After Harry Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” I wondered… how many appointments and nominations do Presidents typically make? How many appointments did George Washington make? How many did Woodrow Wilson make? How about Nixon? Bush? Obama?
The answer is harder to find than I thought it would be. But admittedly, I did not spend a massive time searching.
If anyone has advice on this matter, it would be much appreciated. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to believe that as the federal government expands, more positions need to be filled, so the list likely grows over time, right?
I did reach out to Professor James P. Pfiffner, who is very well-versed on the issue. It is hoped that he will get back to me. Unless he reads my stuff. Then he probably won’t get back to me. In case you are reading this, Mr. Pfiffner, I am not a George W. Bush fan either. Although I admit to believing Obama is worse, (much worse), but I hope you don’t hold that against me.
If you (dear reader) had to guess how many appointments Obama has made during his reign, what would you say? Without looking it up, take a guess and then find out here. (Since Van Jones is not listed, I am assuming the list is not all-inclusive, but it seems to be a good start.)
If you would be so inclined, let me know what your guess was in the comments below.
Did you come close? I did not.
After I saw the number of presidential nominations under Obama, I got to wondering, what if someone started looking into all these people. What if an organization or a tireless individual took the time to gather information about each individual? Would would they find? Would they find qualified candidates that are well-suited to their assigned roles? Or would they find ideologues, Obama bundlers and left-wing socialist radicals? How about under other presidents?
I decided to randomly (I swear, it was random!) select a person on the list.
The name was Daniel Baer.
So I googled him. The first article was from just yesterday, written by the awesomely-named David Badash. My random find, Daniel Baer, is mentioned in the Badash article that discusses how there was a gay wedding ceremony at the White House last night.
Yep. I did not know that, did you?
“Today may have been the biggest day of Wally Brewster’s life. In Washington, D.C. just a few hours ago, Vice President Joe Biden swore James “Wally” Brewster in as the U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic. And at 7:00 PM ET, Brewster married his long term partner and fiancé, Bob J. Satawake.”
The actual wedding was not actually in the White House, but the swearing-in ceremony was – then the wedding itself happened at a hotel with “a view of the White House South Lawn.” What does this have to do with Baer, you ask? Because Baer is also a gay presidential appointee (not that there is anything wrong with that).
“Confirmed by the Senate less than two weeks ago, Brewster becomes the fifth openly-gay U.S. Ambassador this year alone. HRC lists John Berry in Australia, James Costos in Spain, Rufus Gifford in Denmark, and Daniel Baer as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as the other four, along with Jim Hormel, Michael Guest and David Huebner in previous years.”
The author, Lynn Sweet, writes,
“Brewster was one of Obama’s very top “bundlers” during the 2012 re-election campaign, using his own networks to raise donations from other contributors for the Obama/Biden ticket.”
I hate to ask, but why does it matter if someone is gay or not? Shouldn’t people be appointed because they have the passion, skills, knowledge, experience, etc? You know, that whole “content of character” thing? Oh well. Perhaps speculating makes me anti-gay.
Here is Daniel’s Twitter account. He is the “U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)” Now, with a name like that, one would think that the OSCE has something to do with security. Well, I guess it does. Kind of. If you count gun control. Here is an interesting bit from the website:
“Recognizing that democratic elections form the basis for legitimate government, the OSCE observes elections throughout its 57 participating States.”
Maybe that is why Obama thought there were 57 states in the USA? I am surprised that they observe elections. Are they racist? Hopefully they don’t expect people to identify themselves.
Although I went entirely off topic, the point here is that there are likely more presidential appointees than you thought there were. And is this something that should be a concern? I answer with a resounding yes.
Don't miss out. Send us your email address, and we'll make sure you don't miss a thing.