, and full disclosure.