Who the hell thought Brown was an acceptable candidate for FEMA and voted to confirm him? I think this question is on the minds of lots of people besides me.
For example, Paul Krugman [ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp ] writes about more Browns in other agencies.
Krugman concluded today's colums with: "The point is that Katrina should serve as a wakeup call, not just about FEMA, but about the executive branch as a whole. Everything I know suggests that it's in a sorry state - that an administration which doesn't treat governing seriously has created two, three, many FEMA's."
While Krugman doesn't refer directly to the nomination and confirmation process in the current column, I hope he addresses it in a follow up.
Mises [ http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/004054.asp ] talks directly to the confirmation issue, with a reply comment from "Hans" that points to the transcript of Brown's confirmation hearing. He quotes some damning stuff from the transcript.
Hans further comments: "In addition, his FBI file had been reviewed by Senator Thompson and Senator Liebermann pursuant to Committee rules. It can only be assumed that this file contains more liberties with the truth."
Is there any leverage available to use -- to put pressure on our congressional representatives that will give them the stones to demand high quality nominations from the executive? Or, is this just part of having a government that doesn't really believe in government.
Sometimes, I'm not sure that wishing for "Good Government" in Washington is the right thing to do. But, without an alternative, I guess having a FDA, FEMA, EPA and HUD that are well run and effective is better than those agencies being run by hacks who get the job through pure patronage.
KGN