Himes supports Chris Shays for head of Peace Corps

Appointing Shays to head the Peace Corps would be a terrible mistake (4.00 / 2)

All five Democratic congressmen from Connecticut signed the letter.  I object strongly.  

As a former Peace Corps volunteer myself who spent two and a half years working with Tuberculosis patients in rural South Korea, I believe that Shays would be one of the worst possible people to appoint to run the Peace Corps.

First, Peace Corps retains an idealism and ideals instilled by its founder John F. Kennedy and its superb first director Sargent Shriver.  The Peace Corps attempts to promote peace and economic development in developing countries.  It was meant to give a human face to America by sending young people to live and work with people throughout the world.  Chris Shays served as one of the leading voices for invasion and war with Iraq, a developing country that had not attacked us or posed a threat to the United States.  As a result, 35,000 young Americans are dead and wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died senselessly, millions have been chased into exile or internal refugee status, and entire cities have been devastated.  Is that the man Barack Obama should choose to be the face of the Peace Corps to the developing world?

Chris Shays dismissed the Abu Ghraib torture scandal as nothing more than a "sex ring".  Abu Ghraib was one of the major reasons that America's reputation in the world has suffered its worst fall in our country's history.  Do we really want to put in charge of the Peace Corps a man who fails to understand not only that America should not torture people, but that the people in countries in which so many Peace Corps volunteers are working have suffered mightily from torture as well?  How does it promote peace for America to put in charge of the Peace Corps an apologist for torture?

Chris Shays stated at a town hall meeting in Ridgefield that he believed George Bush had the right to wiretap anyone he wanted to without a warrant in the name of national security.  Bush, he said, has the right to ignore any law provided he is operating in the name of national security.  If we don't like that situation, he stated, then we had to change the constitution.  Do we really want the face of the Peace Corps to the developing world to be a man who believes that a head of state can ignore any law he wants provided he says he's doing so in the name of "national security"?  

Chris Shays endorsed George Bush twice, even after the illegal wiretapping scandal, the Abu Ghraib scandal, after we knew that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, after we knew that Iraq never had nuclear weapons.  Shays called the right-wing extremist Newt Gingrich "my hero"; he called the indicted felon Tom DeLay "a great majority leader".  Is this apologist for right-wing extremists the man whom Barack Obama should select as the face of the Peace Corps?

Then there is the matter of Shays'using his service in the Peace Corps (he spend two years in Fiji in the late 1960's) as a shield to protect him from political criticism for not having served in the military.  I have heard Shays state countless times "I didn't go into the military; I served in the Peace Corps."  That infuriates me because he uses that semi-colon to imply that he served in the Peace Corps instead of going into the military, and that is both dishonest and deceptive.  Peace Corps service was never considered as an alternative to military service, and volunteers were not exempted from the draft if they were serving in the Peace Corps.  Indeed, many male volunteers were pulled out of their sites in developing countries and inducted into the military.  Yet Shays continues to imply that the Peace Corps was the reason he didn't go into the military.  

That point is important because public records show that Shays' lottery number came up in December 1969 and that he received a very low number that would have meant he had to enter the military.  It was during Shays' stint with the Peace Corps in Fiji.  But since he wasn't exempt from the draft and he didn't have an educational deferment (he'd graduated from college), he should have been drafted.  Shays never explains how he got out of the draft at the height of the Vietnam War, and as far as I know none of our right-wing press corps has ever asked him.

And in 1969 Shays did not claim conscientious objector status.  Only in 1972 as the Vietnam War was winding down, but his name came up in the draft again, did Shays claim to be a consientious objector.  Shays has stated that he would have refused induction had he not been granted CO status, which he was granted by the narrow margin of a 3 to 2 vote of his draft board.  But Shays has never explained his philosophy of pacifism, of why he would have refused induction in 1972, but never claimed CO status in 1969.

More critically, Shays is a hypocrite for avoiding military service himself and claiming to be a pacifist, but turning around and voting as a congressman to send hundreds of thousands of other young men and women to kill and be killed.  If he believed it was morally wrong to take up arms in defense of the United States, then he was morally wrong to send others to do what he believed was repugnant.  Is that the man we want to be the face of the Peace Corps to the developing world?  A man whose own principles are so easily abandoned?  Who has no qualms about sending others to kill, while he refuses to do the same?

Furthermore, Chris Shays has never run anything larger than his own congressional staff in his life.  The Republicans never let him get close to running a congressional committee.  Nor, for that matter, has Shays ever held a position of leadership in his own party.  Given his almost total lack of administrative experience, does it make sense to put Shays in charge of a multi-million dollar organization like the Peace Corps.

Then there is this aspect that has trouble me for a long time.  Shays, in his typical dithering manner, was going back and forth in 1998 as to whether or not to vote to impeach Bill Clinton.  Shays demanded a face-to-face meeting with Clinton in the White House just before the vote.  After the meeting, Shays announced that he would not vote for impeachment.  And just days after that White House meeting, Shays' wife was appointed to a six-figure salaried position with the Peace Corps.  I don't know if that job was a "thank you" to Shays for breaking ranks with congressional Republicans.  It's not that important in the cosmic scheme of things.  But if Chris Shays is going to be appointed to that same agency, the public has a right to ask the question whether the Shays family was rewarded with a government position for his no vote, and to question whether Shays is the right person to hold another position in the Peace Corps.

I understand that Connecticut's Democratic congressmen might want to follow Obama's lead about "post-partisan politics" and extend the olive branch to Republicans.  But this Connecticut Democrat thinks it's a bad idea.  There were very good reasons why I and others struggled so long and so hard to get Shays replaced.  As Jim Himes' own campaign pointed out, Shays supported his right-wing leadership nearly 90% of the time when his vote was needed, and the hard-right Republican Party has been disastrous to this country.  We should not be rewarding incompetent Republicans with important positions in this country, especially putting war-mongers like Shays in charge of the Peace Corps.  

For Barack Obama to appoint Shays to the Peace Corps would be a major affront to everything the Peace Corps stands for.  With respect to our Democratic congressmen, I am not willing to sit quietly by and see Shays appointed to that agency that means so much to me and which has done so much good in the world.  

It's wrong.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 16:00:38 PM UTC

Well argued (0.00 / 0)

I wish that I could write like you!

---

by: ctpublius @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 16:48:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wow.. so well put. Although it would be nice to send Shays (0.00 / 0)

to Pitcairn Island for about ... a decade or so.

maybe he shouldn't head up the Peace Corps.. but he can reenlist and do some REAL work

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:47:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Call the EPA - have their water tested fast (0.00 / 0)

What the f?

Look, this is a man who has way too many friends who casue way way too much trouble, and who would love to use the Peace Corps as a CIA recruiting scheme.  I just don't think Shays would provide a face of credibility for the US and I hope somebody gives all of these elected officials a wake up calls.  

What are they drinking?  What are they swimming in?  Man, the self-referential "edge of the world is the Potomac River" mentality sure sinks in fast.

If this is in the name of letting bygones be bygones, earth to Himes et al -- get. over. it.

If he thought Abu Ghraib was a sex scandal, what would he make of genocide or starvation?  

If Shays is out of work, maybe he could use his prior career in real estate to forge something new right here in the USA?  Himes should recommend Shays for a job doing...affordable housing.

And if Jim doesn't think Chris is the right guy for Jim's old job, then....why would he ever recommend Chris Shays as the right guy for the Peace Corp?

You know it's wrong in your gut, Jim.

This is NOT what one does to create an honest and open dialog - pretend you don't have an issue with someone.

We voted him out of government service for a reason, Jim.

Please don't do the Chuckie thing with Shays.

We don't want him BA-ACK.

Allow him his time in the wilderness to sort things out.  So many of us are also getting it, unrequested, in the form of pink slips.  Are you saying that among those recently laid off, you could not find a more fired up and less compromised person for the job than Chris Shays?

I find it hard to believe.

We don't need to rehab Shays -- that is his own personal responsibility, and the Peace Corps is not supposed to be a rehab center for... its director.

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 16:58:34 PM UTC

A slight correction (0.00 / 0)

Betsy Shays' appointment to the Peace Corps came on October 8, 1998; the vote on impeachment came on December 19, 1998.  But Shays had already expressed opposition to impeachment at that time.  He later wavered after talking with Lowell Weicker, and demanded a face-to-face meeting with Clinton in December.  Here's an excerpt from an article in The Spotlight:

Clinton-connected political appointments began falling into the laps of family members of key Republican legislators. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) let his wife Joan accept a six-figure appointment directly from Clinton just six months be fore the impeachment vote. Mrs. Specter would conveniently be serving with Democratic National Committee Chair man Steven Gross man's wife on the National Endowment for the Arts Board.

Then influential House Republican anti-impeachment leader, Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), was able to avoid public notice when his wife Betsy quietly accepted a six-figure appointment as director of Ameri-Corps from close Clinton confidant and early damage-control aide Mark Gearan, now director of the Peace Corps. The job came through on Oct. 8, 1998..

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 17:03:22 PM UTC

Betsi Shays on the CIA and Peace Corps (0.00 / 0)

The following from an online chat with Betsi Shays:

VA: Hello. I would like to work for the CIA/DIA/NSA after the Peace Corps. Do you have any specific rule? And if I worked for the intelligence agencies, can I go work for the Peace Corps?

Betsi Shays: Sorry, but I just don't know the answer to your question. You might want to contact a PC recruiting office and/or someone at the intelligence agencies of interest to you.

Hope you get your answer

Being that the misuse of the Peace Corps (imho) for intelligence gathering is a common fear I found when traveling in one country in Latin America (heck, people in villages already are predisposed to believing university students doing research are "from the SEE-Ah (CIA)"), I find it curious that she "doesn't know the answer".

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 17:17:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the answer is... (0.00 / 0)

That there is a waiting period after serving in the Peace Corps until one can enter an intelligence agency, and by law one is forbidden to serve in any intelligence organization in the country in which one served as a Peace Corps Volunteer.

And, yes, you're absolutely right that PCV's are widely considered spies.  But that is all the more reason to be so very scrupulous in how the volunteers are used and who is selected to be the head of the organization.  In 2001 Bush nominated a complete hack named Vazquez to head Peace Corps who had almost never travelled outside the U.S., and had presided over the bankruptcy of Orange County.  PCV's deserve better, and the world deserves better.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 17:36:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What was the answer under Vazquez and post 9/11? (0.00 / 0)

I agree completely about the scrupulousness in use of volunteers and leadership.  Why am I guessing that the outgoing administration was anything but tone deaf to the importance of separation of the two functions?

That's why I don't think someone so completely associated with a discredited administration is a good choice to head the Peace Corps, in terms of the credibility of the agency and -- not unrelated and certainly paramount -- safety of the volunteers.  It is counterproductive and risky to choose Shays, no matter how good he is about beating his breast about the importance of the Peace Corps in his life.

Whoever heads the Peace Corps has to have 1) vision and 2) a spine and 3) Integrity.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 07:43:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is this really the best the Peace Corps deserves? (0.00 / 0)

CQ TODAY - CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS
July 20, 2007 - Updated 5:05 p.m.
Shays Apologizes to Capitol Police Officer
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who grabbed a Capitol Police officer's name tag in a profanity-laced tirade Thursday, apologized Friday for his conduct.

The congressman's outburst was precipitated by the officer's refusal to admit a Shays staffer and several of his constituents into a staff entrance, according to Capitol Hill sources.

"Yesterday while trying to locate a family of constituents caught on the West Front of the Capitol during a rain storm, I interacted with a Capitol Police officer in a way I know was not appropriate," Shays said Friday. "Although my focus was in trying to locate my constituents and get them to a dry location, I know I clearly could have handled the situation with the officer in a more professional and respectful way, and I regret I did not do so."

The incident is reminiscent of an episode in 2006 involving then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney, R-Ga., and a Capitol Police officer.

After being denied entry into the Capitol through the staff entrance, the Shays aide called her boss to intervene, according to accounts provided by sources.

The officer refused to talk to Shays, citing police rules against officers using telephones while manning their posts.

Shays arrived at the scene and delivered a tongue-lashing, including several instances of the "F-word," to the officer before grabbing the name tag on the front of his uniform.

The officer met with several congressional officials Friday and declined to pursue the matter, according to one of the sources.

"The latest I have is that the officer decided not to go any further after receiving an apology from Shays," one source said.

In a statement issued late Friday, Sgt. Kimberly A. Schneider, spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, said, "The officer chose to handle the matter by filing a courtesy complaint against the Member. After personally meeting with the officer, Chief of Police Phillip D. Morse, Sr. and Assistant Chief of Police Dan Nichols discussed the matter with Congressman Shays who acknowledged he acted inappropriately in the heat of the moment and took full responsibility for his actions. The Congressman stated his full support and admiration for the officers of the U.S. Capitol Police and offered his apologies.

"Chief Morse fully supports the officer involved in this matter and commends the officer for properly following policy and procedure during this encounter."

Shays said, "When I return to Washington on Monday, I hope to have the opportunity to meet with the officer and apologize to him in person,"adding, "I take full responsibility for this incident and want to ensure it does not reflect negatively on the officer in any way."

McKinney suffered public scorn in March 2006 after she reportedly hit a Capitol police officer in the chest when he tried to stop her at a security checkpoint in a House office building.

McKinney, who was not wearing the pin that identified her as a member of Congress, charged that she was being targeted because she is a black woman.

McKinney, who ultimately apologized, was defeated in a Democratic primary by current Rep. Hank Johnson.

Shays, who has demonstrated an anti-authoritarian streak in the past, won re-election with just 51 percent of the vote in 2006, surviving a Democratic electoral wave that wiped out every other House Republican from New England.

In 1985, Shays, then a state legislator, was jailed for contempt for several days when he tried to make a statement during a court hearing in Connecticut accusing a judge of going easy on an attorney charged with misconduct.

First posted July 20, 2007 4:33 p.m.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 17:30:19 PM UTC

Jesse Hamilton shills for Shays (0.00 / 0)

Here's an example from a recent Hartford Courant article by Jesse Hamilton of why I am so angry at Shays' using the Peace Corps as a shield:

A History Of Independence
Shays' history in public life is that of an individualist. In his youth, he was a conscientious objector who entered the Peace Corps rather than the Vietnam War (though he would later support the war in Iraq).

Of course, that assertion is completely false.  But Shays has been perpetrating that lie and right-wing reporters like Hamilton have been repeating it for years.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 18:20:02 PM UTC

A Broader Issue (0.00 / 0)

Shays' characterization of Abu Ghraib as "sex," not torture, and his altercation with the DC policeman are but two issues of concern; his advocacy for the Iraq War and unwavering support of Erik Prince and Blackwater has been shocking; add to this his disrespectful treatment of the Blackwater widows, and the only appropriate term is "shameful."

I have attended Town Meetings where Shays has completely "lost it" -- shouting at citizens who asked questions he didn't like.

Whether these examples were prompted by stress or some clinical issue impairing Shays' judgment, the LAST THING an Obama Administration needs is erratic people in visible roles employing poor judgment. We've seen too much of that recently; and Shays is not a face America needs as we seek to rebuild our country's image in the world.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 20:56:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a member of the party that brought us Iraq (0.00 / 0)

Is that how we want to signal to the world that the US's diplomatic policies are radically changing -- by naming Chris Shays to head the Peace Corps?

Saying it's part of having a functioning democracy is, I believe,  an inaccurate perception.  It's shooting the country in the foot and destroying our credibility overseas while broadcasting loud and clear that your elected officials intend to keep on doing what they do best --  paging through the calendar and planning how to stay in office.

Functioning democracies, like the tango, require partnership.  One side can't decide to rehabilitate the other if the other side does not think it has a problem.

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 22:28:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mutual self-interest as well (0.00 / 0)

Far be it for me to cast aspersions on Jim Himes' motives here but...with Shays safely out of the way there's no other republican to challenge Himes in two years.

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 18:25:02 PM UTC

Actually, there's John McKinney (0.00 / 0)

McKinney is the son of Stewart McKinney who held the job for several years before succoming to what was reported to be AIDS=related pneumonia.  He's a state senator and minority leader.  So he's a serious threat to Democrats in federal positions, including Dodd and Himes.  I should think he'd go after Dodd's job.  But he's been making noises about Congress.

Whatever the Democratic congressional delegation's motivations, the action seems to suggest that they didn't run this idea past Democratic=leaning Peace Corps volunteers and former volunteers before going ahead with it.  

I should think that praising Shays and appointing him to a major federal position weakens the Democratic argument that Democrats should be re-elected.  Since if the Republicans really aren't bad guys, why not vote for them?  The answer is that Shays did a lot of damage, he was incompetent and he should not be appointed to a top gov't job.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 15:04:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right about McKinney (0.00 / 0)

He could be a serious threat to Himes if things do not go well in the next couple of years.

It's a mistake though to make all republicans "bad guys". That undermines the entire system, in my opinion. Whatever one thinks of Shays --and my own opinion of him is low-- he did serve in congress for over twenty years and is familiar with the workings of the Peace Corps. So in that respect his candidacy for the job does make some kind of sense.

The real goal is not to tar and feather all republicans with the same brush (there will always be the nutcases in that party) but try to bring them back into some kind of sanity where they're contributing rather than destroying the idea of a functioning democracy. That may be an impossible goal given the hard right swing of the republican party during the last 16 years, and even more so during the Bush years but if the real goal is to have a government which works for all people than some attempt to bring the republicans back into the mix should be made.  

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 16:26:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a classic move (0.00 / 0)

I should think that praising Shays and appointing him to a major federal position weakens the Democratic argument that Democrats should be re-elected.  Since if the Republicans really aren't bad guys, why not vote for them?  The answer is that Shays did a lot of damage, he was incompetent and he should not be appointed to a top gov't job.

Everyone wants to get their strongest possible opponent out of their district. Sometimes (when the time is right) they do it with redistricting, other times by making sure they're productively engaged elsewhere. Shays made sure Farrell got a job with the Export-Import Bank -- solidifying his political position and making himself look like a gentleman in the process.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 19:58:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmm.... (0.00 / 0)

I think that it is important for Democrats to run government well, to show compassion, and to implement important innovations, such as universal health care.  I believe that showing the country how bad Republicans have been for America is the important point.  I hope that Americans see that voting Republican is bad for the country's health.  In that vein, appointing a Republican who helped push us into a disastrous war and advocates authoritarian policies such as illegal wiretapping and torture is wrong for an important agency such as the "Peace Corps".  We all opposed Shays for very good reasons.  Connecticut and America are better off now that he's out of office.  And he should remain out of office.  He did a lot of damage during his two decades, like casting the deciding vote for the draconian Republican bankruptcy bill and the deciding vote for a major increase in student loan interest rates and he supported the bailout of MTBE producers whose carcinogenic product is polluting ground water in Connecticut.

Is that the person who is best qualified to run the Peace Corps?  Or are we buying into the notion that we should reward Republicans with jobs just because we Democrats want t be nice to them?  Take a look at Lieberman,a big Shays supporter.  Let's dump both of their sorry butts!

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 18:53:14 PM UTC

Dodd, Sam Farr also pushing Shays (0.00 / 0)

This looks like a done deal.

Last month, U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and U.S. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., and other former Peace Corps volunteers recommended that Obama designate Shays to head the 47-year-old agency, which has a $331 million budget and 7,876 volunteers in 76 countries.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.co...

Here's the other reps who have served:

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Dominican Republic, 1966-68

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., Fiji, 1968-70

Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., Nepal, 1970-72

Rep. Tony Hall, D-Ohio, Thailand, 1966-68

Rep. Thomas Petri, R-Wisc., Somalia, 1966-67

Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., Colombia, 1964-66

Of course Obama could always appoint this guy:

Journalist Christopher Matthews, Swaziland, 1968-70

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 19:24:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not so impressed (4.00 / 1)

it is interesting that a political ploy so self evident in domestic politics was cast aside in iraq in disbanding saddam Hussein's loyalists.

what strikes me about this, done deal or not, is that it seems to be all about the internal (read: "insider") dynamics of passing out favors, and not at all about who would be a good head of the peace corps.

time to shake out some more incumbents.  way too cozy down there.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 18:06:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's disturbing.. (0.00 / 0)

It's as if the Iraq War and all of the dying and all of the maiming and all of the wealth squandered over there was "just one issue".  Sound familiar?  Isn't the whole reason Shays was challenged and eventually successfully challenged his disastrous backing of the Iraq War?  And if he has displayed such miserable judgment on torture, on the economy, on war in a developing nation, especially on war, then why in the world are Democrats recommending him?  

Do the dead and wounded in Iraq really mean so little to our party?  Isn't this just part and parcel of the same wink and nod regarding Lieberman?  Seems that no transgression against the Democratic Party or America is too great that it can't be forgiven and even rewarded by congressional Democrats.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 03:30:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't figure out why Himes recommended Shays? (0.00 / 0)

perhaps because "..there's not a dime's worth of difference.." between them?

---

by: jim6669jim @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 19:51:56 PM UTC