Louis Susman, Obama's Choice for U.K. Ambassador, Raises Eyebrows

Wall Street Journal:

CHICAGO -- President Barack Obama has raised some eyebrows with his decision to send as ambassador to the U.K. a little-known retired investment banker -- and top fund-raiser -- from his hometown who has little diplomatic experience.

The post at the Court of St. James's in London is one of the most prestigious in U.S. diplomatic circles. Though largely ceremonial and rarely controversial, it is a prominent position given the close relations between the U.S. and the U.K. In recent years, it has usually gone to political boosters of the president.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

Comments

[lirex]

This is a very good article! And it's described it very well :) It will be very useful for many people.
I had similar problems these days so I had to send questions to many US Visa sites that offer assistance. I could recommend two-three like http://usavisaappointments.com
But it's up to you.

[truegreen]

Obama is a looking a hypocrite day by day. During the campaign he derided president's who appoint Ambassadors as ' donor's and know he's doing the same exact thing. The guy is such a politician. He is fitting in just fine in among the D.C. establishment.

[gpeach36]

Why wuld we care what the opinion of the WSJ is in this matter. Pres. Obama is doing his job and all the whining by this group won't change that. So I guess every ambassadorship ever handed out before this was done without any consideration of anything but the best of qualifications? Get serious.

[roblabrousse]

No matter who does what or gets what there will always be criticism written about it. The pages of newspapers need to be filled. Ever see a human interest story in the WSJ? These guys a hypocrites they have to be they're the WSJ. They only know one voice to take on any thing the Democrats do. NEGATIVE. So they''l fill a column and keep the other hungry conservatives sated for another day. So what???? It won't stop the gentleman in question from going to London.

[Durango]

Nice double standard from the WSJ.

Presidents have been appointing Ambassadors for years based on monetary support. Bush and the Republicans did it more than anyone.

All of which either went unmentioned or was actively supported by the WSJ and their so called conservative brethren.

But let a Democratic President do exactly the same thing and it is corruption.

We had to put up with just this sort of nonsense endlessly under the Clinton Presidency. Here we go again.

The problem is President Obama is much smarter and more politically astute than the WSJ.

Their hypocrisy will get no political traction what so ever.

[PWM]

Exactly. Why the surprise!

[tomvox1]

How many WSJ articles can the HuffPost link in one day?

[totalliberal]

Sounds like a good choice.

[Macready]

that's what I think

[hbhawaii]

Same old same old.

Guess I was naive to expect maybe just a little bit of a difference.

[SmolderingRuin]

Sounds like he earned it.

[Mum]

I'm a little confused here. If it is true, as the WSJ says, that the post of ambassador to the UK "has usually gone to political boosters of the president," then how is Susman's appointment any different? Surely "political boosters" are more than likely to have been involved in raising money for their candidate, aren't they?

As long as he speaks the language, I'm not sure what other requirement would be necessary. Unless I'm missing something, the ambassadorship to the UK is not a particularly critical one. We're supposedly already best buds and all that. I mean, after all, didn't Bush have Blair in his hip pocket? I'm not suggesting the same relationship between Brown and Obama, but I do think that the relationship between Britain and the US is a sound one and there are other foreign policy issues that are far more important. A tempest in a teapot, for sure.

[bowthai]

Yeah, I'm not sure what the controversy is either. I'd rather someone with better qualifications take the post, but as it is generally reserved for political appointees, Susman seems just as qualified as any.

[HekmabaJuzimax]

At least Obama kept some of his campaign promises.

[Horatio]

He seems imminently qualified. How does his fund-raising prowess disqualify him?

[poster1122]

"Imminently qualified"? Seriously?

This is actually one of my biggest pet peeves about the political appointments to Europe. If you ever need the services of the US Embassy/Consulate in those countries, you're at the mercy of the bureaucrats there. If you lose your passport, need something special for work, want to get married to a foreign national, have problems with your student visa, etc, etc, you'd better pray you get a sympathetic person at the window.

Why? Because no one in management knows anything about either the local or even the US laws and the mid-level guys run the place as they please. These embassies are headed by people totally unqualified for the job as patronage jobs. So if discretion is being abused, nothing happens.

I had a buddy whose girlfriend in Germany applied for a student visa to go to grad school in the US. She was rejected by one dude, so she just came back another day and her application was accepted by some other official. Same paperwork, same everything.

[MarcusT]

This is just shocking! Bureaucrats running a government institution. This has got to change.

[kingshmoopy]

The ambassador in a place like the UK has nothing to do with the daily workings of the embassy, the people who do that are Foreign Service Officers, career State Dept. employees. As the wife of a FSO I would like to think, someday, he would have the opportunity to be Ambassador to a place like the UK or Ireland but I know that will never happen despite the fact that (IMO) he is darn good at his job. So I'm not defending the system that puts people in charge of an embassies who aren't actually diplomats, only saying that they don't really have anything to do with the daily workings of an embassy.

As for your buddy's girlfriend, when someone is turned down for a visa they are often told "these are the reasons I am refusing you today" so it is possible that she just covered up the reasons for refusal better and that is why she got her visa. Also, while there is nothing arbitrary about the laws that govern visas, they can be open to interpretation so it is possible that two different people interpret the same application differently if the application could go either way.

[retreadite]

So much for Obama's pledge to end cronyism.

[JackND]

I never really believed that particular promise.

Croneyism is like a tattoo on a politician. At least Obama isn't covered head to toe with them like his predecessor.

[Durango]

Do you have any idea how politics works?

i suggest you read into the history of America's greatest President Abraham Lincoln to find out what President do.

[NoahVail]

Being able to talk Americans out of money to support the presidential aspirations of a black, first term senator would seem like good training for the UK ambassador.

[hbhawaii]

Huh?

[NoahVail]

He can talk the Brits into ditching the monarchy and creating a society that is less class conscious.

In any case, I am sure he is just as qualified as Bush's guy was.

[petera63]

Amy Weinhouse for UK ambassador in D.C.!