Tick me off to no end. In today's Washington Post, Christopher Lee writes that Bush's appointments are "less diverse" that Clinton's were at the same point in their presidencies. The firs few paragraphs explain how Bush only has 37% women and minority appointments as opposed to Clinton's 47%. Then it goes on to also tell readers that Bush has numerous cabinet level minority and female appointees, which Clinton did not. The data comes from the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee.
So more is better? Quantity over quality is the new measure? If Bush appointed 100% minorities and women in lower level positions and kept the cabinet level positions staffed only by white males that would be okay? Since Clinton did such a relatively poor job in appointing minorities and women into cabinet jobs, isn't that a bad thing? This is a non-story, about an insignificant and quite meaningless difference in numbers. If we rate raw head count above quality, we all lose.
But we should be asking a simple question here. Why is the Democratic staff generating data for the Post to write non-stories on? If they have no real work to do, why are we taxpayers supporting them?
Just asking.
Christopher Lee is confused. The WaPo’s staff writer can’t seem to separate political opinion from sex and race. Failure to differentiate “political diversity” from gender and skin color makes for silly reading. Forget the specifics and go with the Lefty mantra: Bush Bad and Clinton kind to people of color and girls too, especially the young chubby ones.
heh.