Postman wonders aloud how I could criticize Dave Reichert for supporting John McKay when I had been an enthusiastic Reichert supporter last election.
What's the contradiction? I like Dave Reichert and fully expect to support him next election, not that I think he or any other candidate is ever going to be perfect. Unlike some others, politics for me is primarily about issues and principles, not about blind team loyalty. I support Reichert mainly because I agree with most of the positions he takes. But I see his call for McKay's reinstatement as either a blind spot or an error in judgment. Sure, it got him some kind words from the Times editorial board, so maybe it was a calculated move on his part. But that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Reichert and his staff might want to listen to the GOP grassroots and consider the concerns about McKay's refusal to investigate the tainted election. I'm hardly the only one who's disgusted. (And Reichert should remember he was re-elected last year by a narrow margin. His next race could be closer. I certainly hope his next race isn't decided within the margin of illegal and unexplainable votes. But if it is, it won't be the fault of those of us who insist on high standards of honesty and accuracy in the elections office)
Another of Reichert's recommendations for U.S. Attorney wasn't his finest moment either. Mike Vaska? He's the attorney who sued to regulate John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur's First Amendment right to advocate on-air for the No New Gas Tax campaign. I personally wouldn't feel good about trusting the enforcement of the U.S. Constitution to a person who has labored to weaken it.
Of course, if I never called bullshit on Reichert and only ever praised him, Postman and others would probably dismiss me as just another partisan shill. But I just call 'em as I see 'em, so there.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 22, 2007 01:46 PM | Email ThisWhat a stupid position for Postman to take.
Posted by: Hinton on March 22, 2007 05:20 PMThe McKay brothers on the other hand? Mike McKay has contributed to plenty of Democrats, and even gave money to Christine Gregoire and Ron Sims (and endorsed liberal judicial candidates) WHILE he was serving as Chair of the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign in Washington.
And why President Bush let Mike McKay head his judicial selection committee in 2001, I will never understand. The McKay committee was about to recommend Anne Bremner, until I pointed out that she was really a Democrat and had given large sums to Gary Locke and Jay Inslee in October 2000 (and never anything to any Republican). After this was pointed out, Bremner was not given further serious consideration and John McKay (Mike's younger brother) mysterious ended up with the job -- ahead of loyal Republicans like Rob McKenna and Diane Tebelius.
John McKay is a harder read. Can't see where he has given ANY measurable money to a politician of any stripe. Last time he was active in politics was to support Republican Lieutenant Governor Joel Pritchard in 1988. Doesn't mean he is a Republican now -- Bob Ferguson worked hard for a GOP candidate in 1988 too. McKay was head of a federal legal services agency under Clinton during 1997 to 2001. Only the Democrats on the judicial selection committee wanted him for judge, along with the two Democratic U.S. Senators from this state.
I haven't actually seen where John McKay personally says he is a Republican. His brother Mike says that John is a Republican -- but Mike's definition of a Republican seems to differ from most folks' definition. And many Republicans say they believe John McKay is really a Democrat.
Anyway, Reichert is going to be making enemies right and left, and this will help Darcy Burner (or Ross Hunter) in 2008. It certainly didn't help to recommend Rick White -- who has been suspended and is still not able to practice law -- for the position. White is actually more conservative and ideologically acceptable to the base than Sullivan or Vaska. But if White was serious about applying for the U.S. Attorney job -- he did so in late January or early February -- he could have easily made up his legal education by now.
By the way, Reichert had already sent his three recommendations for replacing McKay to President Bush as of February 12, 2007, if not sooner:
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt1-6070319.pdf (see pp. 44-50)
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 22, 2007 05:32 PMReichert spent 30 years in the King County Sheriff;s department. You think he wasn't corrupted a long time ago?
Posted by: Don on March 22, 2007 05:54 PMNo. I will continue to judge him on his actions and on what I know, not what I might construe from appearances. So far he rates well.
If the President was more politically estute, it probably would have. Also, why didn't Bush clean house early in his first term, as is customary with Presidents (i.e. Clinton, Reagan). Just one more demonstration that Bush is reactive and not proactive. The Democrats are being ridiculous and out to demonize Bush by their whining about an investigation. Also, the perception is that the Dems are not doing diddly squat about other important issues, such as the war in Iraq, illegal immigration, Medicare reform. They are trumping this stuff so that their buddies in the MSM can run with it. Thanks to Bush's sloppiness and slowness on the uptake, they were given this opportunity for a political football.
Posted by: KS on March 22, 2007 06:45 PMLiberals love being lock step.
Posted by: karl on March 22, 2007 07:07 PMConservatives trust only those who earn their trust and they think for themselves when making their decisions.
Liberals cannot tell the difference.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 22, 2007 10:00 PMIf I am right, and Bush's abuse of power game he constantly plays will in this case break many more laws than he has already broken.
What if I am right, and he was stopping investigations of Republicons while pushing for investigations of Democrats?
How will that sit with the party before country party?
Posted by: Facts Support My Positio on March 22, 2007 10:57 PMRove has had his finger on the scales of justice, and he is gonna be nailed for it.
Think about it. If they were not influencing prosecutors why would they not want to testify under oath and tell the world how innocent they are?
Because they are guilty as hell, and there will be hell to pay. Bush has abused his power at every single opportunity, so what would keep him from influencing prosecutions of Republicans?
Posted by: More Facts on March 22, 2007 11:16 PMDid you know that George is also in contact with an alien species bent on controlling all people of the planet so that we can be used like cattle to feed their planet. Don't believe me? If it wasn't true, what with all of our forensic science capabilities, there would never be a missing person. I believe that they were taken to this misterious planet that only W knows about and were eaten.
What the hell, makes as much sense as any of your daydreams.
Posted by: REBEL on March 23, 2007 06:01 AMTell me, what is it that they are trying to hide? If they are so innocent, why won't they testify before congress, just like other president's staff has had to do when wrongdoing was suspected?
We both know the answer to that one.
Posted by: More Facts on March 23, 2007 06:32 AMSchumer would be strutting his stuff.
Are you kidding, all he does is strut his stuff and it's gotten him where?
Just like V Plame. It got the dem's where?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 23, 2007 06:38 AMThe same thing about all the lying about the threat of Saddam, and his imaginary ties to Al Queda, and imaginary nuclear program that people "On Bush's side" completely ignore.
It is sad when party comes before country isn't it?
I am just a regular American, and I want to know what my government is up to. I want to know if I get into office, I won't be prosecuted, and my opponents crimes ignored, so I can be defeated in an election, because I belong to "the wrong" political party.
Posted by: Facts on March 23, 2007 06:51 AMThey don't want to testify because of all the dumb questions that are asked at these hearings. And many of those are perjury traps. "Who knew what and when" is being replaced by "who knew what and when and when did you think or remember you knew it".
Totally nonsense, illusion man.
Illusion man, remember during Clinton all those "questionable" IRS popping up against Clinton appointees. That is despicable.
Posted by: swatter on March 23, 2007 07:00 AMPerformance. Oops, they were highly regarded. Errrrr....
These prosecutors were fired for investigating Republicons, and for not prosecuting innocent Democrats. All except for Rove's buddy going to Arkansas to research Hillary.
Bush, and Cheney have done nothing but abuse power since the day they took office. To think they wouldn't try to influence investigations of the culture of corruption, and Abramoff's friends and thwart their investigations would take a true believer. A very very very low IQ sheep.
Posted by: Facts on March 23, 2007 07:27 AMNO LAWS WERE BROKEN IN FIRING THOSE US ATTORNEYS
Rinse. Repeat.
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2007 07:35 AMRead my lips. If they tried to influence, or thwart investigations, and it looks like they did, this is illegal. ILLEGAL!!!
That is why we need an investigation. The fact that they are lying about the reasons why the prosecutors were fired is another reason. Some people are getting tired of being lied to repeatedly by these slimeballs.
Posted by: Facts on March 23, 2007 07:45 AMUn wants an investigation just because they just had to have broken some kind of law; it's just that he doesn't know which one, so he wants a fishing expedition or witch hunt, if you will.
Un, you have bought into the MSM complaint that Bush's administration kept them out of the loop and closed off all those "leak loopholes".
Jeepers, Mr. UnFactual, why do the Clintons have a library when all they do is keep people from seeing what is in there?
And what did Berger steal from the records department?
Posted by: swatter on March 23, 2007 07:48 AMHere's a challenge for you "Facts". Why don't you find a law that makes their firing illegal?
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2007 07:52 AMhttp://rawstory.com/news/2007/Attorney_firings_may_have_been_against_0319.html
Bush, and his buddies are knee deep in poo poo on this one, and they know it.
If the justice department was being improperly influenced it is against the law, and we need an investigation to find out.
What do you have against finding out if laws were broken? Your Fuhrer is above "investigation" right?
We already have heard testimony of prosecutors being contacted illegally, and the Bushies have lied about who was behind planning the firings, and the reason for the firings. If there was no wrongdoing, then why were they lying. Gonzales calling lying to congress making mistakes. Others call it a felony.
Do you think your Sargent Schultz impression will fly?
Posted by: Facts on March 23, 2007 08:09 AMDo you care?
As long as your "side" wins then anything goes right?
Posted by: Facts on March 23, 2007 08:13 AMThis is yet another trumped up scandal by the Democrats, and after months of testimony, they won't have found anyone who has broken a law in the firings. What a waste of government time and money.
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2007 08:24 AMBy the way. They sent congress 3,000 pages of emails, but missing 15 days worth. The emails sent had the dates, and some of the information redacted. What are they hiding?
One of the last emails asked the question "Who was gonna tell the president" and then no more emails for 15 days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22gap.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
If they are innocent, then there was no reason to withhold information, or lie.
Just because Bush has a bunch of loyal sheep, and a corporat owned main stream media bleating how "innocent" he is, does not mean he is innocent.
Where are the rest of the emails?
You know Gonzales doesn't use email. We know why. He operates like the mob. No phone, or written records.....
Posted by: Facts on March 23, 2007 08:50 AMIn the interview with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Olbermann referred to comments made previously on the show by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) about "really angry career employees," then asked if the Committee had any "rabbits in hats."
"He said that he hoped that the White House would let Mr. Rove and the others testify on the record," Olbermann related to Leahy. "If they did not, there really were enough really angry career employees, prosecutors in the justice department who would ensure that this information, the actual facts of the case would get out anyway."
The truth is gonna come out anyway. It is better to tell the American People what you have been up to and let the chips fall where they may. No more lying!
Posted by: Facts on March 23, 2007 08:55 AMWere there politics in the firings? Sure, but there were also performance issues. And doesn't the US Attorney have the right to set the agenda? Boy, I bet those career attorneys didn't like someone stepping on their turfs.
Thanks there UnFacts for the support about the mutiny in ranks. I mentioned it earlier this week and just got hammered by Cato because I couldn't pull out the article I had heard it from.
Posted by: swatter on March 23, 2007 09:48 AMHeck if a Clinton had done the same thing you guys would be calling for blood, bring up Whitewater, etc. Since it's a GOP thing you guys are now conveniently saying that there's nothing to see here and we should move on.
I don't like you, I don't like your dog, you get on my last nerve, na na na goodbye.
Each would have concluded their boss was a terminal loser and be glad to be gone. Attacking someone's professional credibility in the firing makes the Bushies teminally stupid.
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2007 10:15 AMShades of Jack Anderson!!! I sure miss that guy and his exposes. I wonder what he could uncover if he were still around. Boy, did he ever had a gaggle of trusty leakers.
Posted by: swatter on March 23, 2007 10:22 AMAre you sure these stinking lawyers, I mean "Attorneys" were Bush appointees? I had heard they were Clinton leftovers. I am ready to concede your argument if they were Bush appointees.
Posted by: REBEL on March 23, 2007 10:25 AMWhat once might have been a party, has been replaced by lockstep Marxism and Leftists. That's why Democrats don't understand Stefan Sharkansky. All they know is that the ends always justify the means. Making scandals out of nothing is just the "means" to the end of destroying the Bush presidency, even if there's nothing there. On the personal level, it's called Bush Derangement Syndrome or BDS.
The left has now so totally embraced relativism that they have lost their moral compass. It's not even possible for those on the left to make objective determinations of right and wrong, or understand why someone like Stefan would criticize a Republican like Reichert.
And it's this same mentality that drives everything on the left. Just look at Global Warming. Those who even want to consider the science are immediately dismissed, without any actual objective consideration of the evidence.
It's: Lockstep, Big Brother, Party First, Kossacks, Moonbats, and don't YOU DARE question them, because they are right for ALL TIME.
Got it?
Go to the Washington Post, at this point I don't know if they charge for retrieving archives. I believe that two of the attorneys were republican and the other two independent. They were all sworn in around October of 2001. The comparison with Clinton or any other president is false because all presidents have executive privledge and can staff their administrations any way they see fit. Had I been advising these folks, even though I feel they were wrongly attacked on competance, I would have told them to keep quiet. The administration is now going to mount a smear campaign against seven of the eight. It is my understanding that Chiara of Michigan is keeping a low profile. What they should have done is shut up and then later write about their experiences.
Politics is often a dirty smelly game and this is what is going on here. There is nothing illegal or out of order when a president excercises their privledge. Here, the preivledge was excercised in a manner that was terminally stupid.
The thing with Clintons is that they were smarter than the Bush people. The people being investigated were either disappearing (or allowed to die in a jail), fleeing the country, or for those that stayed- they couldn't remember.
Of course, it was nice to have your own appointees hearing a lot of the cases. So, things didn't go anywhere with them. Nothing surprising.
Too bad Libby tried to remember. One day the Bush's people will learn to just shut up. Hillary Clinton is a pro at that when needed.
Posted by: swatter on March 23, 2007 10:50 AMPersonally I'd like to know why they were fired for 'Performance Reasons' when six of the seven fired U.S. Attorney's local performance reviews indicated that they were doing a fine job. Seems kinda fishy.
They were fired for performance reasons because the Bushies didn't have the cojones to say we didn't like them, we can hire and fire whom we want. We kicked their butts to the curb, end of discussion. There was nothing illegal. Now, begin your investigation of the grassy knoll event or are you too young to know what I am alluding to?
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2007 11:25 AMBased of his actual congressional voting, he scored a dismal 64 in 2005, and it got even worse last year scoring a 56! That puts him in the 5th percentile of House Republicans. (for those of you who were educated in Seattle schools, that means there are only about ten R's more liberal than the vaunted Green River Sheriff.)
Is it any wonder he came so close to losing to Burner - a liberal waif of a candidate?
Is it mere coincidence that the Sheriff who let a serial killer run free for so long that the killer actually grew old and tired of strangling women? Well, Mr. Reichert's incompetence still clouds his vision as to discerning those who threaten our lives in our fast-rotting society.
-JP
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 23, 2007 11:25 AMIt gets even stranger when you take into account that no one wants to be held accountable or even remembers slipping in the provision allowing the President to circumvent the Senate when appointing new US Attorneys (eliminating traditional checks and balances). Even the Senator who put it in can't seem to recall when or why he did it.
Sure looks like the Executive branch was doing something fishy. Why should Congress look the other way when something is clearly amiss.
Reverse the situation Palouse, if Clinton had done this would you expect/want Congress to look into it? I'm guessing your answer is 'Yes'.
"Whitewater" Odd, you may care to pick up a book or two. People went to JAIL for really breaking the law. That Clinton tried so hard to cover up.
Or forget as he and Billary were so good at.
Did that stop anybody from investigating, coming up with wacky conspiracy theories, or writing books about it? Nope. Why should this President be treated any differently?
Or forget as he and Billary were so good at.
Sort of like Senator Specter who put in that mysterious provision within the Patriot Act legislation. He denied it until it was pointed out that he was clearly responsible. Only then did his memory become clearer. If you're circumventing 231 of established checks and balances one would hope you would know something about it.
I must have missed the part where there was a full Senate investigation with subpoenas for those mysterious Clinton deaths. That's the difference.
If some private citizen wants to write a book about 8 US Attorneys getting fired, have at it. I'm sure there some moonbats out there that would buy it.
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2007 12:15 PMTrue, but it sure looked fishy (much like this scandal). Let us talk about Travelgate then. A fine example because the travel office employees also 'serve strictly at the pleasure of the president'. An FBI investigation, an independent investigator, another fishy situation.
I see nothing wrong with this investigation as the circumstances surrounding it point to abuse of the judicial branch by the executive branch. Gonzalez lied before Congress, Bush can't have staffers testify under oath, signs point to Karl Rove (executive branch) messing with the supposedly independent Judicial Branch.
If nothing fishy happened why are you getting and the Bush Administration getting so defensive? Wasn't that the whole GOP argument for the authorizing the extension of the Patriot Act, "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" (of course the FBI abused that privilege but that's a whole different topic).
When you hit the cons with facts, all they can do is call you names, and lie.....
I should listen to Rush. Maybe he can explain why Bush's buddies wrote the closing statement for the prosecutor in this case.
The stench of the Bush Crime Family will stick to the Republicon Party for decades.
He's their boy. They can sink with him.
Posted by: Facts on March 23, 2007 12:42 PMYou know what the difference with that was? There was a WHISTLEBLOWER'S LETTER which revealed the malfeasance. That is exactly the piece of evidence which I am talking about which would make an investigation warranted. There is NOTHING here except some consipiracy theories and cries of partisan politics for a political office.
There appears to be a pattern emerging. If some research was done, I would imagine Rove didn't have his finger on the scales of justice, he had an elephant sitting on one side......
Firing the prosecutor in San Diego with all her Abramoff info is definitely an attempt to stall, shut down, or influence her investigations. This is obvious.
If it was no big deal, then why was Gonzo up lying to congress about their poor performance, when they all had excellent performance?
Posted by: Facts on March 23, 2007 01:03 PMAhh but we have evidence provided by U.S. Attorneys testimony (under oath) that certain GOP officials were trying to influence open cases of certain U.S. Attorneys. Later those U.S. Attorneys were fired. That does not strike you as odd? I thought the U.S. Attorneys office was supposed to uphold up the law, not get involved in influencing partisan elections?
Gonzales thought they performed poorly
So he claims. Their performance reviews and emails provided seem to indicate that they were fired for political reasons. Nothing illegal has happened, but we won't know unless we look will we (sort of like Travel Gate). The fact that Bush Admin. is so defensive seems to indicate the Executive Branch has something to hide.
Could Bush Admin. (Executive Branch) interfering with another independent branch (Judicial Branch) of Govt's duties? If so that certainly might be illegal.
Vince Foster had intimate knowledge of the Clinton's business dealings and finances. All of Hillary's files were removed from his home hours after his death. Foster had a 3" hole in the back of his head, and no brains were found at the scene. The only print on the gun was not his. His suicide note was a forgery.
Maybe we need a congressional investigation.
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2007 01:32 PMCertain GOP officials? Who? What evidence is there that Gonzales or the White House fired these US Attorneys to influence open cases? Please provide a link to this testimony that this happened. And not from the Daily Kos.
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2007 01:48 PMWhat evidence is there that Gonzales or the White House fired these US Attorneys to influence open cases?
You got it...courtesy of Fox News.
"The chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party was quoted Saturday as saying he urged presidential adviser Karl Rove and one of his assistants to fire the state's U.S. attorney."
Karl Rove works in the White House last I heard. Now a GOP Chair asks a senior WH official to fire a US Attorney General because he's not looking seriously enough into 'Voter Fraud' by Democrats. Later the US Attorney General fires him. Not enough to prove a connection but you can't deny that it's a startling coincidence. Enough of a coincidence to look into? Yup.
If it was such a big deal about these 8 fired people.
Why has it disapeared from the news services.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 23, 2007 02:11 PM"This is a personnel action, firing an incompetent United States attorney who should have been fired" earlier, Weh told the AP. "He absolutely was a disgrace to the Department of Justice."
He said his conversation at the White House with Rove came "after the fact, after the termination had occurred."
Again, that is NOT EVIDENCE that the firings were to influence an open case. That prosecutor would not investigate voter fraud (like McKay). The administration wanted voter fraud investigated. When your employees don't do as instructed, you fire them.
Nice try.
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2007 02:14 PMBecause the subpoenas were issued and a vote on funding the War on Terrorism came to vote in the house. Next week should prove more interesting when the showdown continues and judicial staff are questioned.
the decision had already been made by the time he talked to Rove.
It also said he made no secret of his dislike of the NM U.S. Attorney. Which leads a person to believe he had complained about him earlier. We won't know unless we investigate.
Meanwhile:
Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said during the testimony that "if the allegations are correct, there has been serious misconduct in what has occurred."
So it appears that they were fired for political reason there would be something illegal happening. Especially since the Judicial Branch is designed to be independent of the Executive Branch.
Judicial:
Has sole power to interpret the law and to apply it to particular disputes
Is frequently immune to arbitrary dismissal by other branches
You can't see the pattern here? Let's spell it out for you:
1) Attorney General testifies before Congress saying that these US Attorneys were dismissed for "performance reasons".
2) All but one of the US Attorneys has stellar performance reviews.
3) Several now fired US Attorneys claim under oath that they felt political pressure to interpret certain laws or speed up investigations of certain political candidates for office.
4) A US Attorney prosecutes a corrupt US office holder (Duke Cunningham) of the party of the Executive Branch and is promptly dismissed.
5) A provision in the Patriot Act gives Executive Branch the power to circumvent the Legislative Branch and ends 231 years of checks and balances.
Now nothing illegal has been proven (at this point) but that's the whole point of the congressional investigation. The facts make the dismissals look very fishy. Nothing illegal had been proven in the beginning of Travel Gate but things also looked fishy. It was not until the FBI & Ken Starr investigated did they find out the truth.
Since nothing illegal happened then there is no reason for the Bush Admin. to claim executive privilege. Unless maybe, possibly, the Executive Branch abused the separation of powers?
So what? Again, this is not illegal. Even if he had complained about him prior to his dismissal, no law was broken.
Bottom line is there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that the dismissals were made in order to influence an ongoing investigation. You need some friggin EVIDENCE to justify a full scale congressional investigation - otherwise what you have is a political witchhunt. You mention TRAVELGATE, and as I mentioned before, they had ACTUAL EVIDENCE - a whistleblower's letter - which was the evidence used to launch that investigation.
I hope the President completely stonewalls the pathetic Democrats in this farce of an investigation. Investigations without ANY EVIDENCE of a law being broken are not what Congress are supposed to be doing. If this was a case being brought to a judge in a courtroom, it would be thrown out so fast for lack of evidence.
Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2007 05:33 PMLocally, hear is my theory:
1. There was a power struggle of some sort between
Gonzales and the local US Atorney. This was
a miscalulation because despite Gonzales'
lack of insider DC mudwrestler politiking, he
has been loyal to Bush for over twenty years.
If he goes home for family reasons, he will
be taken care of.
2. Regarding the judgeship. A major miscalulation
The miscalulation is the pubbie base was
secure and that what was needed was one or two
dem votes on the panel. I don't know much
about inside pubbie politics other than what
I read here, but I know that you would sooner
drop kick an elephant over a wall that assuage
the deep and virilent anger of republicans
about the last election.
3. There is nothing illegal, only partisan
wrangling and vogueing by both sides for
the cameras and press.
This is my theory, do you have a better one and I am sooooo bored with this topic, I am looking forward to discussing fat Al Gore again.
But similarly, Congress can investigate anything for any (or no) reason. They are not limited to investigating illegal activities. For example, they can investigate our Iraq plans.
Posted by: Bruce on March 23, 2007 11:28 PMLights, action, camera. To quote Madonna's song
"Vogue" everyone strike a pose. A few more boring threads like this and I'll be talking like Al Gore and putting people to sleep. I just won't be fat, my carbon footprint is not that big. I need to get myself one of those Committee jobs since everyone will be investigating everything. What a krock.
And you only have to look back at the Sound Politics archives a few months to see how the few conservatives who were against him back in 2006 were treated by most of the posters on this board.
Conservatives are taken for granted because time and time again they have proven that they can be treated for granted. For no matter how much you hate Reichert now, you will hate Burner (or whoever the Demos will put up against him next time) more. You will plug your nose, close ranks and try to mock and suppress the dissent of the few conservative who will actually not vote for him.
That is what you did for Reichert in 2006. That is what you will do for him in 2008. Regardless of how angry you are now. Regardless how liberal he might vote in the next two years. That is what the RINOS know. That is why they really can't take the anger from the right serious. For history does really prove time and time again that it really doesn't matter. In the end, you will close up ranks and support the RINO.
Posted by: Truth Betold on March 24, 2007 04:36 PMPartly, but also because the Democrats (and many Republicans) think it's a really, really bad idea, and they want to force the person who did it (Gonzales) out of office and deter future administrations from doing anything like this.
Posted by: Bruce on March 25, 2007 10:30 PMYes, the difference between then and now is that all the US Attorneys fired we're all Bush appointees. At the start of terms it's almost a given that they will fire all the predecessors appointees (much like all the predecessors WH staff), Regan did it in '81, Clinton did it in '93.
I think Bruce has the right idea @ 79. Lying about the whole thing didn't help Gonzales' cause or job security. Getting a public 'vote of confidence' from Dubya usually means you are on your way out.