My Beauty Best Teacher

At about 9:00 PM today, I saw some coverage on Fox called the "9/11 Presidential Forum." I didn't watch it long, and to be honest did not see the McCain part, so he might have said similar things. But what caught my interest was a story that Barak Obama told about how he knew this person, and how he knew quit a high paying and productive corporate job and instead ran an advocacy group to help veterans, and how as President, he would encourage those types of moves. He elaborated further, saying that although private jobs in a market economy are important, it was also important, and possibly more important, to work at non-profit advocacy jobs. Wow- I can't believe that someone who even hints at this might be the President- he is way further left than Kerry or Gore, who were even farther left than Clinton.

I flipped in several times, and every single time I watched, Obama seemed to be talking about community organizing, non-profits, and advocacy groups. Maybe all the questions were about this? I don't think so- I thought some of the questions were about the economy, national security, the campaign, sexist comments, and stuff. But Obama was able to relate everything back to being a community organizer- and by that, I mean raising money and awareness. You know, I think Obama would be a pretty motivated community organizer- I can see him heading up one of those type of groups, raising money, and getting people involved. The problem is, this is not the job of the President. This very far removed from the job of the President, and in my memory, I've never heard or even seen a candidate suggest that the President is supposed to be like a super community organizer. I know Kennedy had Peace Corps, and Clinton had Americorps- but those were not central to their Presidency- those were just nice things they did on the side. Obama thinks they were Presidency, and as President, he would spend no time on the economy, national defense, energy, etc, and most of the time on building more community organizing groups. That bothers me.

Arvind Subramanian writes in WSJ:

In research with Raghuram Rajan, we find that in countries that received more aid, exportable industries systematically underperformed. And exporting manufactured goods has been the mode of escape from underdevelopment in many of the East Asian successes. Is it a coincidence that, with rare exceptions (Mauritius), there are no booming clothing industries -- the launching pad for some of the East Asian miracles -- in aid-addled Africa? This despite the fact that clothing is only minimally demanding of infrastructure and entrepreneurship, and despite the very favorable access that Africa has always had in Western markets for exports of clothing products.

Continuing on the damage of Aid advocacy.

Aid advocacy leads to perhaps an even more serious problem. There is a limited stock of good will and good intentions in the rich world and the question becomes whether this stock is best harnessed by mobilizing more aid, or by pursuing alternative actions that could have a bigger impact.
Consider a few: mobilizing more money to provide incentives for greater research and development devoted to addressing poor country health and agriculture problems (the green revolution in Asia was made possible by research on high-yielding varieties of wheat, and Africa hasn't had a similar revolution of its own); making regulatory changes in industrial countries that can reduce corruption (for example, more rigorous enforcement of bribery and corruption by rich country officials and corporations) in poor countries, which could have a huge impact on economic performance; or allowing more immigration from the poorest countries, which would directly benefit the poor.
These solutions are seldom pursued with the zeal that they deserve, in part because they are more difficult to support politically, and in part because that zeal which is essential to overcome the difficulties gets diverted toward, well, to calling for more aid.

The aims of the Private Sector Foundation Uganda, are "...To promote private sector influence for business growth and competitiveness through policy advocacy and capacity building in a sustainable manner...To strengthen private sector capacity for effective policy advocacy and market competitiveness..."

Nigeria Conservation Foundation has "...maintained a nature conservation standard with unrivaled competence. Its ability to localize global conservation efforts with adequate attention to local peculiarities is evident in the needs of inhabitants that are being met on a daily basis in its multiple project sites across the country they track records cut across conservation education, biodiversity surveys and species identification, policy advocacy, habitat identification and protection, research, internship for college graduates, media sensitization and fundraising, advocacy for rare species conservation, fight against environmental pollution and poverty reduction..."

John Lonsdale critiques the thinking of Africa as an enduring victim, he suggests the rebuilding of African higher education as a necessary first step.
"...How far are the professed “friends of Africa” – scholars, students, activists – to blame for the mix of everyday indifference and latent fear, tempered now and again by pity? What can we do to repair our failures in representation? Perhaps it would be to do what best serves our own professional interest: regard African colleagues as allies in a common cause, and repair the failures in African higher education that so diminish the African ability to speak to the rest of the world as intellectual equals, expert witnesses in their own cause, full citizens of our one world...Why do we need celebrities to enlist our attention? What Bob Geldof and Bono have done is marvellous (the Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen tells me that Geldof proved to be a sharp student of development economics in the telephone tutorials Sen gave at the popstar’s request in 2004). But there are also two dangers in the “celebritisation” of Africa’s needs:

• the sense of guilt that Geldof and Bono arouse in their audiences may prove fleeting and ineffective – when it is important that the G8 and the European Union need to be subjected to intellectually sustained and politically creative scrutiny
• the image of the secular saint flatters the self-regarding, even racist, European image as the heroic dragon-slayer riding to the rescue of a voiceless and helpless African continent, trapped by poverty, ignorance and disease

...Africans need our advocacy as well as our learning; without passionate commitment there can be no dispassionate research. The best way to combine such passion with its opposite, professional disinterest, is for European Africanists to concentrate our public energies on demanding that our governments support the properly funded, properly protected, rebirth of African universities – a matter to which the Commission for Africa paid some, but too little, attention..."

Via OpenDemocracy

Last week I received several excited text messages all saying "Ron Paul is in!" That's right- Representative Ron Paul is running once again for President, and although I have supported his House campaigns in the past and personally think that he makes many good points, I have to say that I am annoyed that he is running for President again. My friends who are excited that he is in the race will vote for him in the primary, and in so doing will work to elect candidates who are farther away from libertarian positions. Ron Paul entering the race is yet another example of the stupid political strategies that 'libertarians' employ.

The Volokh Conspiracy agrees with me:

In a recent post, co-blogger David Bernstein urges libertarians to abandon the Libertarian Party and work within the two major parties. He points out that there are several serious libertarian-leaning candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination, which gives libertarians an important opportunity to increase their influence within the GOP. Ron Paul’s announcement of his candidacy for the Republican nomination today underscores David’s point. In my view, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who announced his candidacy last month, is both more libertarian than Paul and a stronger candidate, a point I intend to elaborate in more detail in future posts. Mitch Daniels, who has not yet declared his candidacy, is also probably superior to Paul for similar reasons.

Whatever one’s opinion of specific candidates, I emphatically agree with David’s general point that the Libertarian Party is a poor vehicle for promoting libertarianism, and that libertarian activists should concentrate their time and money elsewhere....

...Libertarians therefore have some valuable political assets. But in order to maximize our impact, we must focus our efforts effectively. And that means learning the lesson that the LP is a poor vehicle for libertarianism. It is much more effective to pursue some combination of major party politics and advocacy efforts that operate outside the party system entirely....

The Volokh Conspiracy has been pounding this point for a while, demonstrating over the years that voting for the 'Libertarian Party' has consistently helped elect candidates who are farthest from libertarian ideas, and support for libertarians-running-as-Republicans has only resulted in Bob Doles and John McCains.

I've also been pounding this point for a while, pointing out where libertarians voting for a 'Libertarian' over a conservative/libertarian Republican has been crucial in helping elect socialists, communists, and fascists.

Here in Michigan, a solid conservative Republican Rocky Raczkowski expressed many ideas and policies that libertarians could get around, but the libertarians still ran two candidates against him, one an official Libertarian and another an independent. Too late they realized the error of their ways, and in the last week of the race both dropped out to endorse Rocky, but many people had already voted absentee or didn't know about them dropping out and endorsing Rocky, and they received enough votes that together they helped Democrat Gary Peters get elected, a man whose policies and views and ideas are considerably opposed to libertarians. See my post Libertarian Candidate Drops out of MI-9th Race and Endorses GOP Candidate Rocky- Dem Congressman Peters Calls All Libertarians 'Fringe'.

Back in 2008, I wrote a post on how Michigan Supreme Court Judge Cliff Taylor, who was a libertarian's dream version of a candidate, lost because he was a Republican and the Libertarians sucked off enough votes that he was defeated by a leftist activist judge who has continually issued decisions that attack human freedom and liberty. Taylor lost 39% to 49% to Dianne Hathaway... but a motivated and organized and active Libertarian base gave 11% to a no-chance-of-winning candidate named Robert Roddis who was not any more demonstratively libertarian that Taylor- if that 11% would have been given to the proper candidate, libertarians would have been much more happy with the result.

In Poor Foolish Libertarian Voters Now Realize the Error of Their Ways I wrote:

Once, I was a libertarian. I even voted Libertarian. And then I grew up and realized that we have a two party system, and by voting Libertarian, I was only helping make sure that people who were far from libertarian were elected into office. After that, I became a reliable Republican vote, realizing that they were indeed the lesser of two evils, and that I'd rather have a libertarian-leaning Republican than an anti-libertarian Democrat.

Many libertarians supported Obama last election, claiming that he was an independent and a moderate, and that he would be much preferred over the invading and free-speech breaking George Bush. Idiots. Now they lament.

Foolish libertarians. Why did you support Obama? Why did you fail to support McCain, which is in function the same thing as supporting Obama? Why did you vote third-party in Minnesota, thereby putting in office that joker Al Franken? Libertarians, by not voting for a conservative Republican, installed a super-liberal Franken, who has been the crucial vote on a range of anti-libertarian issues.

Liberals and Democrats can't help how they vote- they don't know any better. But conservatives, libertarians, and 'independents' should know better by now- we have a two party system, and if you aren't part of the solution and voting Republican, you are part of the problem. Save your sad stories and articles about dashed dreams, because they just remind me that you are stupid and foolish. Vote Republican next time.

The important thing that my libertarian friends and those who excitedly texted me that Ron Paul was entering the race need to remember is that we have a two party system. Ron Paul realized this long ago, but not to the extent that he needed to- he has always been an outsider in the party and views the rest of the GOP with hostility. The GOP is a big tent, and it is important for libertarians to find their way into this tent and be active in the primary, and then make the real-life calculation in the general, and vote Republican.

You see, Libertarians need to begin to become solid and reliable Republican voters and shape the future of our party, and Ron Paul is not that future. Think about, my dear 'independent' or 'tea party' or 'libertarian' readers, and do what is best for yourself and your nation by waking up and start voting Republican. I'm getting annoyed with your help getting liberals, socialist, fascists, and leftists elected into office.

UPDATE: Libertarians and tea partiers and other conservative-leaning third parties can comment and argue and debate all they want, but the truth of the matter is that by disagreeing with me and not voting Republican in the general election, they have once more helped put a Democrat in office and move our nation farter away from what they believe in. In the special election for Congress in New York's 26th Congressional District, 36% voted for Republican nominee Jane Corwin (a lite-conservative/libertarian) and 13% for Tea Party candidate Jack Davis (a strong conservative/libertarian), which means that the election will be won by Democrat Kathy Hochul with 42%, an anti-conservaive/libertarian. Her win will move more political power to other anti-conservative and anti-libertrian and anti-tea partiers, and it is all thanks to the them. I'm moving beyond annoyed by libertarians and conservatives helping to empower those who would take away my liberty and freedom- I'm getting pissed at them.

Wise up, it's a two party system, with one party being the Democratic Party (since 1828) and the other being the Republican Party (since 1854). Any discussion of Whigs or Tea Parties is the kind of stupid thinking that leads to liberal and socialist Democrats taking away your life, liberty, and property while you engage in some sort of stupid history lesson. In the primary, work like heck to get libertarian and tea party Republicans elected, but in the general elections, start voting Republican, as they are closer (if only a little) to libertarian and tea party views, and the lesser of two evils is still less evil than the greater of two evils.

The award winning "...Cleen Foundation was established with the mission of promoting public safety, security and accessible justice through the strategies of empirical research, legislative advocacy, demonstration programmes and publications, in partnership with government and civil society..."

Erica Poff writing in CIPE:

...the untold story in Ethiopia is what’s going on outside of Addis Ababa, where a challenged but vibrant private sector is taking the lead in promoting economic sustainability by advocating for democratic reform.
Despite increased restrictions on media, independent radio programs in the rural northern region regularly broadcast programs directed to the business community to provide them access to information on the business environment and how they can effectively advocate for needed reforms in their local government. One such radio program in Mekelle, the Voice of the Mekelle Chamber, inspired the successful advocacy efforts by the Mekelle business community to encourage the local government to develop better, more transparent tax rates.

Where is our WTU President when we need him ?

Bunmi Oloruntoba of Bombastic Elements asks?:

...why Africans can't speak for themselves. Well, no African I know of has that degree of media enabled celebrity to combine with advocacy in order to amass the amount of soft power it takes to leverage and access political power in ways the Bonos, Geldofs, Brajelinas, Oprahs and others can. That's why they do the talking to the donors on our behalf and what I guess we find annoying, apart from them, is the how aid to Africa, under late capitalism, works better for them rather than us.
It's time to start thinking of the poverty fighting industry like we are learning to think of Wall Street, credit default swaps and the whole industry of debt creation; like the director of "Enjoy Poverty," Renzo Martins, alludes to, Africa's poverty is now a resource and it is those who have accumulated massive amounts of soft power that can leverage this resource to, on one hand, fight the same poverty, and on the other hand do with it whatever

More here

When Barack Obama ran for President in 2008, he made a great show out of his spirit of bipartisanship. One of the central themes of his campaign was how his presidency would be post-partisan- how he would welcome and support Republicans within his administration and how he was friends with and close to many Republicans such as John Huntsman or Doug Kmiec. These Republicans believed Obama and trusted him and believed that he really was a post-partisan President who would bring change and hope to America, but much like Obama's grandmother or pastor or best friend Bill Ayers, once these Republicans were used as props to demonstrate Obama's 'post partisanship' they were soon thrown under the bus in the names of Obama's real objectives, which are radically leftist and deeply partisan.

Doug Kmiec is just the latest in the exodus of US ambassadors which this year already includes John Huntsman (former US Ambassador to China, resigned in April of 2011, possibly to make a run at the President himself), Carlos Pascual (former US Ambassador to Mexico, resigned in 2011 and waiting to be replaced, a casualty of a WikiLeaks cable that was critical of Mexico), and Cynthia Stroum (former US Ambassador to Luxembourg, resigned early 2011, was corrupt and a bully).

Via the Los Angeles Times:

The American ambassador to Malta resigned his post Saturday after criticism from the State Department's inspector general that he was devoting too much time to promoting better relations between religions. Douglas Kmiec, a prominent conservative constitutional lawyer and member of the Pepperdine University faculty, said in letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he rejected the inspector general's conclusion that his advocacy was outside his official mission. Kmiec wrote that the inspector general had a "flawed and narrow vision of our diplomatic mission" and said his writings had a "highly positive effect on our diplomatic relations."

Kmiec, a devout Roman Catholic and a onetime frequent contributor to The Times opinion pages, held important legal posts under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He has been a prominent figure in the antiabortion movement and in efforts to give greater latitude for religion in public life.

He was also impressed by President Obama's religious faith and interest in improving relations between religions, and he supported him during the 2008 presidential election campaign. After Obama was elected, Kmiec was appointed ambassador to Malta, a conservative Catholic island, and White House officials said that one of his roles would be to advance Obama's views on interfaith dialogue.

But the inspector general's report, issued in February, says he had an "unconventional approach to his role" and devoted much time to writing on the "interfaith initiative." It said his official schedule was "uncharacteristically light," and that he had had "friction with principal officials in Washington, especially over his reluctance to accept their guidance and instructions." Department officials spent considerable time reviewing and editing Kmiec's writings related to religion, and they barred him from organizing conferences aimed at improving relations between religions, officials said.

At the same time, the report says, Kmiec had "achieved some policy successes" and was respected by Maltese officials and embassy staff members.

The most important aspect of this report is that Kmiec was a Republican who wrote about his religion and was a religious man and that bothered the career liberal bureaucrats who habitat the State Department. Although he was doing a good job and everything liked him and he was effective, the leftists who blunder their way through foreign policy at the State Department didn't like him and spent their time censoring their boss and trying to control their bosses efforts to do a better job, and eventually got one of their own unelected bureaucrats to write an unfavorable report of him. Kmiec turned to his friend and ally, Obama, for help, and got a shrug of the shoulder as he too was thrown under the bus, and so he leaves, and once more, America is made worse off by liberals their career minions in the bureaucratic bowels of our government.

Doug Kmiec is the author of Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama and The History, Philosophy, and Structure of the American Constitution.

"...OSIWA is dedicated to supporting the creation of open societies in West Africa marked by functioning democracy, good governance, the rule of law, basic freedoms, and widespread civic participation. OSIWA believes that it best serves by sustaining catalytic and innovative initiatives that add value to the efforts of West Africa's civil society. OSIWA seeks to collaborate with advocacy groups, like-minded foundations, governments and donors..." OSIWA recently launched the West Africa Democracy Radio (WADR)"...conceived to be the hub of a West African network of public, private and community radio stations, creating an avenue for networking between the radio stations and a channel for dialogue among the peoples of the respective countries they serve...",Pambazuka.

From the Advocacy Project's blogging and photography initiative:

The workshops began with an introduction to blogging and photography, going over the basics of what makes a good blog and photo. Then we went out to take photos as a group and uploaded them from the camera to the computer and put them on a flash drive. Meanwhile, the students were writing, editing and sharing their first blogs on their own and in class. Once the pictures and first blogs were complete, we ventured to the Internet café to type the blogs, create email accounts, blogging accounts and Flickr accounts. Once the accounts were created, they posted their material online on their own pages...[continue reading]

via Kenyan Pundit

Nigeria Health Watch reports on NIGECS founded by Adegbola Ojo:

People are finding ways to present data in ways that make them more accessible to people, enabling them to use this as advocacy tools...the Nigerian LGA classification system (NIGECS) encapsulates spatially referenced datasets for the year 2006 sourced from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) for each of the 774 LGAs in the country. NIGECS is the first interactive repository for geographical and statistical information about the 774 LGAs in Nigeria.

More here

Telegraph.co.uk is presenting its second list of the 100 most influential conservatives. Conservatives are people identifiably – though not always self-described – as right of centre. The lists go by intervals of 20: 100-81 80-61 60-41. I'm going to just point out one or two people that I have been influenced by, but I suggest you look over the entire list and see who inspired you:

84. THOMAS SOWELL (64 on 2007 list)
Economist and commentator. Currently the Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on public policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and one of America’s most prominent black intellectuals, Sowell, 77, writes mainly about economics, history, race and social policy. A prolific columnist, he criticised Obama from almost his first day in office, accusing the president on his Townhall.com blog of “dismantling America”. Strongly free-market, against abortion, gay marriage and affirmative action and in favour of racial profiling to tackle terrorism, he has a pronounced libertarian streak and favours de-criminalising narcotics.

71. DICK ARMEY (- on 2007 list)
Chairman, FreedomWorks. An author of the 1994 Contract with America and former House Majority Leader, Armey now leads FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy organisation.

A Texan libertarian and former economics professor well versed in Washington’s rougher political arts, he was forced to give up an lucrative consultancy with DLA Piper when FreedomWork’s links to populist opposition to health care reform created difficulties with the law firm’s clients. The 69-year-old chain-smoker is a major influence on the tea party movement, which could become the conservative powerhouse in 2010.

66. VICTOR DAVID HANSON (58 on 2007 list)
Military historian and columnist. Although registered as a Democrat, Hanson strongly supported the Bush administration, particularly on foreign policy, and reluctantly accepts the label (though he acknowledges it is also a slur) of “neo-conservative”, arguing that the Democrats do not have a morally responsible foreign policy. He rejects, however, the jibe from paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan that he was the “neocon court historian”, arguing he had hardly ever visited the Bush White House and had never been in the pay of a government.

“I came to support neocon approaches first in the wars against the Taliban and Saddam, largely because I saw little alternative,” he wrote in 2008. Three years earlier, he had argued that that Democrats were like Republicans in the mid-1960s – “impotent, shrill, no ideas, conspiratorial, reactive, out-of-touch with most Americans, isolationist, and full of embarrassing spokesmen".

His verdict on the current president, when much of the country was in the grip of Obamamania a year ago, could turn out to be prescient: “If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.”

44. CLARENCE THOMAS (85 on the 2007 list)
Supreme Court Justice. Thomas has been on the Supreme Court for nearly two decades, making him one of the longest serving justices in history as well as a reliable conservative vote on virtually every issue. Only just in his 60s, he could be on the court for at least two decades more. Adored by the Republican party establishment, a candidate is guaranteed a round of applause when he cites Thomas or Antonin Scalia as model jurists. Thomas shrinks from the limelight and is renowned for hardly ever asking a question during hearings. But his judgements are lucid and often tart.

He endured contentious confirmation hearings that threatened to stop him becoming the second black Supreme Court justice, running the gauntlet of accusations of sexual harassment. The indignity of this still burns and in his autobiography he described the experience as being “pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony". An originalist, he believes in strict interpretation of the constitution and also describes himself as having “libertarian leanings”.

In the The Moor Next Door:

The spectacle of 24 September is that a world of misery will go without any meaningful attention from Western presses, leaders or diplomats and it will have been the fault of everyone involved that serious issues were ignored in favor of continual stupidity and bluster. While the rich may laugh, in rewording Qadhafi for his despotism, murder and gas, Western states have ensured that many peoples’ plight will go without advocacy. Dominated by Libya, Africans will not be heard. As miserable as many African leader may be, few in the biggest and most important states come as close to Mr. Qadhafi in their vulgarity and destructiveness.

More here

Cynthia Stroum served as the United States Ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg from December 7, 2009 to January 31, 2011, when she resigned after (source)

...an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum's management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

The Luxembourg embassy "has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador's tenure," said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. "At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities."

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department's inspector general was made public...

...The report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

"The bulk of the mission's internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style," the report said. "She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction."

Cynthia Stroum was a political appointee who was nominated for this position because of her extensive fundraising efforts on behalf of Barack Obama when he was running for President in 2008. When he won his election, Obama rewarded many supporters like Stroum with positions in our government, as is our custom. Although I do not fault Obama nor his continuation of appointing to political positions key supporters of his campaign, I do fault him for picking a poor nominee, although not greatly, because her resume was solid and she likely seemed like a decent pick, and it looks more as if this was simply a reward and not a personal pick of Obama's.

Mostly I lay blame for this international disaster at the feet of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is supposed to check and vet and provide oversight to the President's nominee's for offices. They failed in their duties to do their proper due diligence on this issue.

As you can see from the following video of her confirmation hearings before the Senate, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, October 08, 2009, which begins discussing nominations at the 11:00 minute mark, Democrats supported and believed in Cynthia Stroum. Senator Cantwell from the state of Washington gives the first speech in support of her (15:00-17:00) and vouches for her. Cynthia Stroum begins speaking herself at the 30:00 minute mark, and in her testimony she thanks Obama, cries, and speaks about why she is going to be a great ambassador. The bulk of the time she talks about cancer research and money laundering. She finishes at the 34:00 minute mark. As far as I was able to figure out, she was only asked one softball question at the 64:00 minute mark about how the people of Luxembourg feel about how they are doing in Afghanistan (where they contribute 9 troops and some money), which is done at 66:00. She was later confirmed with no further discussion, hearings, or testimony.

The Democratic members of the 111th Senate Foreign Relations Committee that fail in their duties and did a poor job in confirming the poor nomination from Democrat President Barack Obama. Hold the following Senators responsible for voting for and confirming this poor nominee: Democrats John Kerry (Mass., Chairman), Christopher Dodd (Conn.) Russ Feingold (Wis.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Jim Webb (Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Ted Kaufman (Del.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.).