[QUOTE=Squink]
What’d McCain have to say?
[/QUOTE]
He didn’t weigh in on the matter until this afternoon, and then gave a “No comment”.
Boy…there aren’t enough baskets in the world to put all that courage the Republican presidential candidates are showing in, is there?
McCain’s done. He just doesn’t realize it yet.
His kissing up to the evangelicals is just too little, too late. Sorry, Johnny.
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
McCain’s done. He just doesn’t realize it yet.
His kissing up to the evangelicals is just too little, too late. Sorry, Johnny.
[/QUOTE]
The Republican field for 2008 is kind of sad, isn’t it? I can’t see ANY of these people being presidential material, period, and certainly not for the modern Republican party. I don’t get a sense that even any Republicans are particularly hyped up about this group…
[QUOTE=jayjay]
The Republican field for 2008 is kind of sad, isn’t it? I can’t see ANY of these people being presidential material, period, and certainly not for the modern Republican party. I don’t get a sense that even any Republicans are particularly hyped up about this group…
[/QUOTE]
They’re not. Why do you think they’re all aflutter about Gingrich rising from the political dead? You have to know they’re in trouble if they’re fawning over that hack.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Seems that Bush today referred to the U.S. attorney firings as a “customary practice.”
Yeah. An ancient custom dating back to 2006. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
I started shouting in my car coming home from school when I heard him say that. “********! Absolute ********! Clinton and Reagan replaced attorneys when they first entered office – that’s common practice! You fired these guys halfway through your second term because they wouldn’t investigate Democrats enough!This is completely unprecedented ********!” [somewhat verbatim (and bowdlerized since this isn’t the Pit), I don’t remember everything I yelled at the radio.]
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Ooooh, this just gets better! 
Now John Conyers wants Karl Rove to testify under oath about his role in this business!
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
But the WH is vowing to block it.
[/QUOTE]
But why? What’s one of our current favorite mantras?
“If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Right, terrorist?”
-Joe
Meanwhile, investigative journalist Greg Palast says the real mover-and-shaker here is Harriet Miers – and she’s done this kind of thing for Bush before.
I’m just glad she’s not on the Supreme Court. Dodged a bullet there!
[QUOTE=jayjay]
The Republican field for 2008 is kind of sad, isn’t it? I can’t see ANY of these people being presidential material, period, and certainly not for the modern Republican party. I don’t get a sense that even any Republicans are particularly hyped up about this group…
[/QUOTE]
There was a poll in the Times that showed exactly that. The Dems are much happier with their candidates.
Giuliani the front runner? :rolleyes: When they find out he had a life before 9/11, that will evaporate real quick.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
But there is no modern day Howard Baker. Plus there’s a difference between an impeachment resulting in President Ford than one that leads to President Cheney. With only 50 true Democrats in the Senate, no way is there enough votes to convict even if impeached.
[/QUOTE]
As a watcher of the Watergate hearings, it captured the attention of everyone long before Nixon was directly implicated. It was great theater for one thing - if the Dems can hold televised hearings that starts to drag in more and more scandals, they’ll have a hit. Anyhow I doubt the goal is impeachement, which is absurd at this late date, but just weaking him enough so that a Dem is a shoo-in in 2008, and we can halt the erosion of rights. We might not get a great AG, but if we get one as much better than Gonzalez as Gates is over Rummy, it would be good.
[QUOTE=Apos]
Sam Stone’s “did you get this upset when Clinton replaced all of Bush I’s attorneys” is now the official misleading, hopeful-they’ll-completely-miss-the-point talking point.
[/QUOTE]
By the way, George W. mentioned this ridiculous talking point during his press conference today, claiming that what they did was nothing different than what other presidents have done. As Richard Wolffe mentioned on Olberman tonight, who on earth is he trying to fool with this line of crap? (I’m guessing the 30% who still believe he he doing a good job.)
[QUOTE=Frostillicus]
(I’m guessing the 30% who still believe he he doing a good job.)
[/QUOTE]
Why even bother? He could be wordlessly spooning gray matter from a baby’s peeled fontanelle and that 30% would manage to convince themselves the man was enjoying a bowl of cornflakes. By this point, they’re obviously in it all the way.
Exactly. According to the latest polls, George Bush enjoys at 75% approval rating among Republicans.
75%!
Let’s face it: they’re pretty far gone.
Check it out. Bush’s appointee Carol Lam has put Cunningham behind bars and has indicted the former #3 man at the CIA. The circle of corruption keeps widening, and possibly encompasses a member of the House of Representatives (Jerry Lewis, CA Rep, 41st district).
Things are getting hot in the kitchen.
If you are George Bush you will fire Ms. Lam for excessive dedication to the rule of law. If you are the gelded press, you swallow the “Just a personnel matter” shtick. If you are a conservative blowhard, you make something up: since your audience members have supersensitive dispositions and blinkered naiveté, they will believe you.
And if you are a patriotic American, you follow the story at TPM Muckraker.com.
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Well, in Dubya’s speech today he said he had total confidence in ol’ Bert.
If that’s not the Orange X on his forehead, I don’t know what is.
[/QUOTE]
Next thing we know, he’ll be saying, “You’re doing a heckuva job, Gonzo!”
Time magazine’s latest on the scandal: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1599007-1,00.html
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Meanwhile, investigative journalist Greg Palast says the real mover-and-shaker here is Harriet Miers – and she’s done this kind of thing for Bush before.
[/QUOTE]
As much cred as I give to Palast, it’s hard for me to see Miers doing anything like this without clearing it in some detail with Unca Karl.
She may have done all the work, but on her own say-so? I don’t buy it for a second.
[QUOTE=Erik the Viking]
Next thing we know, he’ll be saying, “You’re doing a heckuva job, Gonzo!”
[/QUOTE]
And Hunter Thompson keeps on spinning in his grave…
Justice now disavows knowing about the sneaky insert to to Patriot Act renewal that got this whole plan rolling:
I wonder who first discovered this fortuitous easter egg?
Someone had a big ole shit eating grin on their face that day!
Nah, that’s not even a plausible scenario.
My God! It keeps getting better and better!
Are they actually going to claim/admit that this piece of shit legislation they had to fast track through contained stuff any old mid-level DOJ lawyer felt like tossing in, and no one even proofed the damn thing?
If that is the line they want to follow, I say presume the entire thing suspect and repeal it in its entirety, and proceed to enact whatever legislation appears warranted following studied debate.
Sorry - my mistake. Sounds like just about as much care went into extenting the PA, as initially enacting it.