If failing to register or allowing one's gun registration to lapse is a disqualifier for a job in the Obama White House, there will be no Tennesseans in the new administration.

For that matter, residents from forty-six of our fifty states will be locked out for the same reason.

Current Federal law prohibits a national gun registry and only four states (that I am aware of) require or have gun registration - Hawaii, Maryland, Mass., and New York.

Looks like there will be a lot of hula skirted Yankees at the White House come January!

The questionnaire doesn't say that any particular answer to any particular answer will "disqualify" the applicant. It justs asks for information -- a lot of it. That goes with the territory when you are applying for high-level positions.

Obama takes office in a very poisonous time. His team needs to know as much as they can and not be surprised by anything in relation to their appointees.

Operatives on the right have very little taste for fair play and will waste no time in attacking Obama for any little perceived weakness, as we have seen in the campaign. He has to be prepared.

These things are not necessarily disqualifiers. I think you are stretching it to reach that conclusion. In many arenas there are conflicts of interest that have to be dealt with. They are only disqualifiers in matters of state that deal specifically with them. I sit on several non profit Boards and we state our conflicts at every meeting. When a matter involving them comes up we simply recuse ourselves and take a break from the action.

When only four States require it?

My guess, and this is not directed at Obama, is that some functionary threw in that question with a wink and a nod to the gun control lobby, without realizing that it was pointless.

On this one I have give President-Elect Obama a pass. Not even President-Elect Obama can do everything by himself.

Finally, isn't this extensive questionarie meant to do two things:

Provide vetting info on the applicants, and;

Show everyone that the new administration is serious in establishing that it will be operating by a published set of standards. Isn't this an example of change.

PS: WC, you wrote Operatives on the right have very little taste for fair play and will waste no time in attacking Obama

In actuality aren't the only people who believe that one side is better or worse than the other partisans?
"Operatives" on both the left and the right are paid to bash, smear, and tear down the other side.

Both sides, left and right, have their attack dogs and mugslingers.

Those of us who haven't bought into either party line horse-laugh at claims that the right has very little taste for fair play - it sounds too much like the pot calling the kettle black.

I heard the application even asks for every online and chat handle name ever used. I'm not sure I would put grasshopeer on there..lol.
I would guess seeing the costly results of not vetting Palin nearly enough might have prompted some concern for thoroughness.

This is a must have, all future president elects will do the same. The information highway allows access to a wealth of information and everybodies closest creaks open a little more as technology expands.

Actually, I would think that if you were going to serve in a Presidential Cabinet, that their should be a similar process to go through that I had to go through to get a Top Secret Clearance. I am sure they will be exposed to way more nationally critical info than I ever was. That process makes this doc look like "see spot run".

Should candidates for the office of President be vetted like potential White House employees? Shouldn't they also be able to get a Top Secret Clearance?

If you have been subjected to a security clearance, do you think President-Elect Obama could pass?

Before everyone flames me, this is a legitimate question. Shouldn't all managers and employers be expected to pass muster just as their subordinates or employees. Good for the goose... that kind of thing?

I have never been subjected to a security clearance but I've heard that it is rigorous. At K-25, Y-12, and then X-10 when my Dad's security checks were done he was questioned extensively about rumored associations dating back to 1919 of his Father (my Grandfather). My Dad was born in 1932!

I would think Obama would score significantly more secure in a security clearance than John McCain.

McCain has a history of erratic behavior that Obama does not have, whether it is his heavy drinking and hushed up fatal car wreck, to his inability to fly airplanes without crashing them. McCain alsoo has private associations with convicted domestic terrorist, G. Gordon Liddy.

Obama has none of that.

I asked a question or rather sought Limeywade's opinion and you (WC) attack John McCain. What's up?

Had Senator McCain won and was sending out questionnaires, wouldn't we be asking the same question of him? Heck, Senator McCain wasn't elected and you tore in reeling off a whole bunch of reasons you feel would disqualify him from a Top Secret rating.

Your response clearly indicates that it is fair to look into the loser's past concerning whether or not he could pass security screening. However, you seem to feel that it is unfair to ask the same of the winner.

Why else would you become so hostile?

Common sense tells us that the man at the top should have to pass the same litmus tests as the people up and down the ladder below him. Limeywade sounded like he has or had a security clearance and had been through the process, as had my Dad. I have no idea what Limeywade’s answer would but I thought his insight might be instructive. Thus, I asked Limeywade’s opinion....

Should candidates for the office of President be vetted like potential White House employees? Shouldn't they also be able to get a Top Secret Clearance?

If you have been subjected to a security clearance, do you think President-Elect Obama could pass?

WC, does it make sense to be so defensive of our President-Elect – so defensive that the mere asking of a question appears to upset you.

WC, President-Elect Obama is many things, but he is not perfect and I have heard him say as much (he tells us so in his autobiographies). Like the rest of us, he is good and bad.

President-Elect Obama doesn’t have to be perfect to be a good or even great President. Besides wouldn’t you be more creditable if you stopped insisting that he is without sin?

Most of us can live with and even admire President Obama the man, but I don’t think very many will be able to accept or believe in President Obama the perfect man.
-----------------------------------------------------

For the record G. Gordon Liddy was not convicted of domestic terrorism.

Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and illegal wiretapping, and received a 20-year sentence and was ordered to pay $40,000 in fines. No bombs, no guns, no deaths.

Libby began serving the sentence on January 30, 1973. On April 12, 1977, President Jimmy Carter commuted Liddy's sentence to eight years....
from link => (link...)

Let's face it. Many politicians have shady associations, even presidential candidates and presidents. What about Bush/Watts/Bin Laden family associations? It's doubtful either Bush could pass. The list goes on and on with politicians.

The new DCID rules initiated by Bush about 6 years ago state that a person cant have smoked weed more than 11 times in their life and a few other rules about other drugs or else they will need a Homeland Security Director waiver to get a TS. When I had by background check and polygraph 9 years ago, it was more flexible. The drug rule was you couldnt have done any substantial amount of drugs within 7 years of application. There was not a differentiation between types.

So would Obama pass. I asked a current FBI background check employee whose job is to vet TS candidates and he said Obama would absolutely pass the background check but he would need a waiver based upon his drug history. His experiences overseas wont hold against him as most affluent people have these and his associations would actually be a plus (because he could have several highly influential politcal people write letters on his character). He stated that his "bad associations" such as Wright and Ayers don't hold water from a FBI standpoint as they understand the nature of politics and these people are not considered a threat to national security. It would be the drug history that would conflict. Passing the polygraph part just means he has to have told the truth on the extensiver paperwork you have to fill out so I doubt he would be as stupid to not be able to pass this.

I will point out that Obama had an extensive background check done (equivalent to what I had) when he was elected senator and has 24/7 surveillance on his current activities because of the Freedom Act. So if he was a communist or terroist I guarantee he would already be in Club Gitmo. The US isnt as trusting as you might think especially after 9/11. I will never forget driving past the pentagon watching it smoke and wondering, "How in the world did concrete catch on fire?"

Limeywade, well done. I take your reply as being very authoritative.

Question asked and answered.... What many people see as disqualifing isn't. Gives us some perspective when we want to bash winners AND losers.

WC, that wasn't so bad was it?

If we had just waited on Limeywade's response our typing fingers wouldn't be so tired.

Please note that my information comes from friends that I still have working in the DC area. I havent lived there since 2002 nor have I held any cleared position since then. Things change everyday and all I hear are tidbits along the way or when I ask a specific question like I did to my friend.

I will say though concerning McCain, the bigger problem would be with Cindy McCain and her arrest for prescription pill abuse. That would be heavily looked at. I am unaware of any past criminal or drug history for Michelle Obama.