Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
It was her pro-choice views that were the issue, at least according to the Vatican:
Vatican sources told Il Giornale that their support for abortion disqualified Ms Kennedy and other Roman Catholics President Barack Obama had been seeking to appoint.
Mr Obama was reportedly seeking to reward John F Kennedy's daughter, who publicly gave her support to his election bid. She had been poised to replace Hillary Clinton as New York senator, but dropped out amid criticism that she lacked enough experience for the job.
Uh-huh. The story continues:
"It's imperative, it's essential that the person who represents us to the Holy See be a person who has pro-life values. I hope the President doesn't make that mistake," he told the Boston Herald. "She said she was pro-choice. I don't assume she's going to change that, which is problematic."
The White House refused to comment.
Yeeaaah. It looks like Obama's going to have to bend on this, and appoint a pro-lifer, if he wants an ambassador to the Vatican. I wonder though, and hopefully someone can help me out with this, but how was this handled during the Clinton era, or the Carter era? Who were the last ambassadors to the Vatican during a Democratic administration?
UPDATE: Never mind, I figured it out. The two Democratic ambassadors to the Holy See were in fact prominent pro-lifers, particularly Ray Flynn, who is opposed to the pick.
Our RSS feed
Did anyone in the Obama
Did anyone in the Obama Admin. ever think this was a good idea?
What's next? David Duke as Ambassador to Israel?
Now, a pro-choicer to the Vatican isn't quite as bad as that,
but I do remain amazed how the O-team thought this would fly.
Of course, but I was short on
Of course, but I was short on time and short on comparisons. Mea culpa.
I assume it was a nepotism appointment, like the attempt to get her in to the Senate. Unfortunately, with her lack of political experience and her aversion to campaigning (from what I know, she made only a few stops during her run and they were all short and very awkward), I think she's pretty much useless to the President, even more so now that she's dropped from TWO different government spots.
But really, how bad at politics do you have to be to not be able to beat Kal Penn to a job?
Not that its a bad thing he's pursuing his dream, but he caused the demise of a very liked television character. People without lives are quite sad about that.
Of course, but I was short on
Of course, but I was short on time and short on comparisons. Mea culpa.
Yeah. No big deal, GP, it happens.
I assume it was a nepotism appointment, like the attempt to get her in to the Senate. Unfortunately, with her lack of political experience and her aversion to campaigning (from what I know, she made only a few stops during her run and they were all short and very awkward), I think she's pretty much useless to the President, even more so now that she's dropped from TWO different government spots.
It seems that way.
Not that its a bad thing he's pursuing his dream, but he caused the demise of a very liked television character. People without lives are quite sad about that.
Yeah. :-)
idle question
I don't really care for CK, or about diplomatic appointments to posts that do comparatively little, Of which this is IMO one.
But this brings up an idle question in relation to the practice of diplomacy. I understand that presumedly the folks on BOTH sides of a diplomatic relationship seek to make ambassadorial choices that seem conciliatory, at leas within the context of the available spectrum.
So what is the strong and defensible argument that a pro-choice American President ought to be required to appoint an ambassador whose views accord with Catholicism, but the Vatican, OTOH, does not? (not that the Vatican could conceivable have much option on this issue). The presumption here seems to be that all of the honus is on the American President. And while I understand this in the context of diplomacy and the theory of good manners (which is sort of the same thing, really), I still wonder what basis one uses for deciding how to draw the line.
So for example, you don't appoint David Duke to be ambassador to Israel. Fine. But most folks seem eager to give a thumbs up to the appointment of Hillary Clinton as SoS, despite the fact that muslims look askance at women in positions of authority. So when do you decide to make a value-challenging appointment, and when do you consciously decide to make a choice which assiduously avoids controversy?
What's the guiding principle that helps one draw a line? Does it have to do with the level of consensus within the broader culture, or with the popular attitude towards the folks on the other end of the relationship? Either one would help explain CK vatican bad HC SoS good. But it works better for the easy calls and provides less guidance for the hard ones. Thoughts, anyone?
Good question, Brian, but I think you meant pro-life. The
Vatican is rejecting because she's not pro-life.
Maybe in part it's because
Maybe in part it's because values like equality of genders are considered universal while the right to legal abortion isn't uniformly held even within our own country, so it's a bit more obnoxious for an administration to assert it against the wishes of a friendly country?
And that the particular issue of American Catholic politicians speaking out incorrectly about the teachings of the Church makes this particularly sticky in current times? If Islam was dealing with American Muslim clerics incorrectly spouting interpretations of the Koran to comport with partisan viewpoints, I'd think that an administration under those circumstances would avoid appointing an American Muslim who'd publicly pronounced those controversial viewpoints from a diplomatic post to a majority Muslim country, no?
good explanation
Yeah, I think the universality agreement is on target, and sort of what I was trying to get at at one point in my post. I think when we say universality we are talking mostly about American universality, or maybe judeo-christian universality.
The muslim question is an interesting one. Notice that muslims themselves lack universality on certain key points. Suppose that An American President appointed a diplomatic envoy to some middle eastern posting, and that this appointee who criticized sha'ria or the righteousness of violence towards infidels, based on a reading of the Koran. That could happen, right? It's not a universal view, but its on the universal side when it comes to the judeo-christian take on islam based on the Koran as read through Judeo-Christian eyes.
Socially conservative muslims who favor sha'ria (which is not part of the Koran from what I understand) and expulsion of the west would be likely to maintain that any such representative was an unacceptable affront to Islam. They might even issue a fatwa.
But in my view, America must avoid any actions which tolerate sha'ria to whatever extent the laws are antithetical to our most important ideals. IMO,we're ill-served if we fail to be clear on this.
Right, that's why I phrased
Right, that's why I phrased my hypothetical as an example of a Muslim American leader who strikes positions based on a partisan opinion, not on one where fundamentalist Islamic teachings might conflict with values of our Constitution or Western Enlightenment.
And I can actually imagine the situation that you describe happening- I don't think it stretches credulity to think that a country organized around fundamentalist Islam would object to an American envoy who had publicly spoken out against sha'ria, and it might be a situation where we had to accept a break in diplomatic ties. I'd think that if we had other motivations to keep up friendly diplomatic relations with that country, though, that we'd be better served by putting someone less controversial in that diplomatic post (ie, not someone who supported shar'ia, of course, but refraining from rubbing salt in the wound by specifically picking an American moderate Muslim who'd spoken out publicly against those beliefs.) We'd want to low key it, I'd think.
the realpolitik bone
LOL. Seems like the low-key-it-compromise bone is always connected to the other-motivations bone.
My preference would be to avoid picking an envoy for his palatability to fundamentalists unless we REALLY had something to gain. But the scenario we sketch here is one where elegant solutions are downright scarce. Presumedly the President making such an appointment would kind of face choosing who was going to get the salt rubbed into their wound, us or them.
Suppose we began establishing a real front channel with Iran. Would Obama consciously avoid appointing a female ambassador? I guess that with HRC as SoS, such an eventuality has arguably been pre-empted.
Hmm, I don't know, I think
Hmm, I don't know, I think that in the case of the specific ambassador assigned to a country we can and should be a LITTLE bit more malleable. The Sec of State is our pick, representative of our values. I'm not saying we should go too far, and if there were an overriding reason why one particular female was the most expert in relations with that particular country, then screw their gender bias. But all other things being equal, I'd think that we'd want the best person who can facilitate communications within the diplomatic channels, and choosing a male would generally not be a bad idea.
just to be clear
Just to be clear, I basically agree that malleability is in a sense a hallmark of diplomacy. Giving offense is something to be avoided when it can be avoided by small efforts and wise choices.
I think you make a very good point that conceivably facilitation of communication between channels is a more important part of the job than any sort of political symbolism. I guess the only issue with that is that it still doesn't provide all much guidance in sticky spots where, while,you'd like to appoint someone the other side can work with, you certainly don't want the other side to strongly dictate your choice.