24 September 2013

Elite fundraiser for Obama nominated for Canadian ambassadorship

Every president does this, and I'm frankly tired of it.
A veteran Goldman Sachs & Co. executive and major fundraiser for President Barack Obama has been nominated as the next ambassador to Canada — the latest in a parade of big-dollar campaign backers slated to represent U.S. interests abroad.

Chicago-based Bruce Heyman raised more than $750,000 for Obama’s committees since 2007, along with his wife, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of records.
Heyman’s nomination is a sort of milestone for the White House: During his second term, Obama has now tapped 20 campaign bundlers for ambassadorships. Together, these moneymen and women raised at least $13.8 million — and likely much more — for Obama’s political committees since 2007, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s research.
I was delighted in 2009 when he chose John Huntsman (fluent in Mandarin Chinese) to the diplomatic post in China.  But by 2011 the stream of patronage was obvious -
More than two years after President Obama took office vowing to banish “special interests” from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events...

As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests and making the White House more accessible to everyday Americans. In kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” who he said had “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”
And now it continues during the second term.  Please someone tell me this Heyman at least speaks French.


  1. Please read this, Stan:

  2. Our entire government is run by whoever has the most money to buy the most influence/votes. We need government-funded campaigns, which we will never have as long as the incumbents and office seekers profit so much from moneyed interests. It's shameful.

  3. And the large grey areas? Probably blue? Really, you should know better.

    1. Or appointed during Obama's first term, or appointed by a previous administration. And why would they "probably" be blue??

    2. Obama did this extensively in his 2nd term as well. Like Stan said, both parties do it. It is sickening and maddening. SOME people who can raise funds might indeed be qualified to be diplomats, but not at this level.


      If you can find a more extensive list in the first term that shows otherwise, I'd appreciate it. It seems like his first term started out much like his 2nd term appointments. Shame.

    3. Roy, look at this post that an anonymous reader offered -


      It will make you feel even worse about ambassadors (if that's possible).


  4. The map attempts to support the idea that Obama, while promising one thing, has delivered something quite different. Grey areas are uninformative and tend therefore to be ignored making the coloured areas appear more significant than they really are, suggesting thereby that political patronage is more extensive than it otherwise might appear. This is particularly true of Canada where patronage appointments are the traditional. The grey areas along with the blue areas cover countries that are unstable, unfriendly or unresponsive to American concerns. These are the countries where America needs trained, professional staff and representation.

  5. It's not just America (although the US has the worst problem with this sort of patronage.) Canada's Prime Minister announced last spring that the new ambassador to Jordan would be the head of his security detail.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...