Texsox Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I was just thinking, why should there have been additional scrutiny with Hillary Clinton's husband's interests because she would be Sec of State? If we accept that her husband's interests are a valid concern, why should in change as she moves from the Senate to the Cabinet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 07:56 AM) I was just thinking, why should there have been additional scrutiny with Hillary Clinton's husband's interests because she would be Sec of State? If we accept that her husband's interests are a valid concern, why should in change as she moves from the Senate to the Cabinet? The importance didn't change at all. Its a simple matter of stakeholdership. Who hires them, and who takes the blame? In the Senate, the people hired her, by popular vote. In the cabinet, the President hires her. The President, and your average voter, will certainly have different data access and different decisionmaking styles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Yeah, what NSS said. When the President picks somebody for his Cabinet he becomes directly accountable for them, if something goes wrong, he gets blamed. That's why they do vetting. If they find out there is potential fallout that isn't worth it, they pass them over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 07:59 AM) The importance didn't change at all. Its a simple matter of stakeholdership. Who hires them, and who takes the blame? In the Senate, the people hired her, by popular vote. In the cabinet, the President hires her. The President, and your average voter, will certainly have different data access and different decision making styles. So that I may understand, you are saying the potential ethical issues are the same, except the President has a greater need to CYA? Are her husband's business interests a valid concern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 08:04 AM) So that I may understand, you are saying the potential ethical issues are the same, except the President has a greater need to CYA? Are her husband's business interests a valid concern? Basically, and to a limited extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Any ideas of what a sample conflict would be that they are trying to avoid? Besides the usual Jimmy Carter in a country building homes or running an election while the President has an opposite opinion. Only now with his wife there as SoS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 more his business dealings with people in foreign countries like Pakistan, to make sure that she isn't dealing her diplomacy in a way that he, or his friends, are profiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 A person in a cabinet position has discretionary spending authority that no Senator has. That IMO is the key. As a Senator, you can't allocate funds or change policy directly, you need to pass something through the Congress. A cabinet post has the ability to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 11:46 AM) A person in a cabinet position has discretionary spending authority that no Senator has. That IMO is the key. As a Senator, you can't allocate funds or change policy directly, you need to pass something through the Congress. A cabinet post has the ability to do that. Earmarks. Yes, they get a tacit vote, but really some little earmark almost never holds up a bill. And some of those are for relatively big chunks of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Its kinda funny that a Clinton brings up an ethics question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 11:46 AM) A person in a cabinet position has discretionary spending authority that no Senator has. That IMO is the key. As a Senator, you can't allocate funds or change policy directly, you need to pass something through the Congress. A cabinet post has the ability to do that. But this concerns her husband. Should a spouse really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 03:38 AM) But this concerns her husband. Should a spouse really matter? Possibly, if her husband is getting paid for influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts