Exhaustive process

Looking through the article “For a Washington Job, Be Prepared to Tell All” NY Times November 12, 2008

We see that the Obama transition team is attempting to look very closely at the people who may be working for his administration. Many times someone working for or being considered for a job in an administration must be removed due to wrong doing? What question is then asked? Why didn’t they look into the matter when they were considering them for the job? It tends to be considered a basic question. This list seems to be an exhaustive list. Covering many areas that have been problems for past members of past administrations. They are learning from history, and making sure that history does not repeat its self.
As Obama said in the press conference “And I think it's very important in all these key positions, both in the economic team and the national security team, to -- to get it right and -- and not to be so rushed that you end up making mistakes”
Some argue that this is too much. But if you want to argue that it’s too much, you have to argue that NO ONE has ever caused a controversy in any of these areas. Sure you want someone to have as few problems as possible. By having so much information your able to find out the ones with the least amount of problems and also be ahead of any controversy. They will have to evaluate these and try to reduce the problems to the minimum and be prepared to deal with what problems that will occur. If you are filling out this questionnaire, keep a copy. Make sure they don’t later claim you did not fully disclose information, when a problem comes up. It would not be that they covered up something, as some would suggest. It would be simply mean some things were not enough to warrant not being hired. The way it’s reported may give the impression that it’s something huge but it would just be getting blown out of the water.