Markk wrote:Where did I say it was the only criteria, If any thing I said the final criteria said it was the final criteria...
You asked me a question on why I disagree with this...please answer my reason why it is a relay stupid way to choose a cabinet member, instead of trying to wiggle around sticking your foot in your mouth.
Markk, I'm beginning to think that you're suffering from whatever comprehension malady that subs suffers from, considering that I haven't bothered to defend or pick apart Warren's process. I've only highlighted the fact that you've misrepresented her statement. Now, you apparently cannot tell the difference between having veto power and 'picking candidates', either. : )
I actually think that both Doc and Jersey Girl have made some excellent counterpoints in the discussion, and I agree with Doc's straightforward observation that a 9-year-old, regardless of sexual identity, is not a direct client of the head of the agency, which raises questions about how applicable this test could be. But I also agree with Jersey Girl that the candidate would do well to be able to relate to the most vulnerable citizens - children - that they ultimately serve, and this can be viewed to some extent by what Warren proposes. Valid points all around, by participants who aren't willing to merely lob a partisan hit post into the forum while knowingly misrepresenting Warren's intent.
But, we can discuss your distraction, if you'd like. Given a pool of equally well-qualified and balanced candidates, can you explain why Warren's process is less preferable than, say, selecting on the basis of who contributed most greatly to the Presidential campaign, or who has publicly stated that they want to dismantle the department that they're being vetted to lead, or any other method used by the current Administration?
Or tell us how you'd choose between equally well-qualified candidates? A quarter toss? Hand-to-hand combat? Beer pong skill?