AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

Bill Clinton fired the entire staff of Justice Department attorneys that were appointed by previous presidents and replaced them with his own appointees. No reasons or explanations for Clinton exercising this presidential prerogative were ever given or requested by anyone: Democrat, Republican or independent.

This is a rather common thing to do when a new president from the other party is elected.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Bill Clinton fired the entire staff of Justice Department attorneys that were appointed by previous presidents and replaced them with his own appointees. No reasons or explanations for Clinton exercising this presidential prerogative were ever given or requested by anyone: Democrat, Republican or independent.

This is a rather common thing to do when a new president from the other party is elected.

Cycloptichorn

But heaven forbid you forgo that action and wait to see who the competent atoorneys are and fire the ones that do not follow your policy. That just creates a hullabaloo.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Bill Clinton fired the entire staff of Justice Department attorneys that were appointed by previous presidents and replaced them with his own appointees. No reasons or explanations for Clinton exercising this presidential prerogative were ever given or requested by anyone: Democrat, Republican or independent.

This is a rather common thing to do when a new president from the other party is elected.

Cycloptichorn

But heaven forbid you forgo that action and wait to see who the competent atoorneys are and fire the ones that do not follow your policy. That just creates a hullabaloo.

It's only a hullabaloo when the ones you fire turn out to be quite competent, but won't follow your orders to politically prosecute people. This is exactly the case which happened last year.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Bill Clinton fired the entire staff of Justice Department attorneys that were appointed by previous presidents and replaced them with his own appointees. No reasons or explanations for Clinton exercising this presidential prerogative were ever given or requested by anyone: Democrat, Republican or independent.

This is a rather common thing to do when a new president from the other party is elected.

Cycloptichorn

But heaven forbid you forgo that action and wait to see who the competent atoorneys are and fire the ones that do not follow your policy. That just creates a hullabaloo.

It's only a hullabaloo when the ones you fire turn out to be quite competent, but won't follow your orders to politically prosecute people. This is exactly the case which happened last year.

Cycloptichorn

Malarkey!

Anatomy of a scandal

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Bill Clinton fired the entire staff of Justice Department attorneys that were appointed by previous presidents and replaced them with his own appointees. No reasons or explanations for Clinton exercising this presidential prerogative were ever given or requested by anyone: Democrat, Republican or independent.

This is a rather common thing to do when a new president from the other party is elected.

Cycloptichorn

But heaven forbid you forgo that action and wait to see who the competent atoorneys are and fire the ones that do not follow your policy. That just creates a hullabaloo.

It's only a hullabaloo when the ones you fire turn out to be quite competent, but won't follow your orders to politically prosecute people. This is exactly the case which happened last year.

Cycloptichorn

Malarkey!

Are you specifically alleging that these fired USAtty's did not have excellent performance reviews prior to their firing? Are you specifically alleging that they were not fired for a refusal to bring political prosecutions?

Your assertion of 'malarkey' is not compelling, as there is zero evidence to back it up.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Bill Clinton fired the entire staff of Justice Department attorneys that were appointed by previous presidents and replaced them with his own appointees. No reasons or explanations for Clinton exercising this presidential prerogative were ever given or requested by anyone: Democrat, Republican or independent.

This is a rather common thing to do when a new president from the other party is elected.

Cycloptichorn

But heaven forbid you forgo that action and wait to see who the competent atoorneys are and fire the ones that do not follow your policy. That just creates a hullabaloo.

It's only a hullabaloo when the ones you fire turn out to be quite competent, but won't follow your orders to politically prosecute people. This is exactly the case which happened last year.

Cycloptichorn

Malarkey!

Are you specifically alleging that these fired USAtty's did not have excellent performance reviews prior to their firing? Are you specifically alleging that they were not fired for a refusal to bring political prosecutions?

Your assertion of 'malarkey' is not compelling, as there is zero evidence to back it up.

Cycloptichorn

Your assertions are not compelling because you provided zero evidence to back them up.

The political litmus test applied by Bush to that small number of Justice Department attorneys that he fired was equivalent to the political litmus test applied by Clinton when he fired the entire group. Namely it was the objective of both Presidents to remove those attorneys perceived to be not capable of supporting the administration's policies as well as their replacements.

For more than a century, Presidents have applied this equivalent litmus test to all those Presidents have the lawful power to appoint and/or replace.

USA Constitution, Article II.Section 2.The President
...
shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Conservative, n. -- A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
-- Ambrose Bierce

I am not hereby defending or justifying the alleged perjury of staff members.

What follows is what I will say about the President's lawful right to hire and fire some members of his departments' staff.

Quote:

USA Constitution, Article II.Section 2.The President
...
shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Congress has by law vested "the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." One of many proofs of this is Clinton's unchallenged firing of a larger justice department attorney staff.

One more time:
Namely it was the objective of both Presidents to remove those attorneys perceived to be not capable of supporting the administration's policies as well as their replacements.

...
Problem is, the policies that they would not support are in violation of the law. The president cannot fire people for refusing to obey the law, and then expect to get away with it scot-free. Just ask Nixon about how that sort of thing turns out.

Cycloptichorn

ican
Thanks.

Though it is too late to type, let me put forth this views before i go to bed.

1 Democrats are generally for abortion
Republicans are generally opposed to abortion unless of course it is one's own daughter that got knocked up, in which case the decent thing to do is to ship her off to some distant city where private but expensive medical care can be provided and the local community is spared the details.

2 Democrats believe that wild animals should have all the rights of humans, protected from any harm and allowed to die slow and agonizing deaths like most of the world's humans do.

Republicans believe that wild animals were put here for the sport of hunting, provide a little expensive but gamy and tough meat, and an occasional fur coat for the missus
Because Democrats are genetically compassionate, they are opposed to capital punishment especially if it is someone who has tortured and molested 27 women and children to death as it is self evident that such a person has had a bad childhood, probably having his pacifier forcibly taken before he was nine years old. However, Democrats do make an exception to this opinion, if the victims were actually a close friend or part of the family. That family includes the family of government employees such as those that were blown up in Oklahoma City. In cases like that, the guy ought to be hung out in the sun by his testicles and left to die a slow death.

The Republican's position on this issue is clear and is based upon the Judeo/Christian bible: an eye for an eye.

4Democrats love children as a group but find individual children a pain in the butt. "We do it for the children" is an extremely effective slogan for the populace whether the particular program at issue is robbing the tobacco companies or grabbing more land in Colorado. The annoyance of individual children is easily appeased by hiring illegal aliens for house nannies.

Republicans love individual children but find supporting the class of children as not part of God's plan
http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71

3
3

Book of Exodus, Chapter 20
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me; thou shall not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shall not bow down unto them , nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, nor thy wife, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid- servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.

Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Thou shalt not commit murder.

Thou shalt not commit adultery or fornicate.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.

USA Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

USA Constitution, Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

USA Constitution, Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

USA Constitution, Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

bigoted opinions
Ihave none.
I observe the world as it is and expose my ignorance as well.

NBC's Williams confirms that McCain camp made no offer to cover McCain's trip abroad.

Right wing media figures have been charging that the media is "biased" because the three major network news anchors accompanied Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) on his current trip overseas and ignored Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ). But, as ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Newsweek has reported that McCain "chose not to take reporters" with him to Europe, thus making the Right's charges baseless. Yesterday during an interview on the UK's Channel 4 News, NBC News anchor Brian Williams confirmed Newsweek's report:

http://thinkprogress.org/

O'Reilly, Ingraham: Saying That U.S. Tortures Is �'One Of The Most Hateful Stereotypes About America'

Last night on the O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly and guest Laura Ingraham slammed Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for declaring in Berlin yesterday that the U.S. will "reject torture and stand for the rule of law." "Enough is enough with this torture nonsense," O'Reilly whined, declaring it "rank anti-American propaganda" to claim the U.S. has tortured people.

Ingraham agreed, calling the claim "ridiculous." She was furious he mentioned torture while abroad:

...

http://thinkprogress.org/

Bush: 'No regime should ignore the will of its own people.'

In a statement regarding new sanctions against Zimbabwe today, President Bush declares that "no regime should ignore the will of its own people":

The regime has also continued its ban against NGO activities that would provide assistance to the suffering and vulnerable people of Zimbabwe. No regime should ignore the will of its own people and calls from the international community without consequences.

TPM's Eric Kleefeld notes the irony of the Bush administration, which proudly ignores public opinion in the United States, instructing other countries to listen to "the will of its own people." Kleefeld suggests that the administration look at "the direction of polling data at home �- not to mention international opinion �- showing that people want a timetable to withdraw from Iraq."

http://thinkprogress.org/

State Dept. Double Standard: Diplomats Barred From Obama's Berlin Speech, But Not McCain's In Ottawa

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Embassy in Berlin "instructed Foreign Service personnel stationed there not to attend Sen. Barack Obama's [D-IL] public rally" in Tiergarten Park because the event is "'partisan political activity�' prohibited under its regulations for those serving overseas."

...

But the ruling �- which Kennedy admitted is unprecedented �- appears to indicate a double standard from the State Department. Last June, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) delivered a speech to the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa. The event was reportedly organized in part by U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins, whom President Bush appointed in 2005. But more than that, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa confirmed to ThinkProgress that Wilkins also attended the event.

http://thinkprogress.org/