As a follow-up, is it better to have the spouse working not for the Administration, but for the President personally, as Stanley Greenberg did for President Clinton?

No, that shouldn’t be allowed either in my (rather strict) view. And as for the marriages, I’m sure the marriage would survive if Liz or Bob had gone to work in the private sector a few years earlier than they actually did.

Mark Field: It gets to the point where Washington has become a revolving door for the in crowd, with the vast majority of Americans left out.

Yes.

I’d like to see the scope of talent available to government expanded to include those who don’t have an “in”. As Bob says, there are lots of qualified people in this country.

I’m not confident anti-nepotism rules would meaningfully broaden the pool, but I’d support them anyway, if only for symbolic value.

geokstr:

David M. Nieporent says:

Tamerlane: Whatever you think of Malkin, she makes the reasonable point that

You can stop right there, as there is no way to complete that sentence accurately.

Gosh, what a funny coincidence.

That’s exactly how many conservatives feel about the left in general.

The threads where DMN gets accused (directly or implicitly) of being a lefty are some of my favorites.

In my view, there’s far too much nepotism and favoritism in our government. It gets to the point where Washington has become a revolving door for the in crowd, with the vast majority of Americans left out. I’d like to see the scope of talent available to government expanded to include those who don’t have an “in”. As Bob says, there are lots of qualified people in this country. We may lose a few by denying jobs to family members, but IMO the gain will be far greater, both in the sense of inclusion and in the elimination of the culture of entitlement that afflicts our ruling class.

I agree with all that.

But to use either Elizabeth Dole or Elaine Chao as examples, both already had established themselves in Washington before marrying their Senator husbands: Dole was a member of the Johnson and Nixon White House Staffs and a member of the Federal Trade Commission prior to marrying Bob; Chao was Deputy Secretary of Transportation and headed both the Federal Maritime Administration and the Peace Corps prior to marrying McConnell.

They did not have unique talents. Plenty of people with similar experiences that could have filled the jobs they got post-marriage.

(Plus, it is difficult for another senator to oppose the spouse if they were unqualified.)

There are just way too many government families. In both parties.

Mick: Hmmm. He’s a dirty politician, and there is NO DOUBT about QPQ.

This Obama, for whom all is calculated for Maximum Marxism, is truly a Worthy Foe.

The worst is how he is so evil there is NO DOUBT everything he does is a bribe, yet some enemies doubt!

Mark Field: Dave N., since I agree with Bob on this — and take a beat to reflect on that — I’ll say this and then he can add his own view.In my view, there’s far too much nepotism and favoritism in our government. It gets to the point where Washington has become a revolving door for the in crowd, with the vast majority of Americans left out. I’d like to see the scope of talent available to government expanded to include those who don’t have an “in”. As Bob says, there are lots of qualified people in this country. We may lose a few by denying jobs to family members, but IMO the gain will be far greater, both in the sense of inclusion and in the elimination of the culture of entitlement that afflicts our ruling class.

But to use either Elizabeth Dole or Elaine Chao as examples, both already had established themselves in Washington before marrying their Senator husbands: Dole was a member of the Johnson and Nixon White House Staffs and a member of the Federal Trade Commission prior to marrying Bob; Chao was Deputy Secretary of Transportation and headed both the Federal Maritime Administration and the Peace Corps prior to marrying McConnell.

Do we then say, “Well, even though you personally offer something I am looking for, I can’t use you in my Administration”?

Constantin: It makes Obama look worse if this isn’t a bribe. He can’t be that oblivious as to not recognize the appearances here, can he? He’s teetering on the verge of an incompetence narrative as it is.

There is no incompetence. Everything Obama does is for a reason, and it’s all political theatre. He obviously knows the implications of this nomination at this time. It’s not like he doesn’t have a history of these political judgeship promotions at opportune times.
Arthur Gonzalez was promoted to Chief Justice of the bankruptcy court of NY 4 DAYS before he ruled in favor of Old Carco in the recent Chrysler Dealers motion to reconsider suit. Hmmm. He’s a dirty politician, and there is NO DOUBT about QPQ. Even if Matheson doesn’t change his vote then the administration can say, “see look at those paranoid Republicans”. But he has the CHANCE to affect Matheson’s vote (which of course Matheson would rationalize in some way about how the bill is different now).
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

These 82 Chrysler dealers will have standing for Quo Warranto in the DC district challenging Obama’s eligibility (his father was never a US Citizen). Their injury is different than any other voter, and was inflicted by US Government owned Chrysler.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d29-Chrysler-Dealers-and-attorneys-Donofrio-and-Pidgeon-file-lawsuit-in-NYC

In my view, there’s far too much nepotism and favoritism in our government. It gets to the point where Washington has become a revolving door for the in crowd, with the vast majority of Americans left out. I’d like to see the scope of talent available to government expanded to include those who don’t have an “in”. As Bob says, there are lots of qualified people in this country. We may lose a few by denying jobs to family members, but IMO the gain will be far greater, both in the sense of inclusion and in the elimination of the culture of entitlement that afflicts our ruling class.

Bob from Ohio: Yes. Nor should a GOP president do so.(Though it should be a significant personal/business connection, not merely “any”. All family members should be out.)Plenty of lawyers around.

What if the spouse has significant policy experience of his or her own? To name Republicans, Elaine Chao is married to Mitch McConnell; Elizabeth Dole is married to Bob Dole; and Jane Roth is William Roth’s widow.

cboldt: – Orrin Hatch clearly assured him that this was a completely justified merits pick.

–Hatch had the same conclusion regarding Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Hatch’s credibility as a conservative bellwether is suspect, at best.

Whachu talkin about, Willis? Ginsburg is a completely justified merits pick. You seem to be confusing the notion of whether you agree with a judge with the issue of the judge’s qualifications.

Hatch had the same conclusion regarding Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Hatch’s credibility as a conservative bellwether is suspect, at best.

Obama can get the Senate to do the dirty work, holding the nomination in Committee or not bring it up for a vote. The GOP Senate did this to a handful of GWB’s nominees.
And if the Senate doesn’t oblige in the event of non-performance, there is always the right of the President to withdraw the nomination, or to not perform the appointment even given confirmation. Not that either of these is a politically practical option, both options exist. The nominee isn’t in the office until he’s been appointed, and the appointment power belongs to the president.
Not to say there is an agreement or quid pro quo, just that the cards haven’t been fully played yet.

Yes. Nor should a GOP president do so.

(Though it should be a significant personal/business connection, not merely “any”. All family members should be out.)

Plenty of lawyers around.

Agreed.

So the Democrats admit that it was vote buying. Ok.

when you consider that there is an enormous surplus of qualified candidates for every federal judgeship.

An enormous surplus of qualified candidates suitable for a Democratic nomination in Utah? Difficult to believe.

Perhaps the president should give Republicans until Monday at 10 a.m. to (a) identify and stand by a case against this nominee, (b) publicly and unqualifiedly denounce this nominee’s detractors, or (c) watch him, at 10:30, withdraw the nomination and submit one guaranteed to delight liberals and disturb conservatives.

No, no, Dunstan:

(1) The conspiracy cannot be disproved. You cannot prove there is *not* a conspiracy.

(2) Attempts to disprove the conspiracy are themselves further proof of the conspiracy.

People who get their information only from the mass media may not even know about other similar situations concerning the WH’s Chicago thuggery style arm twisting.

Ms Malkin’s title, The Obama Way: Bluster, Bully, Bribe, is not only catchy, it’s quite true.

This clearly makes the left seem to be the unhinged ones!

geokstr:
You can stop right there, as there is no way to complete that sentence accurately.

Gosh, what a funny coincidence.That’s exactly how many conservatives feel about the left in general.I’m unfamiliar with that definition of the term “coincidence.”

David M. Nieporent says:

Tamerlane: Whatever you think of Malkin, she makes the reasonable point that

You can stop right there, as there is no way to complete that sentence accurately.

Gosh, what a funny coincidence.

That’s exactly how many conservatives feel about the left in general.

Well, now you can picture me: beard, wire-rims, corduroy sportscoat …

(Now that I think about it, I do own a corduroy sportscoat. Not green, however, as I think TT’s “Liberal” wears. Much more tasteful. Really.)

9080yy says:
Jim was one of 30 members who were invited to by the President to congratulate their efforts on supporting PAYGO legislation.

Hmmm…”congratulate their efforts on supporting PAYGO”? Would that be the same wonderful PAYGO legislation they were all crowing about passing while out of the other side of their mouth and through all their media whores they were eviscerating Jim Bunning for trying to get them to actually follow, and they wouldn’t, even with hundreds of billions of faux-stimulus (nee: vote-buying) money yet unspent?

Oh, that was that PAYGO…

I see.

Tamerlane: Whatever you think of Malkin, she makes the reasonable point that

You can stop right there, as there is no way to complete that sentence accurately.

Matheson has been very publicly fast-tracked for this judgeship.

Where do you see a “fast track”? What does that even mean in this context?

The conspiracy theory not only has no factual basis, but is, to use a technical term, stupid. Obama gives up all his leverage by making this announcement now. If Obama had wanted to play hardball, he’d have done the opposite: hold off on the nomination until he saw the ObamaCare vote. By nominating the professor first, the congressman can vote “no” and there’s nothing for Obama to hold over his head.

Bob from Ohio: Yes. Nor should a GOP president do so.(Though it should be a significant personal/business connection, not merely “any”. All family members should be out.)Plenty of lawyers around.

Well, since to the best of my knowledge no president has ever followed that standard (at least not publicly), it appears to be a textbook example of near lethal blood levels of Obama Derangement Syndrome to start insisting that Obama is corrupt/incompetent/etc. based on a single nomination of a relative of a sitting Congressman.