Cautiously optimistic
The really, really good thing about our republic is that it is designed to resist the rise fascism. Even though the US is a long ways away from a fascist state, the Bush administration has displayed fascist behavior on numerous occasions. Alberto Gonzales has been one of his chief enforcers and ideological warriors. He has demonstrated his willingness to re-shape the legal tradition in the US by twisting the constitution in support of torture and scrapping the writ habeas corpus, the combination of which have the potential to turn the FBI into the United States Secret Police.
It shouldn't really come as a surprise, then, that Gonzales thinks it is perfectly acceptable to use the Patriot Act to justify secret spying on ordinary citizens. It shouldn't come as a surprise that he is clearly willing to use the enforcement arm of the US legal system to influence elections. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the entire adminsitration would view politcal purges of federal prosecutors as standard operating procedure.
Fortunately for all of us, freedom and civil rights is more than just a bit of Bush sloganeering on the way to Iraq. Most Americans take our rights seriously - particularly those people in the lower reaches of government whose job it is to enforce them. While the Bush Cabal believes they are above the law and the constitution and believe their ideological ends justify any means they choose, they have yet to realize that this is a completely foreign concept to most Americans. The idea of prosecuting voter fraud cases in order to influence elections is so starkly corrupt and so fundamentally attacks the foundation of the "Shining City on the Hill," that I believe most of us will have no problem tossing these thugs aside.
Transparency is winning. It confuses the poor totalitarian wannabes in office. Gonzalez is wielding the hatchet on his own legs. I am glad for that.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 3:28 PM |
| 
7 Comments:
Chris,
How many US attorneys did Bill Clinton "purge"?
Do you happen to remember why?
That's right! Impeach Clinton again!
The answer to Mberg's question, Chris, is all of them:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00612F73C540C778EDDAA0894DB494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill
You guys are too wordy in your rebuttals. Let's distill things a bit more.
"But Clinton!"
There. All done.
Now you can save your big thinking for the Conservapedia.
Mitch, aside from the fact that Clinton's activities have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Bush is spitting on the constitution, they didn't do the same thing.
Look at the dates, friend. Every president replaces all attorneys upon taking office. As part of the transition process, Clinton replaced Bush Sr's and Reagan's appointees after two months in office.
Dopeya, on the other hand, has fired his own appointees after 2 or six years. It's just another sad comment on the Bush Way that he is vetting his own lackeys for basically refusing an illegal request. Further, what was requested of them - election influencing - is on another scale entirely than a very tenuous *Republican* allegation about Dan Rostenkowski.
"Every president replaces all attorneys upon taking office."
Bullshit Chris ... yet another Big Lie parroted from left wing talking points ...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
"At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: 'All those people are routinely replaced,' he told reporters, 'and I have not done anything differently.' In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition."
With such brilliant and original commentary here ... I'm amazed your regular readership hasn't cracked into double digits yet ...
*rolls his eyes*
Dude - "Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired."
Which, given the fact that they are appointed at the pleasure of the President to 4 year terms means mass replacement every time a new President takes office. What was unusual, but probably not unprecedented, was that Clinton did it all at once, at the BEGINNING, of his terms.
But again, can you explain to me what this has to do with the current crime? Or are you saying that we should seek to establish a legal precedent preventing the prosecution of a crime because other people MAY have done the same thing?
Maybe should have not convicted Ted Bundy, because, ya know, so and so was accused of the same thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home