There is one big difference between elected and appointed people in any organization. The elected folks are considered "vetted" by the process and hired by the electors. They accountable only to the electors and sit on a high perch.

The people hired or appointed by those elected are accountable to the folks that hired them. Their performance reflects upon those who hired them, and God knows no elected person wants an employee to make them look bad.

Look at Ted Stevens. Convicted of 7 felonies and as I type still on the job. Imagine if someone who works for him had done the same. Would have been fired. Or Larry Craig. I doubt that anyone, including Craig, would keep anyone convicted in a sex sting on staff. They may put them on leave, not fire them, pending disposition, but no staff member is going to get away with the wide stance nonsense on appeal and work.

Imagine the outrage if Obama hired some reputable professor from a state university in New York to be a curiculum advisor to the Secretary of Education. Busy guy in the community, on the boards of several charitable and activist organizations, people like him. At first glance a great citizen.

And the guy turns out to have a past like Ayers. The Conservative element, the same people who seem to worship Ollie North, would go nuts.

So the vetting. No one has to do it.

Arf