Redstate

...fawning over their latest one night stand, John Sununu:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/fired.attorneys/index.html?eref=r...

--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch

...maybe (s)he can come back and tell us why not.

(1) It's not the same.

(2) The cost of the trips to fundraisers is reimbursed by the RNC.

(3) While there may have been some ineptness at the DOJ, the fact of the matter is that the President totally had and has the power to do what he did for any reason under the sun. See, e.g., Bill Clinton in 1993.

Is that the President should fly AirTran, Delta, or United out of DCA, because, you know, it's a campaign trip. If he wants to fly Air Force One, he should reimburse the $300,000.00 total cost -- Democrat and Republican Presidents alike.

He should also reimburse the White House for the costs of his family staying overnight because, you know, it's personal time, not Presidential time.

"What is best for the country" really is not the relevant question here. They serve at the pleasure of the President. The relevant question is why can't the President fire who he wants to fire when they serve at the pleasure of the President.

I'm not saying that the President should fly commercial or pay his hotel bill. Heck, I don't even mind if Nancy hops an Air Force 757 for a weekend in California.

What I am trying to point out in this example is that your apparent position that it is improper to use ANY taxpayer money for purposes which many tangentially help a political campaign isn't practical. Both sides do it and it is impossible to prevent. And in the grand scheme of things, Presidential road trips are far more costly than two-bit Senate investigations.

In terms of "what is best of the country" is in my humble opinion, something that should be asked by every politician before he or she makes any decision. Naive, I know.

However, in this specific case, I really think that it is important not to over politicize the USAs offices. It seems clear now that the 8 USAs were fired for purely partisan reasons and I think that was a poor decision. And I think an investigation is warranted here to understand which cases directly lead to the ouster of the eight. Clearly we don't want criminals escaping justice because of a change of prosecutors.

Your example of the President flying on Air Force One to political events is nothing more than a strawman. It doesn't make any sense to penalize the party of the President by making them pay for all of Air Force One's cost simply because it's the President making a speech and not someone else in his party. The President can't *stop* being the President just because he's making a political speech.

On the other hand, there's nothing written anywhere that the same person has to be both chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee and chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. In fact, if the latter position causes a conflict of interest with the former, then it would behoove Chuckie to give up one or the other. How can he possibly conduct an impartial investigation in the mornings as Judiciary subcommittee chairman and in the afternoons be feeding red meat to his base as DSCC chairman, ranting about the very events he's supposed to be investigating?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Yes, it seems entirely legal for the President to make the DOJ completely partisan. But I would ask you, is that what is best for the country?

No, it isn't. Tomorrow, bills need to be introduced to give all the current Bush Administration USA's civil service protection, and, as Achance has suggested, collective bargaining power.

to make "the DOJ completly partisan." It is entirely legal and appropriate to make the entire management of the DOJ entirely partisan. This seems to get lost in many people's understanding of how a government agency works. The staff attornies, researchers, paras, and so forth should be afforded civil service protections and free to give their principals their best professional advice and work product without regard to the political implications of that advice. Political management is then free to accept, reject, or modify that advice or product, so long as their action is legal and within their authority.

Where the hassles usually arise is when the staff attornies, or other high-level 'crats in other agencies, disagree with the action the political manager decides on and starts the leak and sabotage game. If you leave holdovers in the political management slots, as Republicans are wont to do, the leaks and sabotage comes from a higher level and is more effective.

As I've said over and over, a Republican MUST fire the political managers and if he or she can't replace them with loyal, competent Rs, leave the spot vacant and let the civil service employees just keep it running. If they step out of line and start playing politics, you smash them like a bug and they're much less likely to have a friendly legislator, Congressman, or reporter to whine to than would a holdover political appointee.

In Vino Veritas

I do not see how Schumer's behavior departs from the way things have always been done (as regrettable as that may be).

the answer you seek is that seems to be some indication that the USAs that were fired were prosecuting too many R's and not enough D's. Apparently, in one case, some senior R's in or around Chicago decided the best way to avoid prosecution was to get the local US Attorney replaced with one that would maintain a better D to R ratio. There definitely could be ethical issues if that actually occurred.

Also, as I currently understand it, the ratio of investigations by USAs of politicians since 2000 is 7 D's to 1 R. Either the Dems are much more corrupt than the R's or there is some political profiling occurring or maybe a bit of both.

But D's know Emile Zola's words by heart
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Couldn't you draw an analogy with impeachment, etc? I remember well all the GOP fundraising material I received that referred constantly to those investigations, so how do you distinguish that from what Schumer is doing.

I'm sure you might say that the investigations into Clinton involved serious allegations that demanded investigation in the greater public interest, and that it is stupid to say that Republicans should not have pointed to these very serious matters in their fundraising pitch ... but I'm sure Chucky would say the same thing.

So, who gets to decide that one side is right and the other wrong?

The same guy, Chuckie, is both leading an investigation as chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee, and leading the cheering section making political hay out of it as chairman of the DSCC.

He can't do the former job impartially while still doing the latter, at least not without having multiple personalities. He should give up one or the other.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community