US Attorneys 86'ed.

Is it over?
Ah. no.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16931334.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

 

Hey, Alberto said "Mistakes were made."

What more do you people want?

 

Aha, the Nixon gambit.

Because it worked so well, before. This guy's days are numbered.

 

I thought it was to say Clinton had done the same thing and even though you might have been opposed to Clinton's actions then, now it is okay since Bush is doing the same thing that Clinton did.
Oh and don't investigate the CIA or you will get fired and go after Democrats, but not Republicans because that's what the Bush loyalty test demands.

 

I, for one, would be willing to rip up the Constition and pledge fealty to the president if that's what it takes to keep this country safe. Oh, and taxes low.

 

Did Clinton clean house when he came into office? Without a doubt. Does that make it OK? That's another question entirely.

Maybe we should do what Arlen Specter was suggesting...giving Congress a least a bit more control over the hiring and, more specifically, the firing, of federal attorneys. Balance things out a bit.

 

I don't have a problem with this. You know if you work for local, state or federal government that if a new party comes in your days may be numbered. The prez should be able to hire his own people.

People know that folks are getting canned because there is a new sheriff in town.

However, you should not be getting rid of people at other times and claiming they aren't doing a good job. That defames them, especially when they are being let go because they are doing their jobs too well.

 

The difference in '93 was that US attorneys' didn't follow tradition and offer their resignations to the new president.
So being political appointees, they were told to leave.

 

I don't, on the surface, have a problem with cleaning house, but you have to wonder if certain elements of the government should be free from political influence. Cleaning house of attorneys at the start of an administration may not always be the best thing for the country. That's all I'm suggesting.

 

Enough with the false equivalence.

Clinton took the resignations of all US attorneys when he came into office and picked his own people.

The Bush administration fired specific attorneys general during the middle of a term for either pursuing indictments against Republicans or not pursuing trumped-up election fraud cases against Democrats. They then publicly stated the these people were fired for incompetence, when, in most cases, the documentation that the administration itself had compiled gave these attorneys positive performance reviews.

The two situations are not remotely analogous.

 

alley --
Here's some background on the "Clinton (and Daddy Bush) did it too" thing.
The quotes are delicious.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/19/us_attorneys/index.html

 

Fenian and Zeke....I'm not at all taking a stance on whether or not Clinton should have done it. So please, move off that belief.

I'm simply saying wouldn't a bit of continuity in our judicial system be more effective than constant turnover every time a new administration comes into office.

Back off the whole "equivalence" issue. I'm a Clinton supporter, remember?