I don't disagree that the initial replacement of DA's when a new party comes into office is the modern norm. That isn't what's happening. The W boys already did that when he first came into office. This is a second round, a purge of people they hired who turned out not to be "Bushy" enough, AND this round of replacements went with no congressional oversight.
DA's replaced during a second term with no oversight. THAT is what's unprecedented. It's happened before very rarely, and in cases of Da's biting strippers.
And it's a problem because it sends the message that it's not enough to be of the Presidents party, you need to be using prosecution to actively advance the Presidents agenda or you are in danger of being fired.
But no one is seriously questioning the legality of replacing the AG's. President's pleasure and all that. And now that a near unanimous vote has taken away W's power to just name any bozo (see, I think I said before that not reading bills before signing them into law is a nauseating practice and it boggles the mind that we don't expect at least this from our elected representatives) this won't happen as blatantly in the future.
But I think if you want to fire a perfectly good AG with a good performance evaluation who you hired in the first place so you can replace them with someone who'll be more slavish, nd hold that over the head of other AG's, than the public should know that's what you're doing, so they can decide if they want people who do that running the country. Yes, you are legally allowed to do it, but lets call a spade a spade. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, they played the game very badly and now they are getting a public spanking, which is good. They aren't just corrupt and cynical, they are corrupt, cynical and lazy. That's a potentially dangerous combo platter, and they need to get bitch slapped for it.
USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Americans overwhelmingly support a congressional investigation into White House involvement in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, and they say President Bush and his aides should answer questions about it without invoking executive privilege.
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday-Sunday, respondents said by nearly 3-to-1 that Congress should issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify.
Apparently I'm the only one following this story...
Yes, you are the only one here that is so completely and entirely engulfed in utter hatred for our current head politician that he can't focus on anything else other than the current iteration of the ongoing campaign to discredit anything even remotely connected to him.
Honestly, max... What is he to you, the King Midas of Evil?
__________________ mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?
How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Hybrid Mode
