Back in January, a GD thread was started concerning the firing of several US Attorneys. Bricker saw fit to weigh in with a nitpicking post that concluded:
Later, clarifying his position he stated:
That thread ended shortly thereafter.
But the pesky issue didn’t go away, and a new GD thread was initiated when it began to pick up steam in the beginning of March. That thread now stretches over 3 pages, and contains at least some modicum of evidence greater than “vague suppositions” suggesting that there might have been more inaccurate terms than “evil master plan” to describe the administration’s efforts.
I’m just wondering what you folks think of Bricker’s apparent choice to absent himself from this discussion?
In defense, that there may be more evidence now doesn’t make his choice to poo-poo earlier claims a poor position. Like he himself said, his issue was with the evidence, not with the claim itself, and although I can’t speak for him it does seem to me like he would be willing to take these developments into consideration.
The first time it gets mentioned - when it is an obscure news story - he jumps in just over 3 hrs after the OP for his sarcastic, dismissive nitpick.
Now that it has become a hot news item - uh - he just hasn’t gotten around to checking out the boards the last week or so? Oh wait a minute - he posted in other GD threads days after the second thread was begun.
Well maybe he didn’t see it. Well, it has consistently been on the top of page 1, with all those caps in the title.
But you’re right. There has to be some perfectly understandable explanation. Maybe he is “out of the loop.” I believe that line worked for the incumbent’s daddy.
His life in the last week appears to include posting 33 times, primarily in GD and the Pit. One might suspect that he’s noticed the threads, particularly since he was indeed on fire to jump into the first one.
I think he’s like most conservatives around here. Full of bluster until the shit hits the fan. Then they scramble. Some of them even make tearful goodbye posts and bemoan the hardening of partisan positions before they go.
He just doesn’t have the stones to take a bite of the big shit sandwich that he ordered. In my humble opinion, that is.
Oh come on. Did you get that from the O’Reilly Factor?
US Attorneys always have a clearing out when an adminsitration changes. This is in the middle of the term, which usually only happens in cases of ethics violations or incompetence. The US Attorneys chosen had either investigated Republicans or ignored requests from Republicans to investigate or indict Democrats, or possessed a position coveted by a Republican hack. The justification given was “performance issues,” but they all had glowing performance evaluations.
I would also point out that Bricker is an attorney in the DC area who works with government agencies. I’m not being cryptic, I believe that’s all he’s chosen to share. But for all we know there may be other reasons why he would not now post to a thread about a developing DOJ situation.
Crap, instead of posting a second time, I edited away my first post. Which was:
Haven’t we all? Simply going away is an often used means to avoid further discussion. But without defending Bricker, ISTM that a person who might have been willing to try to defend the DOJ on the US Attorney issue under the facts known in early January, might not be willing to defend the DOJ under the facts known today. Since when do we Pit people for NOT engaging in debates?
Bricker’s original post, although full of skepticism, does not seem to require any “tail between the legs” contrition at all. Anyway, who cares whether he comes in and posts, “Looks like this story has legs”? Is there some sort of scoreboard somewhere?
You’re not on the distribution list for that memo, Oakminster. But the rule does still apply to you. In fact, there’s another memo due out this afternoon (same distribution list, sorry) that calls attention to posters who have been lax in this regard, and IIRC, you’re pretty prominently featured…
