I'm pretty sure I got a more thorough vetting than Sarah Palin when I applied for a job at Captain D's at the age of 16.

Wow. Nice to see that Obama isn't willing to hire baggage-laden cronies to work in his administration. I'm thinking that the chances of hearing Obama say the equivalent of "heckuva job, Brownie" are pretty slim.

Thank god.

I'm pretty sure Obama won't want me for a sunbeam, even if I did work for his campaign.

How many skilled people are going to get eliminated because of a DUI or from chatting ten years ago using the handle 'crabcakes' or something just as insignificant. I like thorough vetting, but man this seems like it's going to be counter productive.

I appreciate the effort the obama's effort for transparency and thoroughness. But he still hired a Daley, who I guess didn't have to fill out one of these applications (which would make for very interesting reading, especially when answering "or anyone in your family").

I note that many questions ask for information about the applicant or his/her "spouse."

Since the transition says they won't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, I guess this means gay applicants don't need to provide information on their partners, given that America won't let us have spouses?

I like thorough vetting, but man this seems like it's going to be counter productive.

Who says you'll be rejected for that? It's just a headsup to be ready to deal with it, and I'm sure the attention given will be commensurate to the level you reach in the administration.

A lesson Bush failed to learn: chance favors the prepared mind.

I'm not sure a negative response will necessarily exclude someone from a job, but it prevents surprises later on.

I like thorough vetting, but man this seems like it's going to be counter productive.

As others are saying, it's probably intended to be like the security clearance process -- if they already know about it, it greatly reduces the chances that you can be embarrassed/blackmailed/fired for it later.

Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun.

Why in the world should this matter? A lot of people hunt. Many people buy guns after receiving threats. Is this administration be the radically anti-gun administration the right wingers and gun nuts have claimed it would be?

Taking a step back.

Isnt this all a little bit excessive and part of a bad social precedent?

I really think question #83 is over the top. Provide a fecal sample for purpose of doing an analysis of dietary habits of applicant? C'mon!?

Compared to Sarah Palin, I'm sure I get a more thorough vetting everytime I visit my parents.

Is it invasive? Maybe, but I would remind you that the "looking into a man's eyes and seeing his soul" school of vetting almost got us Bernie Kerik as head of Homeland security.

It did get us:
Monica Goodling
Kyle Sampson
Alberto Gonzales
Jeff Gannon
Claude Allen
Michael Brown
Rachel Paulose
Sarah Pailin
Joe the Plumber

I'm sure there's more

"I like thorough vetting, but man this seems like it's going to be counter productive."

I think Obama is just being extra careful. Why go through potentially embarrassing staff problems if those can be avoided. Better to run a squeaky clean ship.

Doesn't everyone put all this info on their Facebook profile for the public these days anyway.

I appreciate the effort the obama's effort for transparency and thoroughness. But he still hired a Daley, who I guess didn't have to fill out one of these applications (which would make for very interesting reading, especially when answering "or anyone in your family").

Presumably you are referring to former Sec. of Commerce William Daley, who survived an FBI vetting at that time?

Better safe than sorry. Always assume that the GOP and MSM will distort any blackmark something 10x worse.

guess i shouldn't have counted on blog pseudonyms to keep my reputation unsullied after all :)
Oh well, moving would have been such a hassle. . . and zeitgeist can go on saying whatever the hell he wants to!

I like question #99, its a tricky true of false question:
Africa is a country located south of Europe

Or #101, name all of the inbred redneck you pal around with

I wish Bush and Cheney had filled out such a questionnaire prior to the 2008 election. That could have prevented a world of woe.

Too many people are jumping to unwarranted conclusions about the consequences of giving particular answers.

There are no doubt plenty of things they want to know about that are not going to disqualify people. I'm willing to bet that plenty of gun owners will get hired. If you answer that question in the affirmative, however, you might expect followups about gun-related "accidents" or security.

As far as I know, Obama was never a boy scout, but he clearly takes the admonition "be prepared" seriously.

Why in the world should this matter? A lot of people hunt. Many people buy guns after receiving threats. Is this administration be the radically anti-gun administration the right wingers and gun nuts have claimed it would be?

"Is this administration be the radically anti-gun administration the right wingers and gun nuts have claimed it would be?"

Now your thinking like a wingnut. If a Republican won the Presidency during a time of economic crises, energy crises, two wars, global warming, etc.etc. that's what he/she would do. Namely, cast aside all those "less" important issues to concentrate on the more important cultural issues of expanding gun ownership, overturning RoeVWade, teaching creationism, etc.

I'd feel a bit uncomfortable with the degree of detail on this, but I can see some very good purposes behind it. Mainly,

1) Those willing to go through the process would have to really want the job and be pretty confident that nothing in their past or family would be bad enough to prevent them from getting it, and

2) It sends the message that "Scumbags need not apply" loud and clear, which will hopefully discourage them from even trying thus saving a great deal of time for everyone.

3) Those who are successful will be pretty much assured to be both competent and honorable as much as humanly possible, which was never a priority for the Bush administration.

Pretty much "tough love" for the country is how I see it, which after eight years of being run by an outright criminal enterprise is really pretty refreshing.

There's a new marshal in town and he's making it clear right from the start that "business as usual" is over. Good for him.

Seems to me this is a strong indication that adults are about to return to power in D.C.

Can`t happen soon enough for me. If you don`t like the questions, don`t apply for a position.

"...it`s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine..." - REM

I think he just eliminated the entire MySpace generation that just voted for him. Keep drinkin' and flashin', kids!

"I wish Bush and Cheney had filled out such a questionnaire prior to the 2008 election. That could have prevented a world of woe"

When Cheney was pretending to screen possible vice-presidential candidates he reportedly had others divulge all of their secrets and may have misused the resulting info later.

The Obama team will be amassing a remarkable set of files. Let's hope they keep them secure and don't dip into them inappropriately.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22060

Question NOT on the application: What is it about President Obama that makes you want to serve him?

Winkanod--

Those hirings of unqualified Bush-worshippers (Goodling, Sampson, Gonzales, Paulose) weren't mistakes. More careful vetting would have only confirmed their merit in the Administration's eyes.

Same thing but for a different reason for flunkies like Brown and Allen: the Administration didn't care about their competence (or their personal weaknesses) because it did not care about the jobs they were hired to perform.

AND this is a BAD THING, because? I'd like to see the form for the folks being "hired" to go over the forms of folks applying for the JOBS in the administration. You see, life isn't just as SIMPLE as some minds would have us believe...even here on "lefty blogs" (or whatever the category is)...like I'm already SICK AND TIRED of the nitpicking not even two weeks after the election because, it seems, everyone knows better than Obama and company HOW they should do think EVERYTHING...YEGODS...give it a rest...take a break...look around for some OTHER news (not Palin) and let them get off the ground...oh, yes, keep an eye on what's going on but we got into some of this mess by all the KNOW EVERYTHINGS giving their take on things and really not so much knowing everything...see...it's NOT SIMPLE!!!

Extensive vetting is the way to go, of course, but one has to wonder how many very talented people will be excluded. Will the Obama administration automatically exclude other current or former members of Reverend Wright's church? Would Ted Kennedy have been excluded? Abe Lincoln certainly could not make the cut. It's hard to think of a prominent, admirable person from our history who could not be excluded.

Maybe, in some cases, the standards can bend a bit, especially if the person is willing to have the indiscretion become public. Perfect people are either lying or Stepford applicants.

Michael7843853,

The mistake you're making is assuming what information disqualifies an applicant.

Just to be clear, this is not the job application you receive after applying at change.gov

I just got one of those, and there are no background questions not related to education and prior experience.

This is just overkill. No one could qualify. $50 traffic ticket!!!!! Every ticket in NY City is more than that,...overstaying a meter can be anywhere from 75-115 dollars.

Sheer foolishness.

Dear lord some of you jump to conclusions awfully damned fast.

Just because someone has a ticket of more than $50 doesn't mean they're disqualified -- it's just so the Obama team knows about it.

And that's the whole point of this: They don't want an administration of Mark Foley's, Monica Goodlings, and the rest. They don't want some mid-level staffer to be exposed by Fox News as sexyman69 on some porn site, nor do they want someone's family connections to create a conflict of interest.

Basically, they want to know who they are hiring, while keeping lobbyists and cronies out. so that we have an administration that actually works.

So how's about we wait and see who complains about being rejected -- and why -- before assuming only the purest of the pure are eligible? Sound good?

Oh, and on a personal level, this part means I don't have a chance:

They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.

I've been leaving messages on blogs and message boards since the late 90s, on every subject. Often profanely.

So yeah ... I'm outta luck. But that's probably not a bad thing for Obama.

;-)

Just to reiterate: A LOT of these questions are asked in order to get any type of serious government clearance. Yes, it goes into further depth than you standard TS, but I admitted to several minor infractions, and even had an arrest as a young adult, and was still able to obtain a clearance. Admitting an infraction won't automatically disqualify you.

"Are we going to have to get the SS or ATF issue you a federal permit so you can bring them to DC with you?"

The answer to that question is now "no" across the board. Blink and you missed the news story, but earlier this year the DC gun ban went the way of Plessy v. Ferguson. They still have onerous registration requirements that are pretty obviously flouting the SCOTUS's intent, but the ATF has no say in whether you can lawfully bring your firearms to DC.

This list is for those applying for top tier positions, not all new hires. I am sure the list is no more exhaustive than a routine security clearance would be, & I would assume a security clearance will also be done. In fact, this list of questions will also be asked of those who will be in charge of agencies who will be doing the security clearances. Also keep in mind that the Bush administration never released such a list, which speaks to Obama's wish for more transparency.

I think we all need to chill out & let him do his job. It's what we hired him for. Pay attention, of course. But micromanaging all his decisions is outside ouor job descriptions.

I'm certainly willing to give the Obama folks tons of slack, it may take 4-8 good years of moderate governance to get us to the point where radical conservatism can be drowned in the bath tub for a few decades(ideas never really die), but what are we going to talk about for those years? Sarah Palin? OMG, sounds like hell to me.

Obama can handle a little nagging, anyway.

They're looking for an administration of yes-men. Hmm. Doesn't sound like anything's changing yet.

I know how much you like to pick on Palin and fawn at Obama's feet, but the most under-vetted candidate ever is...Barack Obama. If he had to fill out one of his questionnaires, he wouldn't be able to work in his own administration. Cough---Ayers--Cough---Rashid Khalidi---cough, clearing my throat---cough---Wright---cough---Acorn---cough---farrakhan---cough---sealed birth records---cough sealed college records---cough...anyone have a lozenge...or a decent candidate? You may worship the charasmatic little rock star, but look at his qualifications and you'll find that you're looking FOR his qualifications. God help us all.

"-cough-farrakhan-"

Obama has never had any associations with farrakhan of any kind.

"-Khalidi-"

What's wrong with Khalidi. He's a respected scholar who happens to be (gasp!) pro-Palestinian.

"-cough sealed college records-"

When were McCain's college records unsealed?