NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/politics/clinton/19130

Text File | 1992-12-27 | 3.6 KB | 64 lines

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!phobos.ucc.umass.edu!a74k110
From: [e-mail] (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: Appointments & Perceptions
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 06:41:31 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu
Lines: 49

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brad Green) writes...
>It seems a bunch of female leaders (the head of the YWCA seemed to be the
>spokesperson) got together with Vernon Jordan to voice "their concerns",
>and came out of the meeting smiling.  Next day, Clint appoints a woman
>Attorney General.  Nice coincidence.  The response to pressure from

Clinton had made it pretty well known for a few weeks now that he wanted
a woman attorney general.  He first offered it to Vernon Jordan, but he
didn't want it for some reason, and a couple of other women turned it
down after him.  That's why it took him so long, but in the end he got
someone that is very well qualified for the job in Zoe Baird.  I think
she'll be a great attorney general.

>"special interest groups" seemed to me (note: personal opinion) to be nothing
>more than window dressing.  The very fact that Clinton says he's "against
>quotas" and then says his cabinet will refelect America, shows there is a
>quota system.  A person truely going out to get the best people for the job
>cannot sit back and state the makeup will be representative of anything,
>except the best people for the job.

There's a big problem I have with the pundits and others saying that
Clinton got pushed by "special interest groups".  It may have seemed like
he was to the casual observer, but there's something that these people
are overlooking.  Namely, how can someone be pushed into doing something
they wanted to do anyway?  Clinton is the one who from the start said
this "look like america" stuff.  He made a tremendous effort to do so
because "diversity" is important to him.  If he had to drop a couple
of his first choices because the cabinet wasn't "diverse" enough, he made
a balance decision on what was more important, diversity or friends.
Note, I said "diversity and friends" not "diversity and quality".
Because, the people he replaced his "first choices" with are just as
well qualified if not more so (in the case of Pena and Bill Daley, contrary
to what that idiot Bob Novak says) So the only thing he had to lose was
Bill Daley's and maybe Tim Wirth's good will.  The whole argument of "quota's"
is a very fine line depending on where you're coming from.  It's the whole
affirmative action thing, if two candidates are equally qualified the job goes
to the minority or woman.  You say above "get the best people", in all the
appointments Clinton made he did get the best people.  There are more than
one "best" people for each job, all Clinton did is, when he could he picked
the woman or minority candidate.  If you're for affirmative action and
believe in it's principles, you agree with this, otherwise you don't.
An age old argument in which no one's going to convince the other one that
they're right.  All I can say is, appointment by appointment can you name
someone that CLEARLY is better qualified than the ones Clinton made? I don't
think it's possible. That's affirmative action. A quota is what Clarence Thomas
is. I can't put it any better than that.


-Chris