Originally Posted By friendofdd I'm not a republican and won't defend them, but probably, with just a little thought, we can remember democrats who have perjured themselves and are highly thought of by their party. If all you have said is true, and I've no reason to assume it is not, they still could have spent their time doing something substantial. Perhaps following up and completing some of that first 100 hour stuff. Rascals are rascals are rascals whether they are repubs or dems, majority or minority.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Off the top of my head - I can't think of one. The biggest 'scandal' among current democratic leaders is bill clinton's BJ, which dems don't care much about. Oh yeah - something about howard dean and a scream at a rally in a hockey rink. Honestly though - I think among democrats, if you've been convicted that's pretty much the end of the road.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Why does it always come down to: Our guy was bad, but your guy was bad, too. How about we come up with some sort of line in the sand here and all agree that Bill Clinton lied about oral sex. He admitted it, we all know it. That fact does NOT give every other politician a free pass to lie or be corrupt with abandon. Honest to goodness, I think I might scream if one more time I hear the lame "Well, Bill Clinton lied too!" defense. Good grief, first of all that was how many bloody years ago? Is Bill Clinton the high water mark of integrity that the GOP wants to set as the standard? Can the GOP never get over Bill Clinton? Is that all they've got anymore? On one hand, you have Republicans pointing out what a scoundrel Clinton was, yet on the other, they use his lie as a free pass every time they got caught with a hand in the cookie jar. ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS ONCE IN AWHILE!!! See? I told you I'd scream.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Flipping channels today, I paused for a moment on Hannity and Colmes. They were discussing with their guests Alberto Gonzales' ridiculous testimony. Like some sort of wind up toy, Hannity goes off about Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton??? It's like he absolutely lives until he can start acting indignant about Bill Clinton. He perhaps needs therapy to get over this Clinton fixation of his.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Here's a pipe dream- if Bush wants to restore any kind of credibilty, appoint a Democrat.< that's the day I spend my retirement because I know the apocolypse is near <Why does it always come down to: Our guy was bad, but your guy was bad, too. < answer: unfortunately because all too often lately it really is true - both parties have plenty of people who have totally sucked <ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS ONCE IN AWHILE!!!< I have the sudden urge to put my DVD of Network in the player
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I have the sudden urge to put my DVD of Network in the player<< ROFL!!!
Originally Posted By DAR <<Why does it always come down to: Our guy was bad, but your guy was bad, too. < answer: unfortunately because all too often lately it really is true - both parties have plenty of people who have totally sucked>> I've expressed that sentiment many times here, but I usually get a lecture as to how wrong I always am. Well I don't think so. There's a reason why Congress and President's ratings are so low. They're not doing the job we elected them for pure and simple.
Originally Posted By ecdc No one has lectured you, DAR. Instead, all anyone has done is argued that there's varying degrees of responsibility and failure, and there's different consequences for incompetence that need to be taken into account. If my gabage man skips a house and forgets their trash, that's less of a failure than a surgeon who botches a heart operation. You're saying they're the same thing. You act as if Bush getting 4,000 soldiers and countless Iraqis killed is "politics as usual." It's not the same thing as Nancy Pelosi's flight scandal (anyone even remember that?) or Clinton's infidelity. You can oversimplify with the "all politicians are scum argument" all you want - it just doesn't fly. And all you've done is repeat the argument and you've ignored all the challenges to it. I'll keep saying it: Bush's multiple failures and incompetence are in a league of their own.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm tired of aruging this point with you, so I'm simply going to agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.
Originally Posted By gadzuux So lies about sex are the same as lies that cause wanton death, destruction and misery for millions of people. That's the position you've got staked out. That's not just left or right, that's a continent all its own.
Originally Posted By friendofdd 2ooney, I'm not certain if you were resonding to my post or not. If you were, I consider none of them "my guys". I've belonged to neither party since 1964. However I vote every election for those I feel better suited for the task. I certainly haven't called anybody a scumbag. It's not a word I use. But I do believe the vast, vast majority of those elected to congress succomb to the enticemants that lead them to being rascals. I would love to see term limits for congress. Then those citizens who are elected can serve their alloted time and return to being just plain citizens, after working for the public weal, with their lofty goals and ethics still intact.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I would love to see term limits for congress." It's done nothing for the CA legislature. My guess would be an even more unresponsive government.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Regardless how it is done, it is the President's right to do so. And most things presidents do have at least some political motivation.> But the Justice Department, particularly US attorneys, is/are supposed to be above politics. If it's not, there can be no confidence that the law will be fairly and evenly applied. Once a US attorney is appointed, his loyalty is supposed to be to the law and the Constitution, NOT to a particular person. That's why firing a US attorney because he wasn't a "loyal Bushie" is reprehensible in a way that wouldn't be so if we were talking about, say, the Dept. of Commerce.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I don't disagree with you, Dsbob, but "appointed" is the key word. If your were in a position to appoint somebody to something, you would probably try to find a person who agrees with you on things political. At least I think I would. If you were the appointee, you would tend to hold to your own values rather than trying for a neutral position. What is the use of having values if you don't hold to them? Jnvon, term limits have removed some rascals in CA, such as W. Brown. I'm sorry they have probably been replaced by other rascals, but if he had remained, he would probably be King Willie by now.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm hoping this gets posted later today, but I caught Michelle Malkin hosting for O'Reilly last night. She handled the Talking Points and the subject was Bush's Cronyism and how it's affected his Presidency. She went through a long list of people that had a personal relationship with the President but weren't qualified to do the jobs they were appointed for.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 All presidents appoint US attorneys of their own party (with a few independents). That's typical, and expected. However, ONCE APPOINTED, they are supposed to represent blind justice. Take the case of David Iglesias, one of the fired attorneys (and a Republican). He was asked to look into alleged Democratic voter fraud. He found nothing warranting further investigation. He was pressured to bring indictments just before the November elections. He refused - what's the point of indictments if the evidence isn't there? Shortly thereafter he was fired. Iglesias was loyal to the law rather than politics. You ask "If you were the appointee, you would tend to hold to your own values rather than trying for a neutral position;" well, in this case, his own values quite properly WERE the neutral position. The law itself represented his values. The law should be neutral; he was neutral. There was no case, therefore no indictments, despite pressure from those in his own party to indict. Do you see what I'm saying?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom The fact of the matter is that the majority of people in this country can care less if Gonzales is AG or not. For the majority of people this entire topic is a non issue. They can careless if any US attorneys got fired for whatever reason. Its only the Democrats that are demonizing Gonzales in the first place. As far as the general public is concerned this whole matter is nothing more than an example of how the Democrats stall, undermine the works of Washington DC and the important issues of our time. As far as the majority of Americans are concerned the Democrats have been far more concerned with getting rid of Gonzales than securing our nations borders and "other" pressing issues like bridges in major cities falling down killing people. But, by all means continue your useless, miniacal attack on all President Bush's cabinet. The Democratic Party fiddles while Rome burns.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <For the umpteenth time, Bush DID fire all the attorneys at the beginning of his first term, as most presidents do.> Repetition of an error does not make it a fact. President Bush did not fire all the attorneys at the beginning of his first term. Rather, he did what most presidents do, and that is replace (or keep them, in some cases) as their terms expired. Of course, because President Clinton fired all the attorneys at once, it made all the terms expire closer together. <The most recent being Clinton and William Cohen.> Well no. The most recent was President Bush and Norman Mineta.
