NationStates Jolt Archive

Haven't seen anything on this here yet, so I thought I'd give it a thread. (Should there already be a thread on this topic which I haven't seen - sorry!)

Have you folks seen and read the 7-page questionnaire you'd have to answer when you'd like to work for the Obama administration?

Think it's good that potential candidates for a job in the new government are vetted thoroughly.

With which of the 63 questions do you agree? Which, do you think, go too far? How much should you be willing to disclose when you want to work for the government - and where does your personal life begin that truly isn't anybody's business?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13apply_questionnaire.pdf
http://www.spiegel.de/media/0,4906,19364,00.pdf

First rule of politics: C.Y.A. Cover Your Ass.

It's only prudent to ask such questions, this way there's a legitimate record that they lied to you when it turns out they're kiddy diddlers.

(Should there already be a thread on this topic which I haven't seen - sorry!)

I raised it a couple days ago in the Obama Transition (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14208018#post14208018) thread. Didn't get much response.

I raised it a couple days ago in the Obama Transition (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14208018#post14208018) thread. Didn't get much response.
Hhm, that's too bad. I wonder why.

I mean, some of those questions I couldn't answer even if I wanted to.

"Please list all aliases or 'handles' you have used to communicate on the Internet."

Plus, I thought it funny that next to question #31 somebody has written down "Clinton" in pencil.

Also, one would have to give them the address of this forum. I think that's pretty funny.

And I wonder how many people would answer "FOX News" to #62.

Would you have to name your rebellious teenager in the last answer?


Those are just some of the things that I came up with.

I only scanned the list to see what the gist of the questions was, but on the surface, they don't seem overly intrusive for the types of jobs and levels of public exposure we're talking about.

All of those things are covering legal requirements, making sure there can be no accusations of conflicts of interest, and anticipating things that have gotten other politicians/officials into trouble before, and maybe looking for stuff that can be used to political advantage later, if need be.

This is a really smart move on his part. My confidence in our 44th President is increasing.

Question 59 is non of anyone's business. The Constitution of the United States gives me the right to have fire arms. The federal government doesn't require me to register them and neither do the states of Ok or La.

If you want to know what kind of guns I own, try breaking into my house at midnight and I'll be happy to show you. :)

Question 59 is non of anyone's business. The Constitution of the United States gives me the right to have fire arms. The federal government doesn't require me to register them and neither do the states of Ok or La.

If you want to know what kind of guns I own, try breaking into my house at midnight and I'll be happy to show you. :)
Hehe, funny. It's nobody's business but yours and the state for whatever permits and registration are required for the kind of gun you own.

Also, you're not trying to get a job working for the president. If you were, your status as a gun owner would be important for the purposes of (a) avoiding any appearance of conflict of interest with the gun lobbies and/or (b) exploiting any such connections, or even just the image of a gun owner on the staff, for political benefit.

Question 59 is non of anyone's business. The Constitution of the United States gives me the right to have fire arms. The federal government doesn't require me to register them and neither do the states of Ok or La.

If you want to know what kind of guns I own, try breaking into my house at midnight and I'll be happy to show you. :)

*at the stroke of midnight, drives a tank through your front door*

I don't see a problem. Some jobs require people to adhere to certain rules in how they conduct private matters - political administration is an obvious one, investment banking is another. Even as an intern, I was sent a massive contract setting out exactly how I am to handle my personal finances in such a way as to prevent insider trading and comply with Chinese walls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall).

If someone wants the job, they'll be able to understand why they're being asked these questions, and they'll be happy to answer them. If they don't, the job probably isn't for them. To be honest, I would hazard a guess that the Bush administration previously would have used similar questionnaires.

Still waiting for a public statement regarding the future role of Paul Volcker though....

I don't see any inherent problem with any of the questions, although I do think some of them are completely unwieldy.

How many people who frequent the internet a great deal will accidentally leave out a handle or two? And do they really want copies of every single blog post? What if they aren't available anymore?

And how many such people haven't said something embarrassing at some point on IM or somesuch (and would they even remember)?


As for the gun thing, I think the main point there is that they want to make sure you don't have unregistered guns or ones for which the registration has lapsed - they're pretty big on making sure that you don't have anything beyond a speeding ticket on your name.


I do think maybe most of the instances of "spouse" should read "spouse or partner".

I don't see a problem.
Me neither. It's not like your trying to get a job flippin' burgers...
To be honest, I would hazard a guess that the Bush administration previously would have used similar questionnaires.
To be completely blunt, I bet that one wasn't as thorough - and you'd get bonus points for some answers that might now not get you the job...
I don't see any inherent problem with any of the questions, although I do think some of them are completely unwieldy.
That was my impression.
How many people who frequent the internet a great deal will accidentally leave out a handle or two? And do they really want copies of every single blog post? What if they aren't available anymore?
Exactly. I don't remember all of my internet handles - even if I tried.
And how many such people haven't said something embarrassing at some point on IM or somesuch (and would they even remember)?
I wouldn't. Hell, I don't even remember what I posted last week!
I do think maybe most of the instances of "spouse" should read "spouse or partner".
Ah, but isn't there a difference when it comes to who has to testify in the case of? Isn't it that a spouse doesn't have to testify whereas a partner would have to?

Ah, but isn't there a difference when it comes to who has to testify in the case of? Isn't it that a spouse doesn't have to testify whereas a partner would have to?

Indeed. But many of the questions come down to "Have you or your spouse every been involved in something that could bite us in the ass politically?"

If someone is openly in a long-term relationship, and their partner is or was involved in some shady dealings, that would likely come out and be a problem - even though they aren't married.

Question 59 is non of anyone's business.

Then feel free to not apply for a job in Obama's administration.

The questions where they ask about family instead of what you have done seem rather strange and there are, in my opinion, a lot of pointless questions.

The questions where they ask about family instead of what you have done seem rather strange and there are, in my opinion, a lot of pointless questions.

Not really. If a member of Obama's staff, or a family member of a member of Obama's staff, does something potentially embarrassing, or something that gives even a hint of corruption, do you think that the media will just ignore it? That the Republicans will think "well, it's just a member of his staff, we wouldn't bother trying to make any political capital out of this"? Apparently your opinion politicians' and reporters' scruples is higher than mine. Obama's recruitment people have to know about any potential embarrassments before anyone else does.

Yeah, a bunch of them seem over-the-top. Then again, I'd apply anyway if I were interested. I don't mind lying on job applications if the questions seem too personal. I've been asked for work histories going back to my 16th birthday by government agencies - they get my most recent job and my most recent address, even if they want all of them back to age 16, even if the application includes a threat about it being felonious in some way to mis-state any fact. I haven't had any calls from the FBI just yet. :p

I'll have to ask around and see if anyone I know filled out the questionnaire. I know my dad applied for a political appointment of some kind (he always does, and always donates $50 to every candidate, for whatever reason) but I know he wouldn't have answered all those - it'd take him a month to compile the answers, anyway.

The questions where they ask about family instead of what you have done seem rather strange and there are, in my opinion, a lot of pointless questions.

"What you have done" goes on your resume/CV. This is a questionnaire concerning your background, and it's not all that different from stuff teachers and other screened applicants for positions go through. It is more detailed, but when you consider how many staffers and such have been fired from Presidential appointments over the last couple of decades, It's hardly unreasonable.

I think it's very unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to answer some of these questions, such as the net handles one.

It would get tiring to write "None of your fucking busiiness" so many times. Make a stamp.

It would get tiring to write "None of your fucking busiiness" so many times. Make a stamp.

But if you apply for government office, it is there business.


Its called "vetting". But, considering you were a McCain supporter, Im not suprised your unfamilier with the term.