Trump's new Sec. of Labor has some baggage...

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 08:57 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Pick anyone you would like to see appointed to this position, go on, make a list of names that's more qualified than Acosta.

I'm dang near 99% positive we will always be able to find something about them that we don't like, starting with the way they put their pants on in the mornings to the way they refuse to take off their shoes when entering a home where everyone else takes their shoes off as being completely disrespectful to the host.

There is no one, you or me, that can pass the test if someone doesn't want us to, and if they can't find enough, they can always run a smear campaign. Let him do his job to the best of his ability, if he doesn't do a good job, he won't last long.

Mike, do you think that respect for and adherence to ethics in office is just another thing like taking shoes on or off the right way, when it comes to determining who is fit for office?  I have never heard of a prosecutor who lost his job for refusing to take off his shoes, but they can be prosecuted for corruption--for ethics violations. 

Also, if you are an honest politician accountable for appointments, then it is unlikely that you will appoint a prosecutor who puts on his shoes the right way, but has a history of ethical issues, over a prosecutor who puts on his shoes the wrong way but is known for his integrity. You appoint the former and his bad behavior will eventually blow back on you. 

Sometimes, of course, the politicians are corrupt and so they will appoint someone equally corrupt to protect them.  But the response to that situation is not a shoulder shrug and an assertion that "we will always find something about people we don't like."  The point is to define standards and uphold them.

Appointing people to public office is not (or should not be) as random as you imply here.