The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.
[ April 25, 2005, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm not sure I understand, and that short article doesn't give a whole bunch of details.
These are people who have to be nominated by the State department, right? So, there always has been governmental involvement in who goes. What is different this time, is the White House took the list from the State department and crossed off names that had donated money to the democratic party. Does that sound right?
Well, on the face of it, I can't say as I agree with the action. But, I don't know enough about what this commission is supposed to do. Is it important that the officials do represent the current administration? If so, then I can understand that the White House might want to put people there that actually are supportive of them. That doesn't sound much different than what any political party that is in power would do, I mean when democrats are in power they don't normally like to put big Republican donors into powerful positions either.
Like I said, I don't know enough about it to say for sure. But, Chris, I'm confused as to your title? It doesn't sound as if this action in any way affects someone's business. Is there some other part to the story? Because I don't see the White House punishing businesses, just not sending people that most likely have opposing political viewpoints. (again, not saying I support what was done)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually I agree that much more information is needed. Have other businesses been similarly blocked during previous administrations? What about businesses that donated to both parties?
If a company donated to Kerry because they disagreed with the war, yet are actually in line with this administration's economic plans, would they still be blacklisted? Or are loyalty oaths now required to advance in today's markets?
Mainly it's yet another story that elicted an "Oh, for..." response from me, and I wanted to see what others thought. Am I overreacting? Is this normal?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Its good to see President Bush living up to his promise of promoting bipartisanship.
I believe I just realized what I find most depressing about the current administration. One thing that has helped America grow in the past 100 years has been our desire to build a civil service based on merit, not on cronyism or on who gave the most $$$ to the political bosses.
We have not been perfect in that desire, but we have been working on it.
Yet this administration has placed emphasis on its good-ol-boy networks, cronism and loyalty over merit, skill, and knowldge.
This administration who talks so loudly that children should not be advanced in school based unless those advancements are based on merit, seem to believe that thier positions in the government are immune to those requirements.