Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

RE: The Fired Attorneys (I'm just ranting a little)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 09:48 PM
Original message
RE: The Fired Attorneys (I'm just ranting a little)
Of course I know that Repubs get their daily marching orders and are only too happy to trot themselves before the cameras for their recitals, no matter how inane. But in the wake of the attorney scandal (and has it been called "Lawyergate" in the press yet?), one particular soundbyte has annoyed me more than the others.

We've repeatedly heard Repubs point out that Clinton removed 93 attorneys in 1993, as if this is at all relevant. Can someone explain to me how it matches up to a midterm wave of retributive firings? Sure, they all serve at the President's pleasure blah blah blah, but why does no one in the press complain when this bogus comparison is made again and again?

If you turn on CSPAN's Washington Journal and listen for more than 20 minutes, you're all but guaranteed to hear a Republidrone calling in to parrot that same objection.

Who's being fooled by this idiocy? Idiots?

AAArrrrghh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's not working for them except for their idiot base.
Even the MSM is pointing out the differences between what Clinton did and what Bush did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Clinton replaced all the US A's when he came on board.
Edited on Thu Mar-15-07 10:01 PM by Old and In the Way
That's a President's perrogative. He has a right to put in a slate of Federal Attorney's who will focus on the priorities of that President. Clinton did force 2 out during his term...from the Washington Monthly-http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...

"As it happens, the Congressional Research Service has just released a report on this. It appears two resigned under pressure -- one because he grabbed a TV reporter by the throat on camera, and the second having been accused of biting a topless dancer."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jcrew2001 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. its political
I love how RW are saying that the excuse is the "everything" is political - BUT Clinton ousted attorney's from the past administration so he could put in his own.

GW Bush is ousting is OWN fed attorney's because he doesn't want them investingating Republicans.

GW Bush is taking a plan out of the DUMB and DUMBER playbook.

He looks like an idiot for installing the Fed Attorney's at the beginning and now firing these attorneys, not for performance, but to cover-up corruption investigations.

This present day scenario is Completely different than what happened in 1993.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Clearly you didn't get the memo
Bush fired them not to cover up rampant corruption but because they were insufficiently aggressive in prosecuting vote suppression. Why are you opposed to letting people vote? Why do you seek to keep people from the polls? Why do you hate America?

It sickens me. The mere fact that these mindless dolts are allowed on-air is baffling to me. The fact that their wild assertions are largely unchallenged is an affront to journalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. dude...it's completely different
in that Clinton's appointees had to go through congressional hearings..while Bush's are exempt from that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 05:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC