- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Looks like McPalin’s campaign tactics has ruined it for a lot of folks that want to work in government in the future! :kidding:
No one wants to be associated with a ‘terrorist’ or anything that could cost Obama the election in 2012. LOL
They have a very strict application process, BUT I think that I could qualify for one of the positions in the Obama administration, I hope! :roflmao:
I can’t believe some of these questions! OMG it’s going to knock a lot of folks out of the running. :Cry:
My only “issue” may be my online persona, but hopefully no one will ‘report’ me for my evil twin (Nibor) posting for me during the ’08 campaign.
LOLIf you want to work for President-elect Barack Obama’s administration, be prepared to spill almost everything there is to know about yourself. :fencing:
The Obama transition team is sending a seven-page, 63-item questionnaire to every candidate for Cabinet and other high-ranking positions in the incoming administration.
The questions cover everything from information on family members, Facebook pages, blogs and hired help to links to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, American International Group and troubled banks as well as lawsuits, gifts, resumes, loans and more. :flamer:
The transition team has about 7,000 positions to fill, according to the U.S. Government Printing Office’s Plum Book, the quadrennial list of positions subject to presidential appointment. Watch how detailed the questionnaire gets »
Included are 15 Cabinet positions and nearly 200 ambassadorships as well as agency heads and their immediate subordinates, policy executives and advisers, and top aides to those officials. iReport.com: Who should be in Obama’s cabinet?
The largest part of the questionnaire asks prospective White House appointees and their spouses to list real estate and other business transactions, affiliations and relationships as well as personal financial and tax information.
It also asks about writings, speeches, testimony, online communications and even personal diaries. :banger:
An entire section requests details on any criminal or civil legal action in which the applicant may have been involved. The last question in that 11-item section asks for details on any child support or alimony orders.
In an apparent effort to avoid the problems faced by several nominees in the last two administrations, a block of four questions is devoted to ferreting out details — including the immigration status — of any domestic help the applicant may have hired.
Question 61 seems to have been prompted by the controversy over former 1960s radical William Ayres in Obama’s campaign: “Have you had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used — even unfairly — to impugn or attack your character or qualifications for government service?”
Under the final, “Miscellaneous” category, the questionnaire asks for the names and phone numbers of past live-in lovers; whether anyone in the applicant’s family owns a gun; the state of the applicant’s health; and whether he or she has any enemies.
A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.
The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps.
Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says. Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun. They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.
The application also asks applicants to “please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”
The vetting process for executive branch jobs has been onerous for decades, with each incoming administration erecting new barriers in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past, or the controversies of the present. It is typically updated to reflect technological change (there was no Facebook the last time a new president came to town).
But Mr. Obama has elevated the vetting even beyond what might have been expected, especially when it comes to applicants’ family members, in a reflection of his campaign rhetoric against lobbying and the back-scratching, self-serving ways of Washington.
“President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that,” said Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Obama transition office.
Jobs with the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have served as lucrative incubators for Democratic and Republican administration officials. But those affiliations have become potentially toxic since the government seized both companies after years of financial irregularities that have stoked the economic crisis.
Not surprisingly, then, Question 18 of the Obama application asks whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have been affiliated with Fannie, Freddie, American International Group, Washington Mutual and any other institution getting a government bailout.
Under “Domestic Help,” the questionnaire asks the immigration status of applicants’ housekeepers, nannies, chauffeurs and yard-workers, and whether applicants have paid the required taxes for household employees. (Those questions reflect controversies that tripped up President Bill Clinton’s first two nominees for attorney general in 1993.)
“Every transition is cumulative,” said Michael Berman, a lawyer and lobbyist who worked in the transitions of both Mr. Clinton and President Jimmy Carter. After reviewing the Obama application, Mr. Berman added, “I am very happy I am not seeking a job in the federal government.”
A former Clinton White House official who insisted on anonymity said in an e-mail message, “I believe it is considerably more detailed than we had to fill out in ’93. Interesting that they want spouse information on everything — means lots of folks are going to have to list the very prominent — and controversial — companies that their spouses work/lobby for.”
The first question asks applicants not just for a résumé, but for every résumé and biographical statement issued by them or others for the past 10 years — a likely safeguard against résumé falsehoods, one Clinton administration veteran said.
Most information must cover at least the past decade, including the names of anyone applicants lived with; a chronological list of activities for which applicants were paid; real estate and loans over $10,000, and their terms, for applicants and spouses; net worth statements submitted for loans, and organization memberships — in particular, memberships in groups that have discriminated on the basis of race, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
There are no time limits for some information, including liens, tax audits, lawsuits, legal charges, bankruptcies or arrests. Applicants must report all businesses with which they and their spouses have been affiliated or in which they have had a financial stake of more than 5 percent. All gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received from anyone other than close friends or relatives must be identified.
Just in case the previous 62 questions do not ferret out any potential controversy, the 63rd is all-encompassing: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”
The answer could duplicate the response to Question 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.”
For those who clear all the hurdles, the reward could be the job they wanted. But first there will be more forms, for security and ethics clearances from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of Government Ethics.
I think I own far to many guns to pass the test.
I don’t think that that will be a huge disqualifier Chips! I think that this may be a good thing because it will make people more aware of how they act in ‘public’ and think about their actions know that one day it could be made public! :tongue:
I just would hate to have to move to Washington so I’d love to have a technical job (maybe on the website) or something where I could have a virtual office otherwise I don’t see anything that I would make me want to leave Denver unless my igaming business went bust. LOL
I got 2 words for you that think the Dems have 2012 in the bag:
Michael Steele
@bud405n 186698 wrote:
I got 2 words for you that think the Dems have 2012 in the bag:
Michael Steele
LMAO well I guess you can always dream! IMO the day the GOP nominates a black man to be president will be the day pigs fly. :wink-wink
With no time to waste watching socialism descend on America and our children’s future, who do you think will be able to get the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party to come together and unify our bases of support to secure a victory against Barack Obama in 2012?
First name that pops up seems to be Gov. Sarah Palin.
Governor Sarah Palin is a great American who will be pivotal in helping the GOP gain seats in 2010 and 2012 in the Senate and House, and be crucial for the GOP presidential nominee in 2012. She gets crowds enthusiastic and willing to depart with their money.
The problem with Palin running as President or Vice-President is that she does not now posses enough information to reveal what she actually stands for on way too many critical issues and subjects that matter to way too many American voters. She needs to prove that she can actually handle the hard questions before she decides to run for POTUS.
Gov. Mike Huckabee is a great American who probably will be second only to Palin in influencing people to help the next GOP contender win in 2012. He stayed in the presidential race to long against a far greater American hero named John McCain, but has espoused support for McCain and conservative principles. He does not have much support outside the Christian community and would not bode well against Obama in 2012.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is mentioned as a possible contender for the GOP nomination in 2012, but is not well known, and does not start out with a strong following. The following is from columnist Bob Novak column titled, “How Not to Run for Vice President.”
“Pawlenty’s position as chairman of the National Governors Association may prove to be his undoing. While party insiders sing his praises as ideal to be McCain’s running mate, leading conservative Republican governors have been less than pleased with him. Pawlenty has collaborated with the association’s Democratic vice chairman, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, on a fat economic stimulus package as well as the energy proposal.”
How about Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida?
Of course Gov. Crist will be important for the next GOP nominee. He will be a major asset to the GOP as we move forward with an agenda of reform. But he could not deliver his state to McCain in 2008, and some conservative leaders are not at all enthusiastic over prospects of him being on top or bottom of any GOP ticket. This is from CBNnews.com:
How about former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani?
He gave one of the best political speeches I ever heard at the Republican National Convention this year. He will also be a very crucial voice to help the GOP win against Obama in 2012. But Giuliani was not the best campaigner in 2008, and blew a huge lead he had in early polls. He is NOT a favorite of social conservatives, and does not seem to have enough appeal to grassroots volunteers on the ground in states to actually get them to come out and do the work needed to get a GOP presidential candidate elected.
And who is Mark Sanford?
Mark Sanford is the Governor of the state of South Carolina who is a solid conservative that is not known hardly at all outside his state. He would have to start running pretty early and get early backing from key people and organizations, otherwise he would not have a viable chance against big players like Romney.
