nerdgirl 0 #1 February 10, 2009 Another one of those things about which I'm curious. It's a genuine curiousity. No agenda other than inquisitiveness. If you were asked tomorrow … or had been asked 4 or 8 years ago, would you have? And apologies to the international folks, this is an intentionally American-centric poll. You might project your leanings onto appropriate relative candidates w/in your nation-state. Although, selfishly I am more curious w/r/t response of Americans. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #2 February 10, 2009 Was it intentionally left exclusive to opposite party service? I'm sure there are people on both sides who would've (or wouldn't have) served with either President. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #3 February 10, 2009 QuoteWas it intentionally left exclusive to opposite party service? Yes. QuoteI'm sure there are people on both sides who would've (or wouldn't have) served with either President. I suspect that you are right. Couldn't figure out how to deal with multiple variables for the overall "no" crowds -- some ideological, some anti-federalist, some don't want to take the pay cut for civil service, some don't want to move to DC, etc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 February 10, 2009 It isn't, to me, a matter of whether I would work for an administration. The issues are: "what's the gig?" and "what admin would take me?" I personally think that if a person is interested in serving the country then the admin itself should be fairly meaningless. Otherwise, you'd expect to either be a toady or not do ypur job. I'll take neither. On other notes, I think the job is important. I could not see myself as anything higher than some kind of undersecretary. But considering thid very site, I don't believe anybody would take me. And to me, that's fine. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #5 February 10, 2009 Quote I suspect that you are right. Couldn't figure out how to deal with multiple variables for the overall "no" crowds -- some ideological, some anti-federalist, some don't want to take the pay cut for civil service, some don't want to move to DC, etc. /Marg Makes sense. I marked yes, but I can definitely see why someone would shy away from that level of public service. The mud slinging alone might be enough to prevent me from committing. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #6 February 10, 2009 QuoteIt isn't, to me, a matter of whether I would work for an administration. The issues are: "what's the gig?" and "what admin would take me?" Any position that is reasonably consistent with your skill set. E.g., for you one of the Deputy Asst AG in DOJ Antitrust Division. If I was putting together an office, folks who I could count on to challenge me during the decision-making process and to execute/implement once a decision was reached are *exactly* what I would want. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 February 10, 2009 Marg: The issue as I saw it is not so much a position but a political position. Some deputy AG? Or Deputy assistant AG in antitrust? Yeah. I could see that and I'd have no prob with it because they aren't really political positions but more ministerial. Heck - I'd love one of those AG gigs. But not a policy-making job. I'd be too controversial. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 February 10, 2009 Count me as one who would not serve in any administration. I am allergic to far too many of the people I have ever met who aspire to the halls of power in Washington. Far too many politicians and their minions make their fortunes on back stabbing those around them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 February 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt isn't, to me, a matter of whether I would work for an administration. The issues are: "what's the gig?" and "what admin would take me?" Any position that is reasonably consistent with your skill set. E.g., for you one of the Deputy Asst AG in DOJ Antitrust Division. If I was putting together an office, folks who I could count on to challenge me during the decision-making process and to execute/implement once a decision was reached are *exactly* what I would want. /Marg Marg, part of what he's driving it is are you a political appointee, or a career government employee? The latter work more for their department than a given administration. (and for better or worse, these people often work in spite the changes in the stance of the various White House occupants. But if you're taking a role at the behalf of Obama, you are there to represent his platform as well as the department needs. If you're acting on this in good faith, rather than having a free shot at sabotage, then party affiliation aside, you need to have common ground on what that department or subgroup will be trying to achieve over the next 4 years. I think you can look at Colin Powell as a guy who played multiple roles, both as the careerist, and as the appointee. A friend of mine graduated out of high school in OC as a Republican who campaigned for Bush, then joined the state department (foreign service) as a Democrat leaner, endured the Bush Administration (a lousy time for the non military branches overseas), and now rejoices in having Obama take over. But thus far, I've seen no suggestion of leaving the Service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #10 February 10, 2009 i think the public scrutiny would keep me awake at night, and i would feel perpetually stressed. as cool as it would be to be a part of any administration, i just couldn't do it. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #11 February 10, 2009 If it were a job I could do well, then yes, I would - for either flavor of administration, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #12 February 10, 2009 QuoteAnyone that wants to be a politician..... should NEVER be allowed to be!! My problem is not with serving politicians, it's self-serving ones, and they do 'seem' to be in the majority. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #13 February 10, 2009 Politicians are almost all lying, self-serving, thieving, dishonest bastards and the only way I would work in that arena would be as the person tasked with seeing their proverbial balls on a fork. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #14 February 10, 2009 Are you kidding? I couldn't afford the legal fees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #15 February 10, 2009 All Deputy AGs are Presidential Appointments with Senate Confirmation (Class A political Appointees). Most DAAGs are noncareer political appointments. A few are career appointments, but they are the minority. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “ministerial.” All DAAGs set policy, as well as execute/implement policy from AAGs & DAGs and the AG. If you want to notionally imagine DAG or AG, that's cool too. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #16 February 10, 2009 Quote Marg, part of what he's driving it is are you a political appointee, or a career government employee? Jason, I’m not sure that’s the issue. If you think it is, your conclusions w/r/t career v/political appointee nature of DAAG is wrong in the majority of the cases. Most Deputy Assistant AGs are noncareer political appointments. A very few are career appointements. See the Plum book. There are multiple different types of political appointments. The vast majority do not require Senate confirmation. The Exec Levels are another confounder in the arcane minutia of political appointments It seems unclear whether [lawrocket] does or doesn't understand those are political appointments (or what flavor of political appointements they are) … or, more likely, that he’s parsing to the limits of the job he wants. Quote But if you're taking a role at the behalf of Obama, you are there to represent his platform as well as the department needs. If you're acting on this in good faith, rather than having a free shot at sabotage, then party affiliation aside, you need to have common ground on what that department or subgroup will be trying to achieve over the next 4 years. And that is where it becomes more interesting, imo. Whether Pres Obama, Pres GW Bush, or any other, when one is a political appointee. And it does matter, imo, what the position is. The members of the National Science Board and the Director of the NSF are Class A political appointees (require presidential nomination & Senate confirmation). That's a very different political position than Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy or DUSD(Intelligence). But I know what I think & know what I would do/have done ... I'm more curious as to what folks who I don't know would do. Would you have taken a position in the Bush administration? (where? where not?) In some ways that one's a less risky option, as it's history. Or in the Obama administration? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #17 February 10, 2009 Quotei think the public scrutiny would keep me awake at night, and i would feel perpetually stressed. as cool as it would be to be a part of any administration, i just couldn't do it. I suspect that there are a lot of good folks who share that perspective with very good reason. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #18 February 10, 2009 Quote It seems unclear whether [lawrocket] does or doesn't understand those are political appointments (or what flavor of political appointements they are) … or, more likely, that he’s parsing to the limits of the job he wants. Dang it. And here I was hoping you could clarify what I think. See, part of the problem with the Bush Admin and the AG's is that they were filtering career gigs by non-career standards. This is the sort of BS that I have problems with. And I'm the sort of guy who wouldn't want to put up with political vetting. Google "Monica Goodling." Political appointments are certainly something to which there is to be a political slant, but the Bush Admin (and I have ZERO doubt that every dang admin) went too far with it. Now I'm a person who sees both sides of these issues. First, the canned US Attorneys are political in nature. I see some truth in Gonzales' statement that they serve at the pleasure of the POTUS. And when they are doing things contrary to him, well, politics rules. On the other hand, I don't like mouthpieces. I won't be one and I don't want anybody to be MY mouthpiece. Political appointments? Nah. I don't want those. I reckon I'll be canned. I reckon such canning will also be done for good political reasons. I don't want to put up with that. And thus I don't want to be answering questions about my appreciation for the 4th Amendment and how I hate prosecution attorneys. Nor do I want to be put in the position of, "Now, Ms. Goodling. Can I call you Monica? Thank you, Monica. It's tough that we have to meet in these circumstances. And frankly, I don't think I want this job, you sexy hot Puritan, you. No, I'm not hitting on you. I'm married. But, that is what you are." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #19 February 10, 2009 If it were a lower grade position (less media scrutiny) for which I felt sufficiently competent, and I believed I'd be allowed to do the work to the best of my ability, I'd work for an administration regardless of party affiliation. The individuals above me would significantly affect my decision...I'd be ok with Obama, but not Bush Jr (I'd be ok with Bush Sr.) My desire for less "fame" would guarantee at least one or two people between me and the President, and my impressions of them would significantly affect my decision. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #20 February 10, 2009 QuotePolitical appointments? Nah. I don't want those. I reckon I'll be canned. I reckon such canning will also be done for good political reasons. I don't want to put up with that. And thus I don't want to be answering questions about my appreciation for the 4th Amendment and how I hate prosecution attorneys. Nor do I want to be put in the position of, "Now, Ms. Goodling. Can I call you Monica? Thank you, Monica. It's tough that we have to meet in these circumstances. And frankly, I don't think I want this job, you sexy hot Puritan, you. No, I'm not hitting on you. I'm married. But, that is what you are." What do you think will be the long term effect on our legal system with respect to the hiring practices in the Justice Department based on the unique qualifications of religious and political vetting that occurred over the last few years and will there be detrimental prosecutions brought about by hiring less qualified ideologs from third rate law schools ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #21 February 10, 2009 QuoteWhat do you think will be the long term effect on our legal system with respect to the hiring practices in the Justice Department based on the unique qualifications of religious and political vetting that occurred over the last few years Probably what happens with any backlash. There will be an emphasis on ensuring that religious, right wing persons from second, third and fourth tier law schools will be vetted out. Meaning the backlash will likely ensure that the same thing is done in an opposite direction, thus ensuring that the process remains just as political. Quotewill there be detrimental prosecutions brought about by hiring less qualified ideologs from third rate law schools ? No. I do believe that there is a certain air of arrogance among people with regard to where they went. I've faced Harvard lawyers and had successes and not-so-successes with them. I've worked with and against folks from Berkeley, Cornell, etc. and guess what - they are lawyers, too. I've come across folks from non-ABA accredited law schools that were simply splendid - at LEAST as good as the best from top-tier law school. And I've seen shitty ones. Saying you went to Harvard is great, because you can tell people you went to Harvard. Meanwhile, the most recent California Bar exam had three schools with a 100% pass rate for first-time takers. University of San Luis Obispo (Ha. 1 for 1); University of Virginia (37 of 37) and University of Utah (7 for 7). Yale? 38 of 39. U of Chicago? 36 of 37. Harvard? 91 of 99! Stanford? 98 of 101. One of the best attorneys I've come across failed in his first attempt at the bar. This whole focus on Harvard or Yale is nice. Kinda like how it's nice that new Pop Tart singer is hot. A great image, but where's the substance? I'll put it this way - I'll not reject a Harvard grad because he or she is a Harvard grad. Nor will I reject a Whittier College grad because he or she is a Whittier grad. The problem, as you mentioned, is hiring ideologues. Ideologue shouldn't matter unless it interferes with job performance. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 February 10, 2009 Quote Would you have taken a position in the Bush administration? (where? where not?) In some ways that one's a less risky option, as it's history. Or in the Obama administration? It's pretty unlikely, as from the onset his policy platform on tech matters on which I'm qualified differ dramatically from my views. Either I'd be acting in direct opposition, or I'd be implementing bullshit, and neither are a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #23 February 10, 2009 I would take the job without hesitation. Unfortunately I could not vote in your poll because I'm am none of the above.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #24 February 11, 2009 Quote Quote It seems unclear whether [lawrocket] does or doesn't understand those are political appointments (or what flavor of political appointements they are) … or, more likely, that he’s parsing to the limits of the job he wants. Dang it. And here I was hoping you could clarify what I think. [silly] Yeah ... my pyschic powers just haven't been working lately. [/silly] Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #25 February 11, 2009 Quote Quote Would you have taken a position in the Bush administration? (where? where not?) In some ways that one's a less risky option, as it's history. Or in the Obama administration? It's pretty unlikely, as from the onset his policy platform on tech matters on which I'm qualified differ dramatically from my views. Either I'd be acting in direct opposition, or I'd be implementing bullshit, and neither are a good thing. How about Director of DARPA? Dr. Tether's announced he's leaving ... through an email, which I got Monday afternoon (... electrons move *so fast* when the gossip's good ). Thought it was a tad snarky: Tether is already the longest serving DARPA chief & was widely expected to leave last year after the 50th anniversary. I disagreed -- & still do -- with Tether's shift to 18 month milestones for basic research. Revolutionary innovation does not happen on a fixed 18-month timescale. Look forward to seeing who Pres Obama nominates. Throw your hat into the ring for that one if asked, eh? Current rumor mill potential nominees: Dr. Lisa Porter, physicist, head of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity ("Darpa for spies"), and former NASA associate administrator; This one I really hope stays a rumor; she's employed a 12-month milestone rubric at IARPA. Retired Rear Admiral Jay Cohen, DHS' science and technology chief, former head of the Office of Naval Research; Excellent choice, im-ever-ho. Dr. Mark Lewis, aeronautical engineer, University of Maryland professor, and former Chief Scientist of the Air Force; Good choice. Dr. Michael Goldblatt, CEO of Functional Genetics, former head of Darpa's Defense Sciences Office, former science and technology chief at McDonald's Corporation; 'Nother good choice Dr. Jane "Xan" Alexander, physicist, former deputy director of Darpa and the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency; Excellent choice! Dr. Regina Dugan, mechanical engineer, former Darpa program manager; Don't know Zach Lemnios, electrical engineer, Chief Technology Officer at MIT's Lincoln Lab, and former director of Darpa's Microsystems Technology Office; Don't know Dr. Amy Alving, aerospace engineer, Chief Technology Officer at SAIC, and former director of Darpa's Special Projects Office. Don't know /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
