See the results of our poll - here are those supporting Gaddi Vasquez as PC Director

Peace Corps Online: Peace Corps News: Directors of the Peace Corps: Peace Corps Director Gaddi Vasquez: The Gaddi Vasquez Nomination to Peace Corps Director: SPECIAL REPORT: Bush's Choice to Lead the Peace Corps. Is he Qualified?: Editorial: Gaddi Vasquez is the Wrong Man to Lead the Peace Corps: See the results of our poll - here are those supporting Gaddi Vasquez as PC Director


Leave a message below if you support

Gaddi Vasquez becoming Peace Corps Director.
By jenifer pavlatos on Wednesday, August 29, 2001 - 12:03 pm: Edit Post

I am absolutely appalled that the Peace Corps is not supporting our President's nomination. To me, this is just bi-partisan crap. If it was a Democratic president's nomination, you all wouldn't be saying anything. But because it's Bush, and he's Republican, and all the dirty Democrats are tearing him apart, you oppose this nomination. I am no longer proud to be an RPCV. This sucks and I am really upset to see all this propaganda.

Finally: BUSH RULES!

By Matthew Dill on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 12:12 pm: Edit Post

With regards to the editorial being non-partisan? Perhaps the writer would prefer Bill Clinton or Gary Condit? At least one of them has been oversees. Oh yes only to condemn the organization which he was later to command and send into morale tailspin. And the extensive quote from Mr. Dodd? No, I guess the writer has a even balanced view. For Balance,I voted for President Reagan and proud of it. I served under Jenny Kirkwood (CountryDirector-Thailand) and happy to do it again. I would certainly like to hear a responce and more back ground to some of the charges that the writer brings.

By Anonymous on Monday, September 03, 2001 - 10:37 am: Edit Post

Your editorial is bloody with political vitriol. Why try to disguise your opposition with leftist hyperbole?
To say that Sargent Shriver or any of a number of other directors had better qualifications is ridiculous. Which RPCV out there can say they knew Mr. Shriver before his appointment?
Let's not start slinging the "moral qualification" mud. I suppose any of the Kennedys had better morals!

By Will Shields on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 12:32 pm: Edit Post

The greatest moments in Peace Corps are when ordinary people perform an extraordinary service on behalf of others. The thinly veiled political manipulation of this organization by Washington’s liberal elite to further their own selfish interests is a sickening departure from this truth. From Shriver to Gearan, Peace Corps Directorships have always been a political bone that Presidents throw to their loyal pups. More to the point, what kind of RPCV thinks that building names are really that important to Peace Corps? How many schools have Peace Corps Volunteers built that are named after the local politician? People matter, and the further this organization strays from supporting them, the less I support it. Clean up your act!

By Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 2:37 pm: Edit Post

I knew it when I volunteered, I experienced it in country, and I still see it. You granola choping, wire-rimmed glasses tainted watchers, birkenstop stepping liberals are not very tolerant of the people with a different view. Does it really matter who the administrator is? The Peace Corps was and still is a good idea. Don't mess it up with your selfish politcal paranoia.

By John N Smart (jnsmart) on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 5:10 pm: Edit Post

While I do enjoy granola, wear wire rim glasses and Birkenstocks [because I'm sixty years old, and I have arthritic feet, and they are the only things that're comfortable!], I would not categorize myself as intolerant. In fact, this foolish statement by "Anonymous" is a perfect example of intolerance.
And yes, it does matter who the administrator is. Does it matter who the president is? Or the pope? It does matter, and it is incumbent on the president to choose someone qualified to take on the responsibility of a large bureacracy with a global reach.
Gaddi Vasquez is not qualified. I'm not going to argue that all of the past directors have been, because that isn't the question before us. This candidate is not, he should not have been nominated and he should not be confirmed.
This isn't politics, it's common sense! I can certainly understand that people who are desparate to support President Bush are feeling very defensive these days, but that is not reason enough to support this nomination. The future of the Peace Corps is not worth a political statement, no matter who's making it.

By John N Smart (jnsmart) on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 5:10 pm: Edit Post

While I do enjoy granola, wear wire rim glasses and Birkenstocks [because I'm sixty years old, and I have arthritic feet, and they are the only things that're comfortable!], I would not categorize myself as intolerant. In fact, this foolish statement by "Anonymous" is a perfect example of intolerance.
And yes, it does matter who the administrator is. Does it matter who the president is? Or the pope? It does matter, and it is incumbent on the president to choose someone qualified to take on the responsibility of a large bureacracy with a global reach.
Gaddi Vasquez is not qualified. I'm not going to argue that all of the past directors have been, because that isn't the question before us. This candidate is not, he should not have been nominated and he should not be confirmed.
This isn't politics, it's common sense! I can certainly understand that people who are desparate to support President Bush are feeling very defensive these days, but that is not reason enough to support this nomination. The future of the Peace Corps is not worth a political statement, no matter who's making it.

By Returned Vol on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 12:46 pm: Edit Post

Hi All,

I was a volunteer from 1980 to 1982, during the time Mrs. Ruppe was nominated by Reagan. I remember the same firestorm of opposition, for this reason I get a chuckle out of the Vasquez opposition. Ruppe perhaps had even fewer "qualifications" than Mr. Vasquez (while admitedly having fewer ethical questions). But, look what a Director she became!! It's even spelled out in the PC Online editorial.

Don't get to bent out of shape over this folks. Voice your opposition, but make sure it's loyal opposition, not hysteria. The sun will still come up in the east tomorrow, should Vasquez be confirmed.

One final thought. I believe that a possible reason the Peace Corps has been so strong during the past 40 years is because of the sometimes political nature of the Director appointments. Political appointments are the nature of this beast, and people, the beast is not sick.

Vasquez will travel the world as PC Director and emerge a changed person, just as our volunteering changed us so profoundly. He quite possibly (note I am not saying "likely") will become the strongest of advocates for the Peace Corps.

Thanks for listening.


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: