It took a long time for the fortifications around the White House to begin to crumble, but once they did, hoo boy!
Is there any rule, regulation, or law that this White House has not side-stepped, evaded, ignored, or simply broken? Whether they needed to or not? I mean, what possible political advantage could they have gained from this? Republican employees are already going to support Republican candidates.
The sleaziness of this administration, and its disdain for even the most basic rules of the game continues to amaze and disgust me. Is there no improper stone left unturned?
Or it could make an apolitical worker feel he has to support the Republicans to get promoted.
The Soviet Union did this kind of thing - you had to be a party member to get anywhere, and there were political commissars (the Republican commissar story came out a few weeks ago) everywhere.
Has anyone ever seen Rove and Stalin together? I submit we call all Bushies Reds, because it certainly seems they are getting their political ideas from Uncle Joe’s big book of one party rule. Lucky for us they’re incompetent, or we would really be in trouble.
Its a shuck. They got a tame investigator who will thoroughly investigate. Thoroughly. Might take a couple years, to be really, really thorough. In the meantime, of course, the WH cannot have any comment on an ongoing investigation. And Congress certainly doesn’t need any investigatory power when the matter is clearly in competent and professional hands…
Right now I have to take Bloch at his word that he will be impartial and thorough. I don’t think you can assume that just because you’re a Republican appointee that you’re incapable of doing your duty.
If only the Bush administration had focused as much energy on such things as thinking through the aftermath of the Iraq invasion or hurrican relief as it did on trying to ensure perpetual one-party rule, then Bush’s legacy might be halfway decent.
What makes Rove stand out as an evil figure for me is that he is not trying to promote his party through honest debate on the issues, he is using the machinery of government to try to exterminate the opposition.
David Iglesias (the fired US Attorney from New Mexico) is reportedly the person who filed the complaint that led to the investigation. He seems to have some confidence in Bloch. I can’t say that I agree fully, but I’m willing to trust Iglesias’s judgment for the time being.
Try renting out property in an Army town and specifying, “No military.” We did that back when I owned property, and decided to put our money where our principles were – it was definitely bottom-of-the-line low-rent property, not substandard but barely squeaking by. So we wanted to make it available to the low-income families that the Army influx had displaced. I think every bureaucrat in 100 miles wrote us a letter on how illegal it was to want to do so. (Note to ACLU and PFTAW: that’s one that needs incorporation into the 14th yet.)
Now, the Seventh, I don’t think they’ve fucked with.
So your principles involve discriminating against renters on the basis of their job? Those seem like funny principles to me.
And as a Navy veteran who once lived in a town that at one time openly barred sailors from certain establishments, I frankly don’t take too kindly to it.
The fourth amendment applies to your home. It doesn’t mean you ought to be allowed to discriminate against military renters when you rent property out, any more than you should be able to discriminate against minorities.
I like you, Polycarp, and I get along with you pretty well here. But you earned those letters you received - and you’re lucky you didn’t get your ass sued off. It would have served you right.
Right. When slumlords were renting property for what Welfare rental assistance was willing to pay – until Army housing allowance came along and paid 2.5 times as much for the same properties? So a woman with two small kids and a 25-hour-a-week minimum wage job that literally would not pay her monthly rent could be booted out on the street.
Pay attention to what I said I was doing, instead of kneejerking (that’s supposed to be the reflex on my side of the spectrum – conservative kneejerk reactions are against some rule or other ;)). I wanted to provide a place for the people that were being displaced by the Army families moving in – who were, thanks to Army housing allowances, able to pay a higher rent than the landlords had been able to get. The people who were getting hurt were the working poor. I wanted to help fix that – not play “anti-military.” (I normally support the military, if you’d read past stereotype, unless the specific military people in question are lying to cover something up.)
Gotcha. I understand that. But you do understand that you were in violation of the law because of problems in the past with renters who would not rent to soldiers and sailors for less charitable reasons, don’t you?