The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

The Bush administration violated Federal statues. That's what is different. Do none of you remember that big report that came out last summer showing just how pathetically political they made the DOJ?

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/ju.../doj_07-28.html

Edited March 14, 2009 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

The Bush administration violated Federal statues. That's what is different. Do none of you remember that big report that came out last summer showing just how pathetically political they made the DOJ?

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/ju.../doj_07-28.html

It is much easier for people to make out Obama to be "THE SAME" as Bush, than to acknowledge these differences. Regardless of the fact that they are quite clearly not the same.

 

[kapkomet]

The Bush administration violated Federal statues. That's what is different. Do none of you remember that big report that came out last summer showing just how pathetically political they made the DOJ?

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/ju.../doj_07-28.html

 

 

It is much easier for people to make out Obama to be "THE SAME" as Bush, than to acknowledge these differences. Regardless of the fact that they are quite clearly not the same.

This kills me. OF COURSE the DOJ is political. It always has been and it always will be. How about Supreme Court Justices? Hmmmm. It's political! Wow, who would have thunk it?

 

It was easier for Clinton to fire the whole lot because there was 12 years of Republican control. Don't EVEN say that wasn't political.

 

Obama is going to get the people he wants based on their ideology. PERIOD. Oh wait, he's got Republicans in his cabinet! Please. That's for show.

 

NSS, this isn't fairy tale land. No offense, but Obama is NOT that much different then Bush was. In fact, I would argue in a lot of ways from what I've seen since election day, Obama is worse, because at least with Bush, you knew the dirty crap was coming because they told you. With Obama, if you criticize, the mud starts slinging from behind and the knifes come out to attack.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

This kills me. OF COURSE the DOJ is political. It always has been and it always will be. How about Supreme Court Justices? Hmmmm. It's political! Wow, who would have thunk it?

 

It was easier for Clinton to fire the whole lot because there was 12 years of Republican control. Don't EVEN say that wasn't political.

 

Obama is going to get the people he wants based on their ideology. PERIOD. Oh wait, he's got Republicans in his cabinet! Please. That's for show.

 

NSS, this isn't fairy tale land. No offense, but Obama is NOT that much different then Bush was. In fact, I would argue in a lot of ways from what I've seen since election day, Obama is worse, because at least with Bush, you knew the dirty crap was coming because they told you. With Obama, if you criticize, the mud starts slinging from behind and the knifes come out to attack.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

I've said this a whole bunch of times, but... I think many of Obama's supporters AND his detractors went into the election with the wrong idea of how things would go. Some of his most avid supporters thought he'd go in there and change the world overnight, which is just not possible. Many of his biggest critics claimed the exact same thing - that he would change everything, and for the worse. Then there was a third set of people, also critics of Obama, who thought he'd be exactly the same, that they are all the same, etc.

 

None of them were right then, and none are right now. He's doing what history, and his own words, told us he would do. He is different than Bush, and is making some significant changes, but not at nearly the scale or scope that many were duped into thinking he would. So not, he is not the same or even close to the same as Bush. But no, he is not our savior.

 

[kapkomet]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

I've said this a whole bunch of times, but... I think many of Obama's supporters AND his detractors went into the election with the wrong idea of how things would go. Some of his most avid supporters thought he'd go in there and change the world overnight, which is just not possible. Many of his biggest critics claimed the exact same thing - that he would change everything, and for the worse. Then there was a third set of people, also critics of Obama, who thought he'd be exactly the same, that they are all the same, etc.

 

None of them were right then, and none are right now. He's doing what history, and his own words, told us he would do. He is different than Bush, and is making some significant changes, but not at nearly the scale or scope that many were duped into thinking he would. So not, he is not the same or even close to the same as Bush. But no, he is not our savior.

I understand where you are coming from.

 

B-b-b-b-but ... () the guy is JUST as political as every other one of them if not moreso. Especially when you have staff meetings with the press every day to get your talking points out there to railroad non-government people. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about... nothing has changed, in fact, it's the Clinton war room on steroids. Oh wait, it IS the Clinton war room, except they are much more up front that they will take out who they don't need.

 

[Cknolls]

I don't really understand this. It seems like Obama is legally allowed to replace these US Attorneys, but why was Bush not allowed to do the same?

 

 

Because he was a right wing nut job.

[Balta1701]

The Bush attorney replacement scandal was not a scandal because of the fact that the attorneys were replaced. I went through this a couple years ago and I'll go through it again.

 

The scandal was a scandal because of why the attorneys were replaced...because the people at the top wanted them to bring phony voter fraud prosecutions as a way to intimidate/keep minorities and poor people from voting. And the scandal was a particular scandal because they tried to cover it up.

 

The President of course is fully within his rights to replace the attorneys for any reason. Bush could have even fired Fitzgerald to try to stop the Libby investigation. He had the power to do so and no one could have stopped him. The only reason they didn't was the PR hit they'd take (documents have shown that they considered it at the highest levels).

 

The underlying crimes weren't replacing the attorneys. They were the efforts at voter disenfranchisement (specifically illegal caging lists and illegal purging of voter lists), the fact that after it was discovered, they were called before Congress and Gonzalez in particular lied about why he'd arranged for those attorneys to be replaced (lying to Congress under oath is still a crime whether you're lying to cover up another crime or just lying to cover your boss's political arse). Oh, and making all of the documents that were supposed to be preserved disappear...that's a crime also.

 

The underlying crime in the DOJ politicization case was violations of the Hatch Act, which is intended to prohibit federal employees from being hired/fired based on their political leanings (and we have more than a few cases where political position was inappropriately used as a qualification for employment) and use of federal employees directly for campaign related activities.

 

The President does have the power to go quite far politicizing the DOJ. And he has the right to replace the U.S. attorneys at his whim for whatever reason, including shutting down investigations of himself or people within his party. The President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys who are unwilling to use their position to intimidate the political opposition. The President and his minions do not have the right to lie about that under oath.

 

And finally, I'd argue that the whole case makes a very compelling argument that the DOJ in particular needs to be significantly more independent of the White House than it currently is...a matter for Congress to take up. Unfortunately, had the Dems put together a package to fix that problem last Congress it would have been filibustered, and unfortunately now the Democratic Congress isn't likely to take on the President in that way. There are multiple things that need fixed here, I'll be the first to agree to that. This is one of many areas where the executive branch's power has grown too far.

[kapkomet]

The Bush attorney replacement scandal was not a scandal because of the fact that the attorneys were replaced. I went through this a couple years ago and I'll go through it again.

 

The scandal was a scandal because of why the attorneys were replaced...because the people at the top wanted them to bring phony voter fraud prosecutions as a way to intimidate/keep minorities and poor people from voting. And the scandal was a particular scandal because they tried to cover it up.

 

The President of course is fully within his rights to replace the attorneys for any reason. Bush could have even fired Fitzgerald to try to stop the Libby investigation. He had the power to do so and no one could have stopped him. The only reason they didn't was the PR hit they'd take (documents have shown that they considered it at the highest levels).

 

The underlying crimes weren't replacing the attorneys. They were the efforts at voter disenfranchisement (specifically illegal caging lists and illegal purging of voter lists), the fact that after it was discovered, they were called before Congress and Gonzalez in particular lied about why he'd arranged for those attorneys to be replaced (lying to Congress under oath is still a crime whether you're lying to cover up another crime or just lying to cover your boss's political arse). Oh, and making all of the documents that were supposed to be preserved disappear...that's a crime also.

 

The underlying crime in the DOJ politicization case was violations of the Hatch Act, which is intended to prohibit federal employees from being hired/fired based on their political leanings (and we have more than a few cases where political position was inappropriately used as a qualification for employment) and use of federal employees directly for campaign related activities.

 

The President does have the power to go quite far politicizing the DOJ. And he has the right to replace the U.S. attorneys at his whim for whatever reason, including shutting down investigations of himself or people within his party. The President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys who are unwilling to use their position to intimidate the political opposition. The President and his minions do not have the right to lie about that under oath.

 

And finally, I'd argue that the whole case makes a very compelling argument that the DOJ in particular needs to be significantly more independent of the White House than it currently is...a matter for Congress to take up. Unfortunately, had the Dems put together a package to fix that problem last Congress it would have been filibustered, and unfortunately now the Democratic Congress isn't likely to take on the President in that way. There are multiple things that need fixed here, I'll be the first to agree to that. This is one of many areas where the executive branch's power has grown too far.

 

Oh the hypocracy.

 

[Balta1701]

 

Oh the hypocracy.

I'm trying to figure out what that means. Did I lie to Congress at some point? Did someone I support? Did the President lie to Congress? Do you think I'm Roger Clemens? I'm not.

[kapkomet]

I'm trying to figure out what that means. Did I lie to Congress at some point? Did someone I support? Did the President lie to Congress? Do you think I'm Roger Clemens? I'm not.

 

Sorry, Mr. Clemens. Hee hee.

 

I was referring to BJ Clinton.

 

But if you ever get important enough to testify in front of Congress, let me know. I will support you even if I disagree, pal.

 

[Balta1701]

Link

“THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010.”

 

So reports Michael Goldfarb, late of the McCain campaign, on the magazine’s blog.

 

Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address—and Petraeus must know this—it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.

[lostfan]

Petraeus > Jindal > Sanford >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Palin

 

I have no idea if Gen. Petraeus is a registered Republican though.

[bmags]

Petraeus > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jindal > Sanford >> Palin

 

I have no idea if Gen. Petraeus is a registered Republican though.

 

Neither was Eisenhower.

[lostfan]

Neither was Eisenhower.

Leaving so few greater-than brackets between Jindal/Sanford and Palin is kinda unfair. Need to add another 10 or 12.

[mr_genius]

Link

 

seems unlikely he runs for president, but you never know i suppose

[southsider2k5]

One of those random emails that you get, I don't know if it is true or not, but I lol'd.

 

Top 10……Poverty in Our Major Cities

 

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

 

1. Detroit , MI 32.5%

 

2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%

 

3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%

 

4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%

 

5. Miami , FL 26.9%

 

5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%

 

7. El Paso , TX 26.4%

 

8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%

 

9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%

 

10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

 

 

 

 

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

 

 

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

 

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

 

Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;

 

Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;

 

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

 

St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;

 

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

 

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

 

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

 

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

[lostfan]

Chicago would be a glaring exception to that list since I don't think it's had a Republican mayor in like 80 years.

[NorthSideSox72]

Chicago would be a glaring exception to that list since I don't think it's had a Republican mayor in like 80 years.

Its a silly selection bias list anyway.

 

[Balta1701]

WaPo.

A Pennsylvania defense research center regularly consulted with two "handlers" close to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) as it collected nearly $250 million in federal funding through the lawmaker, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post and sources familiar with the funding requests. The center then channeled a significant portion of the funding to companies that were among Murtha's campaign supporters.

The House Democrats are currently holding up an ethics investigation of Congressman Murtha, I believe using a rule-weakening change instituted by the Republicans to protect Tom Delay. This of course, needs to stop. I encourage right wing ranting and raving at this point.

[mr_genius]

WaPo.

The House Democrats are currently holding up an ethics investigation of Congressman Murtha, I believe using a rule-weakening change instituted by the Republicans to protect Tom Delay. This of course, needs to stop. I encourage right wing ranting and raving at this point.

 

liberals and conservatives must unite and focus rants on such abuses.

[lostfan]

liberals and conservatives must unite and focus rants on such abuses.

[Cknolls]

WaPo.

The House Democrats are currently holding up an ethics investigation of Congressman Murtha, I believe using a rule-weakening change instituted by the Republicans to protect Tom Delay. This of course, needs to stop. I encourage right wing ranting and raving at this point.

 

 

Didn't Peolsi say she was going to run the most honest House ever. MORE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!!

[kapkomet]

Didn't Peolsi say she was going to run the most honest House ever. MORE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!!

Agreed.

 

 

[lostfan]

Didn't Peolsi say she was going to run the most honest House ever. MORE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!!

That's Obama's slogan, Obama and Pelosi really don't even like each other that much.

[kapkomet]

That's Obama's slogan, Obama and Pelosi really don't even like each other that much.

Botox Pelosi said it quite a bit in 2006 too.