Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Politics aside

DAILY BRIEFING

Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Politics aside

Here are the responses we have received to the May 8 Ned on Feds column, "Politics aside."

"Frankly, both Brookings/Heritage and Ned miss the basic point on political appointees. Neither the administrivia in filling out forms, nor antagonism to outstanding individuals of another viewpoint ought to govern actions.

"Civility is what we appear to have lost. The American people elect a chief executive who has the right and obligation to select individuals sharing his politics to run the various executive departments and agencies. Congress' advise and consent type responsibilities ought to deal with issues of character and competence-NOT WITH POLICY! The public expressed its policy preference in the election of the chief executive and can redress that determination in a succeeding election. The legislative branch's "impedance" of policy should be via its lawmaking power."

-Mel Waldgeir
Chief, Human Resources
HSW/HR, Brooks Air Force Base

"I would have to agree that personal integrity alone is no guarantee of successful leadership. Yet I am surprised by the, possibly unintentional, implication that Clinton's presidency has been successful because our nation is prosperous.

"On the one hand, economic prosperity is only one of many measures. Another measure might be: is America admired and respected abroad? In my view, Clinton has been less successful in foreign policy, an arena where the President is allowed greater rein. I believe America is more feared than admired today. Our involvement in the Balkans and the expansion of NATO's charter are a case in point.

"On the other hand, I think his leadership has had little impact on the economy. He's largely taken credit for circumstances beyond his control. I will say that the President has not adversely affected the economy. And, were the economy suffering, he would undoubtedly shoulder much of the blame for such. Nevertheless, I would not argue that 'noninterference' constitutes a formula for successful leadership. And, based on your overall commentary, neither would you."

-Name withheld