All of the sudden, Clinton looking not-so-unelectable

I'm not arguing a point. I'm pointing out a certain political reality which you either are ignorant of or refuse to acknowledge.

It's like talking to a small child.

Jesus, you're thick.

 

You don't even know what you are arguing so how in the hell is anyone else supposed to.

And if you believe that this president has been any worse or any better than any president in the past 30 years at hooking up his pals, you are dumber than I could ever give you credit for being.

 

Well, that's understandable given your penchant for talking down to people. Of course, thats what you get for thinking you're smarter than everyone else.

 

Christ, Zag's here.

Between him and Pallister we might have a functioning brain.

Every politician takes care of his friends. No one's arguing that

Most don't make it government policy OR hire their cronies to high placed government jobs despite there being no evidence of any competence whatsoever.

Does "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" sound familiar?

 

He's arguing not that previous president's haven't given jobs and funding to those who helped them into office, but that this administration hasn't tried to hide it as previous ones did.

With prior administrations, the jobs for the Old boys network were shuffled away. Here, they're in plain sight.

 

My bad. I should have given previous administrations more credit for deception.

 

Yes. And all the ones before it.

 

This president has been worse in terms of hooking up hacks who follow him. Bush II has made the worst personnel decisions of any president in 40 years - maybe you have to go back to Warren Harding and Ulysses Grant.

Point 1 - the US Attorney scandal. You always hook up someone who supports your views on Justice as US Attorneys. No problem. But to get rid of somebody, a USA would have to be a crook or incompetent. These were his own choices that they were firing, and it was done with the apparent effort to obstruct justice.

Point 2 - Having people making these decisions from Pat Robertson's fourth-tier law school.

Point 3 - Patrick Henry College - this source of home-schooled, religious zealots has provided many staff members in the current White House.

Point 4 - Alberto Gonzalez. If he hadn't resigned, there probably would have been impeachment proceedings against him.

Point 5 - "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie"

Point 6 - Fredo picks John Ashcroft, an incumbent Senator who lost to a dead person, as Attorney General.

JR, you may be a tad unreasonable to ask pallister to read a book. but perhaps he could start with a magazine or newspaper.

 

John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, the sudden influx of people to high ranking positions from Thomas Boggs law firm -- you have a point JR. I can clearly see GWB is the only one who has ever given special treatment to shady friends and made it an institutional thing....

 

There have always been patronage jobs and patronage projects, but this administration has truly gone over the edge with them.

If you're argue it's a matter of degree and not of kind, well, there's an argument there. I don't think it's a good one, but there is an argument there.

But don't take the "every administration does it..." tack. Cynicism is not criticism.

 

Wait, you guys should embrace the "every administration does it" tack. It's classic Clintonian moral relativism.

Unfortunatley, patronage is here to stay. Our political system is built on it. It's the safest way to do the one thing every high-profile politician wants, no, needs to do: consolidate power.

 

Exactly the "every administration does it" card is straight out of the playbook that made Slick Willy so successful.