| It's not like this is any sort of secret, or even new. As such, it won't make waves as it's the status quo. https://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/06/25/bushs-patronage-app... compares the ambassadorial political appointees of George W. Bush to that of Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. > Many of George W. Bush’s nominees have been significant donors to his election campaigns or have personal and political connections to the president. > Consider the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David H. Wilkins. (No relation to me.) > President Bush nominated him in 2005. He’s been a South Carolina state legislator. He’s a friend of President George H.W. Bush and raised more than $200,000 for President George W. Bush in the 2004 election. Ambassador Wilkins and his immediate family contributed $33,050 to Republicans over the course of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 election cycles, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Apparently, he’d only been to Canada once — 30 years before his appointment — as part of military service. > President Bush nominated Michael M. Wood as ambassador to Sweden in 2006. He knew President Bush, too. He used to ride mountain bikes with the president and attended Yale with him. He was a fraternity brother of the president. Ambassador Wood made his money by founding Hanley Wood, a company that produces magazines for the construction industry. > Ambassador Wood’s predecessor, former Texas state Senator Teel Bivins, ambassador from 2004 to 2006, was a Bush Pioneer in 2000 and 2004. (Pioneers raised at least $100,000 for President Bush in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. In 2004, Rangers and SuperRangers raised at least $200,000 or $300,000 respectively. This system was designed by Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior political adviser.) > Many other appointees nominated by President Bush followed this pattern of financial or political familiarity. That list continues, followed by links to criticism like “Speaking Out: Political appointees: a cost-benefit analysis.” and "Alan D. Berlind, a retired Foreign Service officer writing in American Diplomacy, thinks such patronage appointments to diplomatic posts do not serve the nation well." with a quote and link to why. |