Kerick - vetting/nomination/confirmation process to be changed?

I have been wondering when the first rumbles may start...

The purpose of vetting and confirming a nominee is to ensure that the nominee is qualified and capable of doing the job. That there are no hidden agenda or conflicts of interest that would interfer or influcence decisions. As best we can - we want to ensure the nominee is able to perform his/her duties as objectively as possible.

We also know that the vetting/nomination/confirmation process has become contentious. A nominee is either rubber-stamped through or sent through a shredder -- depending on who controls Congress versus who controls the White House.

Kerick's nomination and subsequent withdrawal highlights a few things. On one hand the nomination/vetting process works because it brought out things that would be undesireable in a nominee. It also highlights how something "little" can torpedo a nominee.

Although an illegal nanny is the least of Kerick's problems -- it has become the focus of the story. The larger problems are mostly buried in the footnotes.

The first rumblings of changing the process may have started http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13549429&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18168&rfi=6

--snip--

The vetting process for high-profile political appointees has over the last two decades become an exercise in gotcha’ politics, vastly inflating the transgressions of nominees and disqualifying talented people from office.

-----------

the editorial does not state that the process should be changed -- but it does give a hint of what kind of spin we will see when the next nominee falls victim to a "minor infraction". Look for sidestepping and dodging of Kerick's MAJOR problems, trivialization of the the nanny problem, and changing the subject from Kerick's nomination to calls for changes in the process

and that's why they nominated such a loser.

That's the only requirement that this administration seems to care about and it's the one that has gotten them into trouble.