Gonzales Is Dismayed!
And much like OJ Simpson, he swears to find the real killer, er...get to the bottom of things.
And it looks like the Gonzales had lots of help. And for those looking for Karl Rove's fingerprints...look no further.
Josh Marshall is your one-stop shop for the story of the US Attorney purge. The Schumer/Feinstein video is about 20 minutes long, but worth listening to. The best line, for those too rushed to watch 20 minutes of video? Chuck Schumer saying "Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby."
Harley, old friend, this may provide Democrats for more opportunity for festooning than Valerie Plame ever could.
--
- JKC's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I need to resurrect these to save pixels:
K Codes.
K1- Most of the twelve previous Administrations have done that or something similar.
--K1 All of the previous twelve administrations have done that or something similar.
K1+ Most Administrations in the past 200 plus years have done that. Governments all over the world do that.
K2 They all do it...
K3 A politician lied? This is news?
K4 Someone got their words twisted and misstated something? Fortunately, the rest of us never do that.
K5 The always well received and much loved Pendulums swing bit.
K6 Further deponent sayeth not.
K7 You obviously have me confused with someone to whom this could be a major issue...
K8 Well, it's a clash of civilizations, and we all know what that means.
K9 That's just a bunch of yelling and marching around; I'll let you know when it's really a clash of civilizations.
K10 Both Paries are venal, corrupt and put the party ahead of the nation.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
)Up til now, the White House has insisted that the idea for sacking the U.S. Attorneys came from White House Counsel Harriet Miers in February 2005, and that the idea was "immediately rejected" by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Not so fast. According to ABC News, a new document dump will be made as soon as tomorrow (Friday), contradicting both those stories.
- Login or register to post comments
)But the DOJ made it abundantly clear that Rove wasn't involved.
Are you saying that they weren't telling the truth?
I'm shocked. Shocked.
//
//BTW, probably time for a new thread on Gonzoles & Attorneygate - this one's waning and may not live any longer than Alberto's tenue as AG.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think I'll just turn this comment into a quickie diary.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Here.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
)looks like Mr Gonzales has been telling little white lies to the Senate.
- Login or register to post comments
)Link
Say goodnight, amigo:
= = =
Another great Corner quote:
Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
)Texas RepublicanSenator John Cornyn on the fate of AG Gonzales:
Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
)the same, rather than argue that we should skip the silly preliminary formalities and focus on finishing testing the scaffold.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )of Cornyn's folksy phrase which you seem to have missed, is that a hanging wouldn't normally be part of the process for an innocent man.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Tell y'all what this really is: Lame Duck Syndrome. Bush and his AG, Karl Rove, all these ninnies at 1600 Pa. Ave. want to use their superpowers to hand out goodies while they still can. Pushing out a few USAs is well within their prerogative, when Congress gave Bush his PATRIOT Act, there was a nasty quid-pro-quo: they got the Farm Bill of 2002, which will cost this country as much as the War on Iraq. Lots of gimmes on both sides, Congress "closed her eyes and thought of England", and Bush went to work.
Karl Rove wants some political hack who's never prosecuted a case in his life to be a USA, that's about the only really shameful thing in this equation. It's nasty and greedy, but gosh, folks, this is about par for the course.
Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the aggrieved USAs made a few phone calls before cleaning out their desks, "Hello Senator? the President just canned me. And after all you did to get me here..." weep, weep, moan, moan. Naturally enough, this piqued the ire of Senator X, whose massive ego doesn't take such slights lightly.
Back in the day, when Bush's approval ratings were stratospheric, such affronts to Senatorial Pride would have been shined on. No longer. Obeying Boyle's Law, pressure is equalizing, Bush is a convenient whipping boy, and so are his underlings. Harrumph, harrumph. If ever there was a tempest in a teapot, this is it: AG Gonzales can tap phones and run concentration camps, nobody in the Senate says jack. Let a few political appointees get the sack, oh the outrage.
- Login or register to post comments
)Karl Rove wants some political hack who's never prosecuted a case in his life to be a USA, that's about the only really shameful thing in this equation. It's nasty and greedy, but gosh, folks, this is about par for the course.
If that's the case, then it's really ironic that this could have been easily accomplished. I don't know if you heard the interview with David Iglesisas on ATC last week, but he was quite upfront in stating that if the Administration had come to him and asked for him to quietly step down he would have. All it would have taken was for Gonzales or Sampson to have said somethig like "It's time for you to step aside and let somebody else have the spot" and he would have faded back into private practice without a peep.
But, that's not how it went down - they accused him of non-performance, he was being fired for "cause". And he squaked. So did the other 7 US Attorneys who were being fired for "cause". This was a blunder on the part of the DOJ, and if you parse Gonzales's presser, it's this blunder that he's apologizing for, not the action itself.
I think we can score this one as an "own goal". And, yes, my side will cheerfully take it at this point.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the leadership in Congress has changed from the period when the Farm Bill and the Patriot Act got passed, and of course the war in Iraq and all the ancillary detritus involving prison camps and torture got started. While it is important to redress past wrongs after due deliberation and investigation by Congress, it is also important to ensure that Bush is in every respect a lame duck by having Congress focus on every fresh outrage that comes to light. We need to do more than just sweep up after GW Bush, we must head him off at the pass and corral him before he does anymore damage.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... it is customary for Presidents to stack the deck, so to speak, with US Attorneys. This task is somewhat easier for Democrats, however, because they have a more (for lack of a better word) entrenched presence in government at all levels. So the Bushies are handling ineptly and late what a Democrat would have handled earlier and more gracefully.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
)You misunderstand the situation.
Bush fired 91 of the 93 US Attorneys upon assuming office and the other 2 are long gone now. That's the normal plugging-your-own-guys-in thing.
What happened here, and it's pretty clearly born out by the document dump that has already been made, is that existing Republican U.S. Attorneys were pressured specifically to pursue vote-fraud cases against Democrats--or, in a couple of the cases, other partisan-directed actions--and then fired when they did not do so. This is extremely chilling to other U.S. Attorneys, creating tremendous pressure for all U.S. Attorneys to conduct partisan investigations.
The document dump links the pressure and firings directly to Bush, Rove, and Gonzales.
U.S. Attorneys are typically considered politically untouchable and basically little kings over their demesnes, all in the interest of prosecutorial independence. Prior to the day that these 8 were fired, exactly 3 sitting U.S. Attorneys had been fired mid-term in the last 26 years. And not only do you just not fire them, but politicians just don't call them up and express opinions on which cases they should be prosecuting, when and why. In this case you got the firings plus quite a few calls--one of the things we don't know yet, and may never know, is how many other U.S. Attorneys got one of the calls and never made headlines because they knuckled in.
The principle is that criminal prosecutions are to be conducted by professional prosecutors sworn to the law and not by politicians sworn to an administration or party or ideology. Sure, prosecutors themselves are political beings and are selected as often for their politics as for their expertise, but once they are in the job they are not to be interfered with by the politicians. Prosecutorial independence is called a key factor in whether a society is "ruled by laws, and not by men."
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Do you have cite for that? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the only source I could find for the 91 figure is Wikipedia, which is not exactly authoratative.
Agreed that it really doesn't really change things if the number is 91 or 81 or even 61. But if we're going to throw around numbers they shoud come from somewhere better than "some guy in the comments section of a blog."
thanks.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I know I looked that up and I recall feeling good about that number when I put it in, but I don't remember where I found it and can't easily find it. In fact, the best I can find is "http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002711.php">a Karl Rove speech where he said that they "ultimately" replaced "most all" of Clinton's U.S. attorneys, although he also said that some are still serving, which is not something I had previously heard.
One thing that is not disputed is that all of the recent firees were Republican appointees.
You're right not to want to quote some guy in blog comments. Thanks for calling me on that and I will try and find something more definitive and get back to you. By the way, here is a cite for the other piece of data I didn't provide a link for, i.e., that only 3 U.S. Attorneys have been fired mid-term 1981-2006.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Well, actually, you might have gotten it from me upthread
It's easy to be trapped by this echo chamber stuff - you cite me and I cite you and before you know it, we're both convinced that we're on solid ground when we're just repeating something we heard on the intertubes.
Now, it's pretty clear that GWB replaced most of the US Attorneys in 2001. 91 of 93 is plausible but not a "slam dunk" as it were.
FWIW, I do have a good cite for the fact that Reagan replaced (fired) all of the US Attorneys
Here.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sitting right there next to all that official USDOJ doc-header stuff really gives it that authenticity vibe. I'll have to remember that one for the next time I make something up. . . . :)
If I came across anything more definitive on how many and when, I'll update this thread.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That's how Bush described the USA firing scandal at his press conference this morning.
So they're still going with the "it was our right to do it and there's nothing wrong" defense. I hope they have begun to marinate those words in something tasty in preparation for the inevitably coming gnosh. I think the future life span of that defense can be measured in hours.
- Login or register to post comments
)From today's NYT:
Via Josh Marshall
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
)My guess: Gonzales will be gone soon.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )“I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president’s credibility on this issue.”
Yeah, there're still several inches of dirt and mud separating the President's credibility from the underlayer of hard rock basalt.
Before his term is up, the President's credibility may be the first tool of man to drill all the way through the Earth's crust and into the mantle.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )time to read the Constitution.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
)Why don't you read the Constitution? The rest of us will watch this story unfold. Prosecutor gets too close to GOP corruption? Fire her. Prosecutor refuses to pursue bogus voter fraud claims? Fire him. And who asks for it? I dunno. How about the White House?
The weird thing is, I get that you believe this is simply business as usual. But the American people no longer share your faith in the Bush administration. In fact, they assume the worst about them at the start of any bad news, and then are willing, however grudgingly, to be convinced otherwise.
This is a smart play. And it's applied to the Walter Reed scandal, and it's applied to Scooter, and it's applied to this.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )do you have link or something, as for the balance under the framework of the Constitution the Executive is free to fire political appointees, just look it up.
Now get back to your ranting, we certainly don't want you to disappoint.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But Marshall has very detailed analyses of the GOP's phoney claims and how these claims are in fact simply voter suppression by another name.
Told you it would give you heartburn. If you had one. :)
As for the Executive's rights, yes, he's got them. But when he abuses those rights he abuses the trust of the American people. That's why most of them can't bear him any longer.
Hey. He's still got you!! And tomsyl!! That's got to count for something.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is the claim look forward to the retort. Unless you are of the opinion that "voter fraud" isn't a big deal or something like that.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sulla insists that only Dems whine about vote outcomes. Second, check Marshall's data. This and other claims were entirely bogus.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Thanks for the props.
--"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )FTR, I'm not whining about the outcome but I am for putting those people who engage in voter fraud behind iron bars (party affiliation is of no concern). So I will put the question back to you, is voter fraud acceptable?
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And in this case, the Prosecutor didn't think there was anything to prosecute. Karl and you feel differently. Enjoy!
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the situation, because it is clear there was malfeasance.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if you are referring to your link to the www.VotersUnite.org .pdf on the Bernalillo County (NM) 2004 results: the only thing that seems "clear" is that they had some (considerable) problems with their electronic voting machines. Neither the VotersUnite link - and despite your dismissal, nor the US Attorney - (it was, IIRC in some of the TPM Muckraker docs) found any evidence of "malfeasance". If YOU have, please share!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Certainly not the US Attorney on the ground in Washington, who, unlike you, had a firm grasp of the facts:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in Washington to understand how foolish the statement is.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Dude's a Bush appointee; he has every incentive to pursue Dem malfeasance, both political and professional. If he says there's no there there, that's got to mean something.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )so burn her. If she sinks and drowns, well at least the family knows she wasn't a witch.
By definition, anyone who refuses to kow-tow to the White House is of the Democrat persuasion. By not accepting their firings gracefully, those US Attys proved where their true loyalties lay.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )more of them vote than can be found in some precincts...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )he was the one apologizing for mistakes and possible felonies today.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Normally when the Vice President's Chief of Staff is convicted of multiple felonies it doesn't get run out of the front pages by a new, possibly bigger scandal within less than a week.
- Login or register to post comments
)I mean really, citing Olberman? Are you actually one of the couple dozen who comprise his audience?
While he does have a certain animal cunning, the man is a faux intellectual caricature of the fuming BDS winger.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Olbermann is nothing like O'Reilly. He does editorialize, which is fine, but he doesn't bring guests so he can yell at them, doesn't rant about innocuous orgs like the ACLU destroying the country, doesn't constantly put himself in the spotlight with ridiculous challenges, and so on.
And by the way, his contract was just renewed and his viewership is up. So much for the "couple dozen" crap.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )as opposed to those evil old Republicans and their version of a paid mouthpiece. After all, Olberman's not pretending he's mad, he really is mad because truth and justice (and a fatuous audience) demand no less.
Your "'couple dozen' crap" remark shows something really hit home here. Listen, it's all right to watch a bilious partisan if you want and pretend he's a neutral sage if you like. Really, it's OK. And Olberman's projectile spitting and drooling can't actually penetrate the TV screen,despite appearances, so fandom is safe as well.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How does calling crap "crap" demonstrate anything other than precision of thought and language? And speaking of crap, what on earth does "projectile spitting and drooling" have to do with Olbermann and his show? The fact that the man fairly consistently states a partisan case against Bush does not change the fact that he does so with consistent elegance, urbanity, and an unruffled mien. I would suggest that, if you really want to score against Olbermann, you find some criticisms that are, say, 170 degrees or less off, instead of the full 180.
By the way, you were the one who identified me as an Olbermann "fan," not me. I only watch Olbermann on a particularly celebratory day of very bad news for Bush, when I give myself a break to revel in it a bit. (By the way, this means I've been watching him more than usual lately.) Although I think his journalistic ethic is just fine, in the sense that his "facts" are as reliable as the next anchorperson's "facts," I consider him more of an entertainer than a top news source--I usually watch Wolf Blitzer for that. Wolf may be dumb--okay, scratch that out, he's a regular box o' rocks--but he is a very reliable ear-to-the-ground conduit of the rapidly changing CW in Washington.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but he's not yelling at his guests or freaking out about the War On Christmas. You ignored what I wrote before, so I'll post it here again for your pleasure:
The fact that you call Olbermann "a bilious partisan" and his tone "projectile spitting and drooling" while manufacturing some righteous outrage over Al Gore's house (!) is pretty funny though.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )forget the bio.
Either it's noteworthy that a fresh scandal has bumped discussion of the conviction of the VP's Chief of Staff on 4 felony counts from the headlines within days, or it isn't. Doesn't really matter who said it, though I would note that you would be unlikely to hear the point raised by anyone at your favorite Conservative news media outlet.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oops, sorry, no one ever attacks the source when a conservative here quotes someone unpopular with the Left. My bad. (In this instance, though, Olberman's numbers indicate he is unpopular with everyone but his dog.)
The Libby conviction may have been around for four days, but the Plame case has been the subject of Leftie outrage for four decades. (Seems that way, anyway.) Has it occurred to you that the public might have gotten a bit tired of it?
I know you can't wait, but I'll see whether the USA firings are a "scandal" when I have information, not just impressions, about them.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The e-mails aren't enough? The admissions from Domenici and Wilson don't move you? Not even the obvious we're-about-to-dump-the-President's-longtime-close-associate vibes coming from the White House?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is to find out the facts. I've even been fooled into believing that the people holding the hearings think the stuff they're doing is important, and that their verdict will be reserved until the hearings are finished. Each of us clings to some illusion or another, I guess. I must have heard about this one in law school or something.
You're lucky that you have all the facts and don't need to pay attention to the hearings.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Just that there's a real scandal readily in view based on the substantial amount of facts we already know. Heck, the AG's Chief of Staff already resigned over it, and that's a pretty high-level government official.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Elsewhere, recently, you characterized hearings as "among the least effective ways Congress spends its time," as well as generally spectacles of self-indulgence and preening, featuring windy speeches by the Concresscreatures, witnesses barely getting a word in edgewise, few paying attention, agendas established and witness questions and answers leaked to the press in advance, the usual suspects from the opposition brought in for skewering with much fanfare, etc etc."
This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I refer to multiple standards -- apparently, hearings are a waste of effort and time when it comes to Walter Reed, but an absolute necessity -- a sign of the system's correct function -- when it comes to Alberto Gonzales, and the only thread I can see to tie these two opinions is partisan advocacy without regard for consistency.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for evidence to support the accusations that I called you on. However, taking things out of context won't help you or fool anyone.
The above comment was part of a post urging action to fix the conditions in Walter Reed instead of waiting for hearings into same. As I've said many times (including in the thread you took the quote from), the WR problem falls directly at the feet of people within the Bush Administration. So how exactly was I being partisan towards Democrats, or in favor of Republicans, by saying time shouldn't be wasted on hearings before attacking a Republican-caused problem?
I'll point out the obvious: Walter Reed and the USA firings are both Republican problems. Talking about hearings in one but not the other can't be "partisan" when the same party is the target in both instances.
You are further undercutting your credibility when you claim I've said somewhere that Congressional hearings in the Gonzalez matter are "an absolute necessity -- a sign of the system's correct function." Again, show where I said this or admit you are wrong again. (In the vernacular, this is known as "put up or shut up.")
In fact, that's not remotely what I've said here or elsewhere. I haven't expressed any opinion regarding whether hearings in the Gonzalez matter should or should not be taking place. I assume it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that started those hearings; now that they're happening, it seems noncontroversial to suggest to the Democrats here that they should proceed to conclusion.
You're in a difficult position because instead of saying something substantive below, you fired off a one-liner accusing me of double standards, and then got called on it. Better to focus on the subject, not the speaker (as someone else said here a bit ago).
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, I think you have double standards; I think you post vitriolic diaries about Democratic actions which seek to address the linked issues of Walter Reed and the Iraq War in a fashion you don't like when you don't post vitriolic diaries about the Republican decision to put ideology and greed over the lives of our wounded veterans. I also believe that you consistently give the President and the Administration the benefit of the doubt when they patently don't deserve it. Finally, I think that when you talk about "throwing elbows" and things being "cathartic," you mean it.
That said, I did in fact infer that you meant a larger endorsement of the hearings process than you posted; while they are, apparently, spectacles of self-indulgence, we should also, apparently, wait for them to conclude before taking any action. While tricky to reconcile, this is different from believing that they are part of any meaningful legislative process -- my false inference lay in linking the necessity of waiting them out with their putative process value.
At any rate, as it has been credibly alleged that the Attorney General has repeatedly lied to Congress, any hearing involving him should have his credibility (and possible arrest) as the first order of business.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Your extremely vitriolic attacks on perceived Bush dishonesties have never been matched by even mildly vitriolic (acetic vs. red fuming nitric, say) attacks on demonstrated Dem dishonesties. You have committed that sin of omission which brands you as a partisan with double standards. QED.
Regarding your quotes of me, please attend: "%^>" is my version of a "smiley". A "smiley" is internet vernacular for a jest. My fault for not explaining this in my response to your post, I guess. Or for jesting with you in the first place -- this is really, really serious business, after all, so I'll stop having fun immediately, if not sooner.
No one here on your side of the fence has waited for the hearings their party started before convicting Gonzales et al. I plan to. What's the hurry? Does the fact that I'm not in a hurry mean something, too? I learned not to hurry these things after watching one festooner here dissipate himself over the course of a year celebrating Rove's indictment, only to find a piece of coal in his festivaI stockings.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )everyone knows that %^> is Quasimodo
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )gratis, is the spirit of a communal license.
There is no need to thank me.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to turn the tide or for a fresh scandal to bump him below the fold, otherwise he's gone. How many Republican Senators do you recall ever calling for the resignation of Rove or Libby?
The point you seem to have missed by a mile is that Olberman made a quite innocuous observation that would have been equally factual and innocuous if Bill O'Liely had uttered it, which of course he never would.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )See Trickster's comment above. And I'd lay off Olbermann. The guy is moving right up the ladder, improved numbers, and in a way more importantly, he's now got a seat next to (the clearly steamed) Chris Matthews whenever they cover breaking news. I'll betcha he's got a seat at the table for the '08 election coverage as well.
And why? Becuz, like him or not, he's passionate about what he believes in and doesn't mind acting that way.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )a scandal. You have my permission to carry on with your objective, non-partisan commentary.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There are none so willfully blind as those who will not see becuz they fear what they see will reflect badly on their own ideological predisposition even tho' what they see is somebody's else's bad act not their own.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )From the King Howard Version, of course. %^>
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )-o-0-o-
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )whip himself into a drooling frenzy over something Bush's done on more than one occasion, which makes him very hard to take seriously. Like someone (Mark Twain? Frank Zappa?) once said, It's hard when you have to wipe the spit off your hero's chin before he can face the cameras.
But hey, a few fans here likely would double his ratings, so feel free to paean him - I already have. %^>
And if you think comparisons to Chris Matthews enhance his cred, good for you.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )MSNBC knows who's hot, and it ain't Chris. Chris understands it himself intellectually, but he's not quite able to hide how he feels about it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Say what you will about Olberman, but his audience has seen significant growth over the past 12 months while O'Reilly has lost considerable viewers.
--Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Mark Twain
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you think Olberman's going mainstream with his shtick, I think you're dreaming.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Olberman's the biggest thing on MSNBC and has about 1/3 of O'Reilly's share and growing. Bigger than Blitzer or Cooper, and gaining rapidly on Dobbs.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But the gap is closing. Starting from a 20% base, Olbermann's viewership is up to over a third the size of O'Reilly's total viewership, and nearly 45% the size among the crucial 25-54 demographic, which is where the advertising bucks come from. The trend continues not to favor O'Reilly.
From The Nation:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And he was described in your link as "Olbermann, the droll, nettlesome, whip-smart, self-absorbed, hilarious, peripatetic television savant." Wow. A "whip-smart savant", eh? And "hilarious" too? What are they imbibing over there?
More accurate was this: "His show survives on two topics, Bush and the war in Iraq. I can't imagine he'd last for more than a few years doing what he's doing."
Anyway, you like him, while I think he sucks, like pretty much the rest of cable news and commentary. That's cool.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The law of diminishing returns is beginning to apply to them all: how many times do we need to see these jamokes before we know everything they do? Seems to me a changing of the guard is needed. There has to be a worthy substitute for O'Reilly out there, don't tell me Conservative thought has so completely lost its way that it can't summon up better spokesmen (and spokeswomen) to enunciate what needs to be said from y'all's side of the fence, a fence I'm not sure exists at all.
It's my observation Fox started this rant-fest, and everyone else began to ape their format. Trouble is, Conservative schtick doesn't work well for Liberals, my sort of Liberal, anyway. Conservatives own the O Tempora O Mores turf, always have. Liberals are sposta come up with fresh, hare-brained ideas, Conservatives are sposta shoot them down. Keith Olbermann looks like a man with shoes one size too small, Jon Stewart and Colbert do, too. This whole Howard Beale schtick looks stupid on Liberals: parody has become reality:
Howard Beale: 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )umm, so what are you doing reading blogs?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Mr. BlaiseP,
The last I could put names to was the bunch at "Crossfire".
And it looks like I haven't missed anything.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Even Oberman's backers admit he's just taking what they already know and repackaging it with partisan trimmings. Can't his avid audience do that itself without some raving loon feeding them predigested pap?
I don't watch O'reilly, Olberman or any of the other "commentators" because I'm capable (I believe) of figuring things out for myself without someone doing my thinking for me. This stuff is worthless crap, regardless of the side that's doing it. Almost as worthless as th "Who killed Roger Rabbit" nonsense the Greta Van Sustern types spend their waking hours obsessing over on the boob tube screen.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )By all appearances, the provision in the Patriot Act allowing the AG to appoint U.S. Attorneys on an "interim" but long-term basis without Senate approval appeared in the Act without a lot of hoopla or discussion. In light of current events, there is certainly a question of whether that provision was originally inserted into the Patriot Act not for any reason to do with the GWOT but specifically to allow the White House to pressure U.S. Attorneys to prosecute Democrats for "voter fraud."
Who inserted this amendment? Where did that person or persons get the idea? Who drafted it? Who consulted on it and commented on it? Inquiring minds want to know.
- Login or register to post comments
)Apparently, your question has already been answered: it seems to have been the chief counsel for Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) . Although, apparently without much input from the good Senator (!).
(via TPM Muckraker)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"at the request of the Department of Justice," it says. Ably led at that particular point in time by Albert Gonzales.
This news does not exactly convince me that my theory has no merit. I would certainly like to be able to pose a few questions to Mr. O'Neill, who clerked for Clarence Thomas. According to the Washington Times "Many Republican judiciary staffers believe [the moderate] Mr. Specter hired Mr. O'Neill to help assuage conservatives that he was committed to ensuring confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees."
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )on that same subject which just popped into my head:
Given that the PATRIOT Act provisions for "interim" US Attorney appointments without Senate confirmation seem to play such a major role in the discussions here: does anyone believe that anyone (Bush/WH/Rove/Gonzales/DoJ/GOP/AWSFE) was planning to run these USA replacements by the Senate (as the "normal" practice requires)? Ever? And if not, why not? Just to show "they can" (a la Karl Rove)? Or did they just not think anyone would notice?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It looks to me like nothing more than the stupidity born of excessive arrogance, but that can't be right.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )all of 'em when he took office? Did anyone ever even ask why he did that?
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
)The reason you've gotten all the snark for asking this is that it's a bogus point. US Attorneys are political appointments and it is usual and expected to replace them when an administration changes hands. There was no outcry in 1992 because it was unremarkable. And it was equally unremarkable in 2001 when Bush 43 replaced 91 of the 93 US Attorneys.
See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sometimes its hard to resist the urge to fly the upside-down "C" flag. %^>
But that's hardly the only reason for the snark attacks. There's a high level of certainty and glee here about what happened and what the outcome should be. Even suggesting that Dems wait for the Dem hearings to conclude draws snarkosities - look below if you don't believe me.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and it's an outright lie, we do, yes, start to draw conclusions.
I mean, geez, have you seen the correspondence? And the context?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and trotting the replacements before the Senate but rather cherry picking which ones to fire enhances the "politically motivated" argument.
Had everyone been fired and the replacements vetted by the Senate, then no issue. Had these eight been vetted by the Senate, then no issue.
Cherry pick eight who have their sights on big-wig GOP-ers?
Issue.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's part of the routine change of Administration.
Firing USAs mid-term is highly unusual. How many times did Clinton do that? Parroting the Bushbot Talking Points on this issue is just setting yourself up for embarrassment.
And, of course, we're finding out that the crazy liberal conspiracy theory is absolutely true, that the motives behind many of the firings were base. Installing an experienced oppo researcher in Hillary's former home of Arkansas? Deep-freezing the Cunningham/Foggo corruption probe before anyone else got exposed? Punishing USAs who didn't gin up investigations into phony voter fraud scandals? (Washington State's Sec of State in charge of the 2004 election was a Republican, and he got pretty much drummed out of the party for putting correct, lawful performance of his job above loyalty to the GOP Mafia; likewise the local US Atty.) Check, check, check. And don't forget the perjurious statements to Congress.
--The purpose of torture is torture. —Orwell
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I can't parrot the Admin's TPs because I don't know what they are. I'm not nearly as fascinated by this as you are. I asked a simple question, got a lot of bile in response, so will leave you to have fun without me.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No insult intended. But the Look At Clinton defense is in fact the GOP talking point of the last few days, and, I'm assuming, for the forseeable future. Cuz you can't have a GOP counterattack without a Clinton of one kind or another.
And you should be 'fascinated' by this, unless of course you simply have scandal fatigue, and sure, I get that, after a while the mendacity of these thugs overwhelms. But Marshall's right, THIS is the story behind the story...
Mr. Specter, in a speech on the Senate floor, referred to another of the dismissed attorneys, Carol C. Lam, who prosecuted Randy Cunningham, the former Republican congressman now serving an eight-year sentence in a corruption case.
Mr. Specter raised the question of whether Ms. Lam had been dismissed because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful,” and he questioned the Justice Department’s initial explanation that those who had lost their jobs had received poor performance evaluations.
“Well,” he said, “I think we may need to do more by way of inquiry to examine what her performance ratings were to see if there was a basis for her being asked to resign.”
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )(which they say is due to insubordination in illegal immigration prosecutions - you knew that, right? ) they should set it out for all to see. Specter's words are pure speculation. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but there's some slavering eagerness in the air here that will make me skeptical that the goal isn't Pin The Tail On the Admin again until I see some hard facts.
Anyway, I'm not particularly liking the Winged Emissary of the Repubs/knew it all along/you really should be concerned unless X, Y and Z vibe I'm getting from you and others in this thread. There's an air of self-righteousness and "don't participate unless you agree to take everything very, very seriously" spin here, so I'll leave you to your own devices.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )would have answered all these questions.
This is an "own goal" episode on the part of the Administration.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )?
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You seem willing, by nature, to give them the benefit of the doubt. Over and over and over again. I'm not that generous. Each to his own, I suppose.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...different standards apply to Dems and Repubs; it's a sort of gradated version of IOKIYAR.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )how not to act in the future? Should be easy since I supposedly am so explicit about this.
And I don't know what your abbreviation stands for - something about Ginsu knives and air/fuel ratios? Year of the Rat?
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )