It's not the SAME thing, please re-read the replies. There goes your entire premise. Did you purposely ignore the senator confirmation process again? Oh but it is illegal. Believing or not the turd in the patriot act does not make the situation any prettier. The supreme court will have a finally say on this matter.
Are you intentionally dense? I have shown how what Clinton did and what W has done are fundamentally different. The fact that Reagan did the same thing as Clinton and it did not get "twisted and distorted" apparently has no meaning to you. I agree with your first sentence. Again, however, the firing of US Attorneys in mid-term for political reasons is unprecedented. It is clear from the emails released so far that the reasons for their dismissals was political and it dovetailed nicely with the newfound power to sidestep the Senate confirmation process. Is it any accident that the oppo researcher found himself working as a newly minted US Attorney in Arkansas? It is the differences between what Clinton and Reagan did and what Bush has done in this instance that is driving the media coverage, not the difference in parties. I don't know if Reno ever lied or not, but I know she didn't lie to Congress and I know she didn't have to send letters up amending her statements after her previous testimony was proved "inaccurate." Ha! You are right that it doesn't take much to see the "hypocrisy." You demonstrate it clearly by your cartoon thesis that the Dem administration was "ONE BIG LIE," while the current administration has it's fair "share of issues."
Josh's thoughts on this -- For some, it is a matter of outrage that President Bush has renewed his support for Alberto Gonzales even after new evidence has emerged that the Attorney General has repeatedly lied about the US Attorney Purge. Myself, I see it more as a matter of confirmation and almost a welcome one in that it confirms the nature of the debate we're having. This isn't a case where Alberto Gonzales has fallen short of the president's standards or bungled some process. This is the standard. The Attorney General has done and is doing precisely what is expected of him. Consider this. When Alberto Gonzales went up to the Hill earlier this year and answered questions about the US Attorney firings, he lied about why they'd been fired. When evidence revealed that what he had told the Senate was not true, he told the country in his televised press conference that he hadn't been directly involved in the process and thus had not knowingly misled the Senate. Friday's document dump showed that that too was a lie. These of course are only the most conspicuous examples and I leave aside the numerous instances of his aides lying on his behalf. It is not too much to say that everything that has come out of Alberto Gonzales' mouth on this issue has been a lie. Sure, that sounds like hyperbole. But it's just a factual summary of what the public record now shows. On the very day his second lie was being exposed Gonzales was publicly claiming "it’s reckless and irresponsible to allege that these decisions were based in any way on improper motives." And the president is fine with all of this. Fine with the fact that the Attorney General has not only repeatedly lied to the public but has also been exposed as repeatedly lying to the public. He's fine with at least two US Attorneys being fired for not giving in to pressure to file bogus charges to help Republican candidates. Of course he's fine with it. Because it comes from him. None of this is about Alberto Gonzales. This is about the president and the White House, which is where this entire plan was hatched. Gonzales was just following orders, executing the president's plans. This is about this president and this White House, which ... let's be honest, everyone on both sides of the aisle already knows. -- Josh Marshall
Pardon me for responding to both your posts at once but they are inherently related. Of course advice and consent isn't a rubber stamp and Gonzalez had problems the question is though who else would GW Bush have nominee? Compared to Ashcroft Gonzalez was a far better nominee and even if the Dems had fillibustered or were able to outright reject him the likelyhood is that an even worse candidate would be appointed or a somesort of stealth nonimee who is as much a toady as Gonzalez gets nominated but without the record. Yes, I agree that this presidency has lowered the bar and could lay claim to the worse Administration in history, they still got a ways to go to catch up Harding though, that doesn't change the fact that it is the Administration and they are the ones who nominate. In regard to the nuclear option whether its BS or not that is a gamble that had a lot of terrible repercussions. Its the nuclear option because it would've hurt Republicans just as badly as the Democrats but what it would've really damaged is the institution of the Senate. Rimrocker, you're holding the Democrats accountable for not doing everything they could to stop the Admin. but what I think you should consider is the nature of the Senate. Each Senator has a high degree of power but at the sametime the Senate requires a certain amount of commity to function. You're criticizing them for not waging a scorched earth battle but I don't think that's something that is in the interests of either party or the country as a whole. Yes the Bush Administration is one of the most divisive in history but the country still needs to function and a paralyzed Congress doesn't help. For that matter if the Congressional Democrats had waged a scorched earth battle with Congressional Republicans and the Administration its uncertain that they would be in power now as they would've taken most of the blame for a dysfunctional and shut down government and likely lost in the 2006 elections like the Republicans in 1998 when they did wage a schorched earth fight against Clinton.
it always amazes me when one poster backs his arguments up with facts and then another poster accuses him of just being partisan.
Thanks for the reply SC, and let me choose this bit to offer a response that really covers all your points... I would argue that the Harding graft falls within the American tradition... perhaps out at the margins, but understandable given American history. Harding was also a compromise candidate and most likely did not have personal knowledge of the scandals. And while completely overwhelmed by the job and doing some things I greatly disagree with, he was not a slave to ideology or party and occasionally compromised on tough issues... I look at this list and I would bet that there are very few items the current administration would favor. I look at what the current administration has done and I bet there are many that Harding would instantly be opposed to... The current administration, I would argue, is fundamentally different from any previous administration and has stepped well beyond the margins. They are, in my view, a threat to the Republic. All legal measures should be taken to oppose them. The problem with the Dems from the day W took office is they have been waiting for W to hang himself... and he has multiple times. But because this administration is so outside the norm, the accepted political calculus that has applied to previous modern administrations simply does not matter to them. That's why you see W offering support to Al G even after it has been shown he lied to Congress... as someone said, that's not a bad thing, that's what the WH expects of him. So, to get back to your point, yes Dems should have filibustered him and dared the Repubs to offer up the nuclear option... and you can't govern based on worst case scenarios. If Bush nominated somebody else as bad or worse, you filibuster them too. A line has to be drawn somewhere regardless of the consequences, and remember, at that time there was virtually no serious thought that Dems would win in 2006, so what did they have to lose by trying? That every person, both Repub and Dem knew... KNEW Al G was not going to be anything but Bush's hatchet man and still did nothing about it speaks volumes.
Again, as horrible as GW Bush has been, he's on the same level as LBJ. (Wherever you rate him.) Imperialism, Socialism, and Centralizing Government are the most un-American of policies, no matter which party is espousing them. Keeping the diversion going, I have been meaning to write an Op-Ed for the my local newspaper comparing their Administrations. On the surface, there have been few Presidents with such similar terms. I need time to research the details to find out how deep the similarities go.
I like LBJ's social programs, but leaving that aside. He did more for civil rights than any President since Lincoln. So matter how much negative is attached to his legacy, Bush hasn't accomplished anything so grand. He won't have the counterpoint to his administration that people can always point to and say, "Despite all the negatives he did at least accomplish..." But I agree with much of your post about the similarities in many aspects.
I believe LBJ did a wee bit more for the poor, underprivileged and poverty-stricken Americans than Dubya has. The debacle of Hurricane Katrina "recovery" would have never happened on LBJ's watch. Now, if you want to compare the effects of the Vietnam War on LBJ's Presidency vs. the effect of the War in Iraq on Dubya's Presidency, that's another story.
Definitely true. I concede that point. Even so, I think with all of the court decisions that had happened, what LBJ's Civil Rights legacy is a case of right time/right place. The War on Poverty = No Child Left Behind. Two big programs. Both have really great names. Neither did anything but increase bureaucracy. One thing about LBJ was that he was really good at getting things done. He wouldn't have waited for Nagin and Blanco to be proven completely incompetent to take over the recovery. Even so, working in Louisiana during Katrina and Rita (and being a Rita victim myself) let me see firsthand what went on. Bush deserves some blame for poor recovery, but most of it belongs squarely on the shoulders of New Orleans and Louisiana governments.
You're welcome and thank you too. I always enjoy reading your posts. I haven't studied Harding in particular so I don't have much info to disagree with. You're very likely right that Harding's failures were a matter of incompetence whereas GW Bush's problems have been due to deliberate planning. Whether Harding was aware of going on or not as a president who fails to control his own people that should reflect back to him. I think the matter of whether this Admin. is fundamentally different regarding their view of loyalty is a question left for history. Many Presidents have prized personal loyalty above other qualities and have also stuck to their own counsel even when they should've listened to others. Its possible the extent of what GW Bush has done so is unusual but I wouldn't say that for certain. Whether Bush 43 is the worst president ever I don't think we could say until at least 10 years after he leaves office. Every person might've but that is still speculative and you still have to look at who preceded him. Ashcroft was a terrible AG in terms of how he let ideology blind him. Most senators and the country as a whole were more worried about ideology than personal loyalty and the Gonzalez did an astute job of not coming off as an ideologue. On top of that during the hearings Gonzalez himself said he was going to represent the country and not the White House. Now you could say he was lying but consider as a Senator you start filibustering Gonzalez claiming he's lying. In 2005 though you had no proof he was. Gonzalez at that point was about the best option that the Democrats figured they could get from GW Bush. As far as worst case scenarios the Republican Congressional leadership and the Admin. were relishing a fillibuster fight. It just played into their rhetoric of obstructionist Democrats. Further a fight over appointments would've shut down the government as neither parties in congress then would've worked on anything else. In conflicts between the Executive and Legislature over government shutdowns the Executive generally wins. By drawing the line virtually guarentees the Democrats are further politically weakened. In the end the Democrat strategy, or lack of, worked. GW Bush and the Republican Congress did overreach and Democrats now control Congress and are carrying out hearings and blocking the Admin.. If they shut down government in 2005 over Gonzalez its very unlikely many would be voting for the party that shut down the government. Its the nature of our political system that if you don't control the majority in Congress or the White House you have to carefully choose your battles and fight it out for the ballot box. If you're lucky the majority hangs themselves but given the nature of power that is always a likelyhood. Fillibustering Gonzalez and every single Bush nomination was not a battle worth the Democrats fighting.
WOW!!! According to National Journal (not available online), Rove does approximately 95 percent of his emailing from his RNC address. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002875.php
Come on Congress! Grant the aide transactional immunity and force her to testify! link Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday. "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd. "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case. The White House, meanwhile, continued to stand by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales despite new calls over the weekend for his resignation and documents that indicate he may have been more involved in the dismissals than he has previously acknowledged. Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees. Goodling was Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison until she took a leave of absence earlier this month. She was subpoenaed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides. There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February. Dowd said that since then a senior Justice Department official had privately told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying. Gonzales' truthfulness about the firings of seven prosecutors on Dec. 7 and another one months earlier also have been questioned. On March 13 at a news conference, Gonzales denied that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals. Goodling was one of five senior Justice Department aides who met with Gonzales for that Nov. 27 discussion. Department documents released Friday to Capitol Hill show she attended multiple meetings about the dismissals for months. She also was among aides who on Feb. 5 helped Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty prepare his testimony for a Senate hearing the next day — during which he may have given Congress incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the circumstances of the firings. Additionally, Goodling was involved in an April 6, 2006, phone call between the Justice Department and Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., who had complained to the Bush administration and the president about David Iglesias, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque. Domenici wanted Iglesias to push more aggressively on a corruption probe against Democrats before the 2006 elections. The Justice Department appeared surprised Monday to hear of Goodling's decision on testifying. Earlier Monday, addressing rumors that department aides would refuse to testify, Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said: "That is incorrect." Addressing the anticipated testimony of McNulty and Associate Deputy Attorney General Will Moschella — the two who recently appeared, respectively, in Senate and House hearings — Scolinos said the two men "are voluntarily making themselves available to the Hill and plan to fully answer all questions posed to them." Scolinos had no immediate comment about Goodling's testimony. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings. "I understand the concern. I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said. "But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent." The White House is placing the onus on Gonzales to explain his actions to lawmakers, but he is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 — three weeks away. Speaking to reporters in Orlando, Fla., Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., said whether or not Gonzales was fully engaged, "he has lost all credibility with me." Nelson on Sunday joined the ranks of lawmakers in both parties calling for Gonzales to resign. "Unless he has a good explanation for not only what he knew and when he knew it but also for the ineptitude of the department ... he is a goner," Nelson said of Gonzales. "I think there might be enough Republicans who are calling for his resignation, even before he takes the witness stand." The Senate committee's senior Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, on Sunday said documents including a Nov. 27 calendar entry that placed the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements. But his Nov. 27 schedule, included in a batch of memos sent to Capitol Hill late Friday, showed he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge. Since the release of that calendar entry on Friday, Justice aides have said Gonzales meant he was not involved in selecting the prosecutors when he said he didn't participate in discussions about their firings. ___ Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this report.
Wow. 5th Amendment, eh? "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd. That's a damning statement. So damning, it wouldn't surprise me if the quote misrepresents the context of the statement. Still, if that's anything close to their real position, that's pretty much a nail in the coffin to the "no crime" argument.
So, political appointees are doing stuff regular employees aren't allowed to do due to security concerns and it looks like the WH violated its own policies if not several laws in arranging for Rove to email outside the WH domain. If Rove goes down for Federal Records violations, that will surely make the earlier analogy more on spot: Al Capone and taxes.
Right time? No. It should have happened sooner. From FDR to Truman to Ike to Kennedy, it should have happened sooner, but they all knew, including LBJ, that it meant losing the deep south. Kennedy wouldn't have signed it especially before the '64 elections. Why the other 3 before him didn't is beyond me, especially Ike since he enjoyed wide support from both sides of the aisle. Johnson knew it would cost him the south, maybe, possibly even Texas in the '64 election but he did it anyway. It was as close to political suicide as you can get and in the end didn't cost him the presidency since Goldwater could only carry AZ and the deeps south. So if I may, your last thought should be ammended to "right person at the right place". That is unless you think Nixon was going to take on civil rights.
From Waxman's letter to the RNC... Ralston was Rove's aide... That's the same Presidential Records Act that W short-circuited with one of his first Executive Orders. The laws do not apply to this administration.
