Hold Gonzales Accountable, Then Bush

posted by John Nichols on 04/16/2007 @ 1:44pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (81)

Subscribe Now

As Attorney General Alberto Gonzales prepares to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, the official question is: Will the former White House counsel be able to talk himself out of a scandal involving the firing of US Attorneys, the politicization of federal prosecutions, Karl Rove's "lost" e-mails and the little matter of lying to Congress?

But that's not the question that matters.

Gonzales is finished. The best he can accomplish is a stay of execution that would allow him to remain at the Department of Justice until the controversy dies down enough for him to quietly slip out the back door late on one of those Friday afternoons when the Bush administration gets rid of its embarrassments. Were Gonzales to be allowed to remain in his position through the remainder of Bush's term, it would make America over as a land without laws or even the barest sense of propriety.

That might have been a viable prospect when the US was passing through the dark interregnum of one-party rule that defined the first years of the 21st century. But it is unlikely with a Congress now controlled by the opposition Democrats, and with Senate and House judiciary committees composed of Democrats and even a few Republicans who have displayed the backbones that were in such short supply prior of November 7 of last year. Just consider Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy's response to the White House's "lost" e-mails lie -- "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary…" – and it becomes clear that the system of checks and balances is being renewed.

The question that remains, however – and this is the question that matters – has to do with whether the renewal will be as complete as the founders would have wanted.

To answer that question, members of Congress, as well as the media and the American people, need to recognize that what is at stake now is not Alberto Gonzales' career. It is George Bush's presidency.

The great lost admission of the whole US Attorneys scandal came at a press briefing on March 13, when White House counselor Dan Bartlett acknowledged that the President was aware of complaints from Republicans around the country that US Attorneys were not using their positions to pursue the so-called "voter fraud" cases that the party had made a central focus of its efforts to erect barriers to voter participation--by eliminating same-day registration in the states where it is allowed, requiring Voter IDs and otherwise making it harder for Americans to participate in the political process.

"That information, it's incumbent upon us to share with the relevant Cabinet officers, incumbent upon the President to do that, as well," said Bartlett. "The President did that briefly, in a conversation he had with the Attorney General in October of 2006, in which, in a wide-ranging conversation on a lot of different issues, this briefly came up and the President said, I've been hearing about this election fraud matters from members of Congress, want to make sure you're on top of that, as well. There was no directive given, as far as telling him to fire anybody or anything like that. That would be under the prerogative of the Justice Department to take a look at those issues, as they obviously were doing."

Bartlett was trying to cover the president's backside by claiming Bush did not order the firing of the eight US Attorneys who were removed. But the firings of the eight are a secondary issue when compared to the question of what the 85 US Attorneys who were not fired did to keep their jobs--and to thwart the rule of law.

Bartlett inadvertently acknowledged Bush involvement in the most serious aspect of the scandal: the politicization of prosecutions. Of course, Bush will claim ignorance of specific firings. So be it.

What Bartlett gave us in March was confirmation that the president was aware of, indeed supportive of, efforts by key players in his own party to prod U.S. Attorneys to do their bidding. That bidding was never ill-defined; Republicans at the state level and in Washington wanted federal prosecutors to launch conveniently-timed investigations and prosecutions that might harm Democrats, and to back off inconvenient inquiries into the actions of Republicans.

That Bush was deep into the politics of this scandal should come as no surprise. Anyone who has followed this president closely knows that he becomes most engaged when the discussion turns to electoral politics – the one subject, aside from baseball, about which he is genuinely well-versed. Keen observers of this administration's inner workings know, as well, that it would be comic to think that this most political of presidents was not conscious of the ramifications of what was being discussed at the meeting Bartlett described. Indeed, the only thing more comic would be a suggestion that Gonzales, who is about nothing so much as doing Bush's bidding, would miss the cue from the president.

Will the truth come out?

Those e-mails from Rove--currently "lost" but soon to be found--will help the process along, as will all of the other documents that Congressional investigators have requested. And testimony from the White House political czar, and from other political players who were in communication with Rove and the president – testimony that will have to be compelled by Congress--could well begin to close the circle.

Ultimately, even in this administration, someone might start telling the truth. And the truth is that Gonzales has never been anything but a bit player. The controversy that matters is not about the Attorney General's hiring practices. It is about a lawless administration, and the president who has led this country further and further from its Constitutional moorings.

Let the hearings begin. And let them proceed until there is a restoration of the rule of law, and the republic it sustains.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties."

Comments (81)

....the executive branch is proving itself once again as perceiving itself beyond the laws of the nation it purports to lead. Egads I'll be SOOOO glad when the ChimpCo regime change occurs!

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/16/2007 @ 1:54pm
Mr Nichols...two points-

"That might have been a viable prospect when the U.S. was passing through the dark interregnum of one-party rule that defined the first years of the 21st century."

Really...you need to start backing away from that "one party rule" stuff and quick. Seriously, how are you going to explain your sudden LOVE of "one party rule"...when it's 2009 and the "one party" is the Democratic Party?

2. "Ultimately, even in this administration, someone might start telling the truth." The Bush "John Dean" could have come out ANYTIME during the Plame-gate matter...such as Libby himself in a plea bargain...and didn't. Wouldn't bet the farm on anybody coming forward NOW.

Posted by Mask at 04/16/2007 @ 2:00pm
I think this administation's achilles heel has been located. They have struted around and pushed others' faces in the mud, so sure they'd never be caught. How the mighty have fallen.

This is sure to open up into a bigger pile of doggy mess than was predicted even a couple weeks ago.

Thank goodness this came along when it did, I'm certain that Rove and Co. would have pushed the delete button on their computers and servers the day before inauguration day in 2009 had this not come up. They might have gotten away with it all. Not so now.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/16/2007 @ 2:05pm
man, bush isn't even that well-versed in baseball, let alone electoral politics.

we all know how gonzalez will defend himself tomorrow: "i don't recall" or "i don't remember". he's been saying the same thing for over a year now, in other matters as well.

Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2007 @ 2:12pm
...you need to start backing away from that "one party rule" stuff and quick. Seriously, how are you going to explain your sudden LOVE of "one party rule"...when it's 2009 and the "one party" is the Democratic Party?

MASK,

First, your penchant for thought experiments and crystal ball gazing, neither of which serve your best rhetorical interests, are evident here.

Second, and more important, you are acting totally tone deaf as to what is referenced here to the point of jamming large connotations into Nichols' mouth. One party rule refers to their pompous phrase/project of apparently Rovian origin to describe their "vision" for the future. Nichols is rubbing their nose in their own hubristic puppyshit nonsense, seems to me, and not endorsing something that is against the spirit of a liberal, pluralistic republic -- provided, of course, that Repugs behave like the political party they apparently once were (before my lifetime) and not a piety spouting criminal gang/demolition crew conducting an inside job on America.

Added comment: Our hearts go out today to the people in Virginia. What a nightmare.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 04/16/2007 @ 2:18pm
They might have gotten away with it all. Not so now.

Posted by BLUETEXAN 04/16/2007 @ 2:05pm

So what do you think is going to happen, BLUE?

Posted by Mask at 04/16/2007 @ 2:18pm
Posted by MASK 04/16/2007 @ 2:18pm

Unlike you MASK, I don't get too carried away with predictions and guessing every step of every political situation (as you do...over and over and over again)

Overall, what do I think will happen next? In general, Gonzo will resign. Pressue will mount on Rove, he'll end up resigning. Unfortunately, Bush will serve out his term. Hopefully, the Democrats will ratchet up the heat and put measures in place to preserve Rove and gang's communications (they already are in place, but it appears more measures are necessary). The Dem president following Bush will let the sun in on Rove's emails for the last 8 years and all will see how corrupt the whole administration was.

If any criminal charges are possible, hopefully they'll be pressed against the parties involved. More than likely Bush will live out his days clearing brush, making speeches at the few groups still dumb enough to claim him, and he'll probably start drinking heavily again. Bush will never be able to travel outside the U.S. for fear of being arrested for war crimes. Cindy Sheehan will take up residence next door to the Crawford ranch and hound Bush for the rest of his days. Laura Bush will end up leaving George, and pen a tell-all book about his pathetic performance in the oval office and the "lincoln bedroom."

Do I think all this will happen? Not sure, but it would be nice.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/16/2007 @ 2:33pm
The DOJ spokeswoman apparently said in one of the emails released Friday that "we are trying to muddy the coverage up a bit by trying to put the focus on the process in which they [the attorneys] were told...." instead of on the fired attorneys' "theories of why they were dismissed." (bold added)

So, at the hearing, whenever Alberto Gonzales starts talking about the "process" of the firings and how they were "handled," instead of answering questions about the "why" of the firings, a Senator should interrupt and say: "Excuse me, Mr. Gonzales. Are your trying to "muddy the coverage "?

Posted by RLawrence at 04/16/2007 @ 2:39pm
"i don't recall" or "i don't remember". Posted by DARLADOON 04/16/2007 @ 2:12pm

That's just the good old Ronald Ragan "Ostrich Defense", except he had an excuse.

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap." Napoleon Bonoparte (1769-1821)

Posted by COProgressive at 04/16/2007 @ 2:45pm
Yes, they should. "Muddying the coverage" should be used as much as humanly possible.

Posted by brantl at 04/16/2007 @ 2:47pm
Yeah, screw the truth, huh Brantl?

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/16/2007 @ 2:50pm
Slight correction to my earlier post: "their theories for their dismissals" is actual language, not "theories of why they were dismissed."

We Are Trying to Muddy the Coverage [blogs.usatoday.com]

Posted by RLawrence at 04/16/2007 @ 3:10pm
Posted by BLUETEXAN 04/16/2007 @ 2:33pm

For somebody who "don't get too carried away with predictions and guessing"...you sure jumped in full force. Couple of points-

"In general, Gonzo will resign."....yep, about 90% chance before end of summer.

"Pressue will mount on Rove, he'll end up resigning."...pressure from whom? He's loathed by Democrats and disliked by the Media and public...but has been for YEARS. 50-50 he's there until 2009.

"Unfortunately, Bush will serve out his term."...yep to "unfortunate" and yep to the rest. Though it takes HSUBFOOLS and those like him to finally come to this conclusion around Valentine's Day next year.

"The Dem president following Bush will let the sun in on Rove's emails for the last 8 years and all will see how corrupt the whole administration was."....unlikely. Remember little of Iran-Contra was revealed by the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Congress of 1993-1994 dropped the whole matter.

"Bush will never be able to travel outside the U.S. for fear of being arrested for war crimes."....not likely either. Secret Service wouldn't take too kindly...and neither would any future President (Dem or Repub)

"Cindy Sheehan will take up residence next door to the Crawford ranch and hound Bush for the rest of his days."....not likely either. I'm a bit more cynical about Ms Sheehan than others who also oppose the war.

(BTW, I assume these last two are more for humorous effect)

Posted by Mask at 04/16/2007 @ 3:11pm
mask and lemmon,

and haven't the democrats (who now rule congress) resolutely expressed their desire for bi-partisanship (by giving the republicans enormous concessions in the iraq funding bill, one of them being withdrawal in august of 2008)?

it's not like reid and pelosi are asking for too much---they're asking for the bare minimum.

Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2007 @ 3:15pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/16/2007 @ 3:15pm

I thought the fault was ..."it's all cat-herding and this is the best they can do"?

Posted by Mask at 04/16/2007 @ 3:28pm
I see you moonbats are busy howling at the moon again. And again, Mr. Nichols fills more of this space with unsubstantiated accusations, vaguely felt paranoia, and flat-out nonsense. Imagine, asking a voter to actually identify himself before voting! How radical! How undemocratic! How can one vote 'early and often' if one's name is checked off a list! What brownshirts!

How anyone can read this claptrap without chuckling is truly one of life's great mysteries.

Posted by pontificus at 04/16/2007 @ 3:30pm
Dead people need representation too, eh Mr. Nichols?

Posted by pontificus at 04/16/2007 @ 3:31pm
"For somebody who "don't get too carried away with predictions and guessing"...you sure jumped in full force."

Posted by MASK 04/16/2007 @ 3:11pm

Yea, MASK, its called sarcasm. Sorry you missed it.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/16/2007 @ 3:33pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/16/2007 @ 3:39pm

It's a combo of a number of things: 1) political scheming and planning, 2) compliant media, 3) weak and timid Democrates, 4) ignorant population and 5) just lucky timing.

It just seems like one of these days, they'll miss on all these and the scandal will sink the ship.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/16/2007 @ 3:44pm
In Pontifurbator world, the absence of WMDs in Iraq is proof that they existed, and the continued employment of 85 USAs is proof that they were serving the public interest. Keep jerkin' it (at least until you get blisters), Pontifurbator.

Posted by nathanhale at 04/16/2007 @ 3:52pm
"which gives the Dems plenty of ammunition, (pardon the pun), to review the gun laws and to take the gun lobby to task again"

Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/16/2007 @ 3:48pm

I think the Dems should avoid this. Don't try to politicize this tragedy. Gun control is a no-go topic for Dems. Besides, it'll probably come out that the shooter acquired his guns illegally. How do gun control laws prevent this? If a professor or someone would have had a concealed handgun, would this tragedy have been averted or the number of casualites reduced?

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/16/2007 @ 3:57pm
so pontificus thinks that the vast majority of the american public, all of whom are sick and tired of not only this administration, but of everything they stand for, are "moonbats"?

pontificus: you are in a vastly dwindling minority of shit-kicking southerners and midwesterners.

Posted by darladoon at 04/16/2007 @ 4:00pm
Imagine, asking a voter to actually identify himself before voting! How radical! How undemocratic! How can one vote 'early and often' if one's name is checked off a list! What brownshirts!

Posted by PONTIFICUS

I don't know about other states, but in Texas you register to vote by filling out a card and dropping it in the mail; once the proper checks are made you receive a card in the mail and you have a specific location to vote at; at this location they check your card and then verify your name on a list.

Speaking of brownshirts: Isn't it the right that thinks it's just a-okay for the police to demand identification for no reason what so ever?

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/16/2007 @ 4:02pm
How anyone can read this claptrap without chuckling is truly one of life's great mysteries.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/16/2007 @ 3:30pm

How anyone can be as willfully ignorant as you is another mystery.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/16/2007 @ 4:04pm
That is Texas. You can carry a concealed gun down here with a license.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/16/2007 @ 4:05pm
Defecatious can kiss my ass.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/16/2007 @ 4:09pm
Posted by GLENN LEMON 04/16/2007 @ 2:18pm

GLENN, sorry if I actually think that the words people use MEAN what they mean and not what "they REALLY meant to say was...".

"one party rule" is a simple phrase. It starts with "one party" as an adjective and rule as a noun. If the Republican Party controls the Executive and Legislative branches, then that falls into the category of "one party rule" ...technically speaking, if Democrats, the same.

However, in most cases, the use of that phrase has been to authoritarian/totalitarian regimes...such as the old Soviet Union, China, etc. It referred to countries where ONLY one party was allowed to rule or even allowed to be on the ballot.

It's use by liberals and Democrats came about as a POLITICAL bit of rhetoric, like Mr Nichols here ...to link the "Republicam-dominated" government with those oppressive regimes.

But, it is a two-edged sword, for all the complaining about the corruption and rubber-stamping of "one party rule" that we've heard....the phrase itself WILL apply when Democrats re-gain the White House if they maintain majorities in the Congress.

Then...."miraculously"...the term will disappear from the Left's lexicon...and likely get picked up by the Right..hehe

Posted by Mask at 04/16/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by ZERO 04/16/2007 @ 4:04pm

No argument there. Maybe this tragedy can be used to illustrate how urgent it is for us to end our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/16/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by BLUETEXAN 04/16/2007 @ 3:57pm

You're absolutely right about the politics of Virginia Tech.....it's a temporary, but heavily-charged THIRD RAIL that the Democrats should steer clear of. One of the "Three Gs" (God, gays, guns) that Dems have been trying to avoid for a decade now.

Any push for stronger gun control will undercut any progress made in the Red States and be "too tepid" to inspire any gun control groups...thus a lose-lose.

Posted by Mask at 04/16/2007 @ 4:15pm
Posted by MASK

C'mon, you know what the hell is being referred to here. The Repub Congress didn't show the least bit of interest in checking the authority of the White House, nor was there any credible oversight. Has a Dem Congress acted so irresponsibly while a Dem occupied the White House?

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/16/2007 @ 4:18pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/16/2007 @ 4:18pm

Blackwater USA will probably open up a training camp for this type of stuff soon. Look for the Bush administration to promote this as an addition to the NCLB renewal.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/16/2007 @ 4:24pm
. I do however believe in the right to bear arms and I think most democrats do as well.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/16/2007 @ 4:23pm

Yep. Big difference between a gun and an assault rifle.

I don't need a machine gun to hunt, and my 12 gauge will do just fine for home defense.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/16/2007 @ 4:29pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/16/2007 @ 4:18pm

Then use the term "un-checked Executive"...doesn't drip off the tongue like "one party rule" (or subtlely hint at "authoritarianism")....but it's accurate.

"one party rule" was created as a pejorative for the Republican control of the Executive and Legislative to invoke images of the USSR, China, fascist regimes, etc.

But it has a LITERAL meaning and if the rhetorical use is able to be used by ONE side of the aisle...then the other side can use it too.

And in fact....HAS. Perhaps you've forgotten the use of similar terms like "total Democratic domination" or "Democrat controlled Government" from the years 1993-1994 by Limbaugh, etc.

Likely, Mr Nichols and others, who created "one party rule" for the last 6 years....didn't forget and thought it would be useful politically and more rhetorically "sellable".

Otherwise they would have said "rubber stamping Congress" or as noted "un-checked White House"....but quite obviously they didn't think that would have the "hook" that "one party rule" has with the public.

Again....I'd start backing away from it. Because if the idea of "one party rule" has been made so pejorative....when it's DEMOCRATIC "one party rule" come 2009....and the Right starts using it....

you might regret its creation!

Posted by Mask at 04/16/2007 @ 4:37pm
Posted by MASK

Fair enough. I suppose it is asking far too much for the likes of defecatious, Rio Bozo, liberliar, the old lying coward to recognized the difference.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/16/2007 @ 4:52pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/16/2007 @ 4:23pm

I do however believe in the right to bear arms and I think most democrats do as well.

I believe you would be wrong, Frank. Why don't you take a straw poll here and find out. I think you'll find that most leftists have no more use for the Second Amendment than you do for the First.

Posted by pontificus at 04/16/2007 @ 4:54pm
I, for one, would love to have my gun priviledges back.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/16/2007 @ 5:00pm
I don't want to caste any aspersions, but bomb threats the week before, a shooting incident two hours before the massacre...what is going on with security on campus? Aren't bomb threats also of concern to FBI and Homeland Security? I notice that WH spokesperson was quick to add that FBI will be glad to help out "if State law enforcement asks for it." Maybe as this story develops, there will be more answers.

I agree with the posters that indicate that "guns" are not per se at fault here. I believe in the right to bear arms, but would also agree that assault weapons should be heavily regulated. This isn't going to prevent criminal by trade types from getting them on the black market, but maybe it will stop a few "wackos" from so easily getting them and going on a shooting spree.

This tragedy reminds me that we should spending our tax money on domestic security measures rather than pissing it away in the Middle East. For the money we are spending in Iraq, our domestic security could be vastly increased. We are a sitting duck for terrorists and it is miraculous that with all the enemies that we are making in the Middle East that they haven't hit us yet again.

I don't remember this kind of wanton and indiscriminate violence occurring when I was growing up, and automatic weapons were available back then. What influence does all the gratuitous violence on television, movies, video-games, etc., have on our psyche? It is just so easy to pull the trigger. Maybe we need to regulate the amount of violence for pleasure we are exposed to? I have no doubt that this is adding to violence in America.

This is unbelievable. Condolences and prayers to all.

Posted by OneVote at 04/16/2007 @ 5:29pm
I think you'll find that most leftists have no more use for the Second Amendment than you do for the First.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/16/2007 @ 4:54pm

Stop snivelling for christs sake. Jeeeezus what a whiner.

And shove that leftist drivel up your fascist ass while your at it.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/16/2007 @ 5:37pm
but maybe it will stop a few "wackos" from so easily getting them and going on a shooting spree. - onevote

7 day waiting periods and registration - for christs sake you have to register a car but not a gun?

We got some serious problems here.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/16/2007 @ 5:51pm
I think it's premature to say exactly what GWB's role was. It is conceivable to me that his biggest crime, and that of Gonzales is that they were completely out of the loop--that they did not take the kind of interest in this matter that they SHOULD have. From an outsiders view it seems that Rove is the defacto domestic policy guy; that Cheney effectively runs the foreign policy apparatus; and that Bush shows up for the photo-ops, gives the speeches, and presses the flesh at fundraisers.

Of course this is all speculation.

What is not speculation is that no Chief Executive before George W. Bush selectively fired several attorneys for political reasons mid-term. Whether this was conceived and executed by subordinates with a passive presidential approval, or whether this was done with the full knowledge, and active participation of the president is, in many ways, irrelevant. The bottom line is that these actions are unprecedented and never should have been done. Especially if a partisan standard was applied to effect the outcome of individual prosecutions.

Now we are learning that some of the emails relevant to this matter may have been "lost".

Absolutely ridiculous.

Posted by JRV12 at 04/16/2007 @ 5:57pm
"Maybe a qualification for getting a teaching job should be anti-terrorist training. "

OR.....try hiring some conservatives in the university system.....for diversity,er, a change..

Posted by john maasch at 04/17/2007 @ 12:18am
"seems to me, and not endorsing something that is against the spirit of a liberal, pluralistic republic "

Until the "Hillarian(Hitllarian) Era" of Dem governance, of course....

Mask is correct...if the Dems capture all branches, this one party danger will disappear..

Posted by john maasch at 04/17/2007 @ 12:20am
PONTI<

Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/16/2007 @ 4:23pm

I do however believe in the right to bear arms and I think most democrats do as well.

I believe you would be wrong, Frank. Why don't you take a straw poll here and find out. I think you'll find that most leftists have no more use for the Second Amendment than you do for the First.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/16/2007 @ 4:54pm

Exactly.

Posted by john maasch at 04/17/2007 @ 12:28am
Maybe ALL of our teachers and professors should be required to pack and be expert marksmen.

There are just as many wacked out teachers and professors as there are wacked out students...

Posted by Balrog at 04/17/2007 @ 01:01am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/16/2007 @ 4:52pm

Not talking individuals, MSTP. The term has a wide-ranging political impact and if the Left is smart, they'd let it fade away NOW...before January 2009 rolls around and they have to keep explaining how "now, one party rule is GOOD!"

Posted by Mask at 04/17/2007 @ 07:09am
Maybe a qualification for getting a teaching job should be anti-terrorist training. "

OR.....try hiring some conservatives in the university system.....for diversity,er, a change..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/17/2007 @ 12:18am | ignore this person

This is a keeper!!!

Maasch now advocating a quota system in university hiring practices rather than evaluating candidates on their individual merit!

Posted by freedomplease at 04/17/2007 @ 08:23am
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 04/17/2007 @ 08:23am

Maasch now advocating a quota system in university hiring practices rather than evaluating candidates on their individual merit!

Interesting how quickly the 'principled' rationales flip around depending on whose ox is being gored.

Posted by pontificus at 04/17/2007 @ 08:41am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/17/2007 @ 08:41am

For example, if 'individual merit' were the only criteria used for college admissions, our campuses would be over-represented in whites and asians. Somehow I don't think FREEDOMPLEASE is advocating that, she only wants 'individual merit' to apply in cases where the result favors what she wants.

Posted by pontificus at 04/17/2007 @ 08:53am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/17/2007 @ 02:08am

THIS IS THE BEST DEMONCRATS HAVE TO OFFER AMERICA, go after Bush appointees one by one! (especially the effective members of inorities he has employed) All other persons of race in the administration should watch their backs!

It's not the BEST thing they have to offer. It's the ONLY thing they have to offer.

Posted by pontificus at 04/17/2007 @ 09:47am
The funniest line of this whole article is the last one. "Let the hearings begin. And let them proceed until there is a restoration of the rule of law, and the republic it sustains."

The fact is, the rule of law states clearly that the President can fire one, all, or any number in between of US attorneys at any time. That's what serving "at the pleasure of the President" means. The idea that a political appointment wouldn't fall prey to politics is patently absurd.

The ONLY way the firing of these eight would be illegal is if it was done to stop a prosecution already in progress. There has been no evidence of that. None. Yet Congress has been at this waterless well for weeks.

There is actual work to be done and, in case anyone has forgotten, a war that Congress actually has to finish deciding how to fund. So far, the only "accomplishment" that I can see our present Congress claiming is raising the minimum wage to a level still far below any reasonable idea of a full-time, living wage. Bravo.

Posted by homerjelwood at 04/17/2007 @ 09:59am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/16/2007 @ 4:02pm

I don't know about other states, but in Texas you register to vote by filling out a card and dropping it in the mail; once the proper checks are made you receive a card in the mail and you have a specific location to vote at; at this location they check your card and then verify your name on a list.

That's how it works in Virginia as well. You have to show ID to vote. Of course it's common sense that all voters should be required to prove they are who they say they are before they vote, and that they be allowed to vote only once. But note that provisions to ensure this are one of the great purported "sins" that Republicans are guilty of, John Nichols notes, as 'erecting barriers to voter participation.' If requiring ID suppresses votes, many might ask, what kind of votes are being suppressed? Requiring ID is the best measure for preventing party operatives from casting votes for dead or fictional people, and other common forms of electoral fraud. One might ask precisely what the motives are of those who would object to requesting ID.

Posted by John Nichols:

The great lost admission of the whole US Attorneys scandal came at a press briefing on March 13, when White House counselor Dan Bartlett acknowledged that the President was aware of complaints from Republicans around the country that US Attorneys were not using their positions to pursue the so-called "voter fraud" cases that the party had made a central focus of its efforts to erect barriers to voter participation--by eliminating same-day registration in the states where it is allowed, requiring Voter IDs and otherwise making it harder for Americans to participate in the political process.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/16/2007 @ 4:02pm

Speaking of brownshirts: Isn't it the right that thinks it's just a-okay for the police to demand identification for no reason what so ever?

I think you'll find that there are just as many, if not more, conservatives who oppose random stop and search than there are on the left.

Posted by pontificus at 04/17/2007 @ 10:30am
Why don't you take a straw poll here and find out. I think you'll find that most leftists have no more use for the Second Amendment than you do for the First.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/16/2007 @ 4:54pm

I've seen lots of "leftists" on this board admit they own and use guns. Here's another "leftist" confession:

My first job, at the age of 13, was at a gun club. Got my hunter safety card and started hunting at 14. 30 years later, I still hunt - got a buck last year.

Of course, this contradicts the official mindless party-line stock talking point propaganda of the right, so I expect you'll gloss right over it.

Posted by Balrog at 04/17/2007 @ 10:48am
OR.....try hiring some conservatives in the university system.....for diversity,er, a change..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/17/2007 @ 12:18am

MAASCH,

Tell us what is wrong with a student selecting a college or a newly minted doctorate looking for a job to enter into the conservaClown ghetto of academe where biblical rap, gang-banging the very idea of playing cards or dancing, and drive-bys on the Reality Based Community are the norm: Regent University, Baylor, Brigham Young, and oodles of other smaller outlets.

Of course, none of these institutions enjoys the reputation of a Yale or a Stanford despite having maintained their purity as a conservaClown ghetto. Any guesses as to why? Perhaps something that hinges on m-e-r-i-t?

(Watch now as MAASCH struggles mightily to blame the plight of the conservaClown academic ghetto on someone, anyone else -- Vincent Foster's assassins, perhaps)...

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 04/17/2007 @ 10:51am
Posted by BALROG 04/17/2007 @ 10:48am

My first job, at the age of 13, was at a gun club. Got my hunter safety card and started hunting at 14. 30 years later, I still hunt - got a buck last year.

Of course, this contradicts the official mindless party-line stock talking point propaganda of the right, so I expect you'll gloss right over it.

Surely you're not seriously suggesting that gun control laws are pushed by conservatives. I think it's fine that you have taken advantage of your 2nd Amendment rights. But you can't possibly be that obtuse to believe that the Democratic left in this country is not the great purveyor of gun control legislation, be it in such thoroughly Democratic enclaves as DC and Massachusetts (where constitutionally problematic gun bans exist) or at the national level?

Posted by pontificus at 04/17/2007 @ 10:55am
Pontificus -

Thanks for caring, but we here in Massachsuetts are quite happy with the totally reasonable restrictions on firearms and have one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/17/2007 @ 12:10pm
hom, how does the rule of law square with the AG lying to congress and by extension to the american people? and why are the Bush misadministration lying about the firing? because it is a huge political problem for them, legality aside.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/17/2007 @ 12:11pm
OR.....try hiring some conservatives in the university system.....for diversity,er, a change..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/17/2007 @ 12:18am | ignore this person

what a disgusting slimy post from you Maasch, blaming by inference liberal college professors for the massacre. yes hiring more brain dead "conservatives" will bring heaven on earth.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/17/2007 @ 12:13pm
JR,

I have done nothing of the sort...your post stretches beyond belief..I responded to this post.. "Maybe a qualification for getting a teaching job should be anti-terrorist training. "

OR.....try hiring some conservatives in the university system.....for diversity,er, a change..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/17/2007 @ 12:18am | ignore this person

And, as is well admitted, the majority of universitys in the US are tauight by admitted liberals..no big deal...And Lemonheads post is more ridiculous..

Posted by john maasch at 04/17/2007 @ 12:21pm
here's one against the grain. I believe in very strict regulation of handguns and other fire arms. register every gun, as automobiles must be registered. make every gun owner buy mandatory insurance, like with car ownership.

whenever a large gun attack happens, every one is crying from the rooftops. the fact is that this kind of gun violence plagues every inner city and many other places too, every day. when I recently wrote about the innocent children getting caught in cross fire in their neighborhoods, I was met with a chorus of jeers and rationalizations.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/17/2007 @ 12:21pm
And, as is well admitted, the majority of universitys in the US are tauight by admitted liberals..no big deal...And Lemonheads post is more ridiculous..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/17/2007 @ 12:21pm | ignore this person

most intelligent and educated people are liberals. maybe that has something to do with it.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/17/2007 @ 12:23pm
JR,

Interesting generalization....

Posted by john maasch at 04/17/2007 @ 12:28pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/17/2007 @ 12:10pm

Thanks for caring, but we here in Massachsuetts are quite happy with the totally reasonable restrictions on firearms and have one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country.

Hmmmm....lowest rates in the country? And this is due to your handgun control laws? How are similar policies working out in the other 'gun ban' liberal paradise, Washington DC?

Posted by pontificus at 04/17/2007 @ 12:34pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/17/2007 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person

in response to your generalization.

one of the first groups the Nazis went after was college professors.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/17/2007 @ 12:41pm
try hiring some conservatives in the university system.....for diversity,er, a change..

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/17/2007

Show me some smart enough to teach at that level and then we'll talk.

Conservatives are ALL ABOUT MONEY, and you don't get paid a lot to teach.

It's one of those jobs conservatives don't respect, nor apply for.

So shut up.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/17/2007 @ 12:46pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/17/2007 @ 12:41pm

one of the first groups the Nazis went after was college professors.

Some of them. Most of them were just as compliant as the rest of German society.

Posted by pontificus at 04/17/2007 @ 12:56pm
Hmmmm....lowest rates in the country? And this is due to your handgun control laws? How are similar policies working out in the other 'gun ban' liberal paradise, Washington DC?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/17/2007 @ 12:34pm

Not as well, but I did not mean to state gun restrictions have a direct effect on crime rates. Only to shut your yap about Massachusetts.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/17/2007 @ 1:11pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/17/2007 @ 1:11pm

Only to shut your yap about Massachusetts.

Mass is also I believe the only state with a net out-migration of residents. That's due to the structure of the state; a relatively small pyramidal population of landed gentry and professional elite at the top, a shrinking middle class, and a large base of low wage workers with little hope for advancement (who typically leave due to lack of opportunity) at the bottom. High tax rates, leading to stagnant job market and little wage growth. If it wasn't for immigration, your state would be depopulated in a few years. I have a working thesis that liberal/left policies go hand in hand with societal decline as measured in declining birthrates and net-outmigration patterns such as this. Can't decide whether it's a straight cause-effect or a negative feedback cycle. I'm tending towards the latter.

Posted by pontificus at 04/17/2007 @ 1:25pm
I have a working thesis that conservative/fascist policies go hand in hand with societal decline

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/17/2007 @ 1:25pm

Have to agree on that one ponti boy.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/17/2007 @ 1:50pm
No doubt John Kerry and the rest of the Massachusetts Democratic establshment would like to do to the rest of the US what they've done to Massachusetts.

Within New England, labor force growth rates varied markedly across the six states, from 0% in Massachusetts to highs of 6% in Maine and Vermont; Massachusetts ranked third lowest in the country over the 2000-2005 period and we ranked last for the 2002-2005 period. Massachusetts is the only state in the nation to have experienced a labor force decline for three consecutive years. A combination of high levels of domestic out-migration and declining participation rates among teens, young adults, and males under 55 was responsible for the labor force decline in Massachusetts over the past 3 years

New England Regional Labor Force Developments and Their Workforce Development Implications

Andrew Sum

Center for Labor Market Studies

Northeastern University

Posted by pontificus at 04/17/2007 @ 1:55pm
No doubt George Bush and the rest of the Texas Fascist Society establshment would like to do to the rest of the US what they've done to Texas.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/17/2007 @ 1:55pm

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/17/2007 @ 2:00pm
Pontificus -

You need to do some studying before you hand in your thesis. Massachusetts has one of the lowest state and local tax burdens in the country - 43rd. Massachusetts' low birth rate (which is nothing new) is likely due to the high level of education obtained by our citizens - statistics show that people with higher education have fewer children. And the middle class is shrinking everywhere.

The main reason people are leaving Massachsuetts is the high cost of real estate.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/17/2007 @ 2:23pm
Massachusetts also has the fourth highest wages in the country.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/17/2007 @ 2:26pm
So, basically, "liberal/left policies" are not causing the population decline in Massachusetts - it is supply and demand. Try a new thesis.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/17/2007 @ 2:29pm
I'd love to live there Hman23. Get's awful hot and dry out here in the southwest.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/17/2007 @ 2:31pm
"The main reason people are leaving Massachsuetts is the high cost of real estate.

Posted by HMAN23 04/17/2007 @ 2:23pm

I worked in New Hampshire...and the locals there were lamenting the influx of Massachusettes liberals changing their state(its now blue) as NH becomes a suburb of Mass...they claim the people move for lower taxes...I am inclined to agree. Most people move to improve their lot in life as a whole, so real estate maybe a motivator but unless there is a dramatic difference in prices, then something comes into play..I find both places fabulous...Also like RI. I will be there in 2 weeks Hman...gotta pay my debt or you may forfeit due inability to locate recipient...and I donate equivelent funds to Fred Thompson campaign, in your name of course...:)

Posted by john maasch at 04/17/2007 @ 2:43pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS

It's a great place to live. A vibrant culture rich in history, plenty to do, low crime rates, great schools, a diverse and advanced economy, high wages, close access to the ocean, beaches and mountains. It ain't perfect. As I mentioned before, the cost of living is outrageous. And the locals can be a little rude. The traffic can be terrible and the Spring weather (if we even have one) stinks. But, contrary to what Pontificus thinks, Massachusetts' population problem is not due to high taxes or a liberal policies. In fact, a major complaint here is the lack of affordable housing for recent grads and lower-income workers. Now, you would think with liberal/left policies running everything that would not be a problem, right????? It would be housing for all!!!

It's also not surprising that Pontificus conveniently forgets the Mitt Romney was governor here during the recent lag in job growth and all his talk about liberal policies and their effects. While I think the issue cannot be blamed solely on Romney (or his 3 Republican successors), I am pretty sure that if Massachusetts had had a string of Democratic governors, Pontificus would have mentioned it in his simplistic explanation!! Notwithstanding that several areas of the local economy need attention, the primary area of concern is the high cost of housing -- most have a lot of faith in the Massachusetts economy given the investment the state makes in education and emerging technologies compared with other states.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/17/2007 @ 3:00pm
Maasch -

People in New Hampshire may claim people move there from Mass. mainly because of the taxes - it's pretty easy for them to jump to that conclusion given there is not state income tax in NH (except for dividends and interest income). While many likely see that aspect as a windfall benefit, the primary motivation for people levaing Mass. is the cost of living and difference in real estate prices. And Maasch, there is a DRAMATIC difference between prices in Mass and NH - so I guess you would have to agree it is a motivator.

As far as the "influx of liberals changing their state," sounds like typical bellyaching about "them outsiders" to me.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/17/2007 @ 3:11pm
Maasch, a college professor's political affiliation is his or her own business, just as yours is your business. your boss surely does not check on your politics. we do not require loyalty oaths from any citizen.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/17/2007 @ 3:35pm
Hman, the people in new Hampshire are fucked. no state tax, but ruinous property taxes, figures. many cannot afford the taxes and wind up losing their homes.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/17/2007 @ 5:57pm
One,"I don't want to caste any aspersions,"

you cast aspersions, a fishing metaphor I presume. caste is the system of social strata in India.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/18/2007 @ 09:07am
a fishing metaphor I presume

probably agricultural in origin.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/18/2007 @ 12:19pm