Political influence in the AG office?

For me, the laffaire Gonzales is pure political theater. The outrage of Sen. Schumer is amusing at best, and annoying at worst.

Then I found this:

CROSSED THE LINE
For all of the posturing by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the testimony of former Department of Justice political appointee Monica Goodling, they and their Democrat colleagues in the Clinton administration went to far greater lengths to identify and track the political activities of career and politically appointed lawyers in the Department of Justice and elsewhere.

"We knew the political affiliation of every lawyer and political appointee we hired at the Department of Justice from January 1993 to the end of the Administration," says a former Clinton Department of Justice political appointee. "We kept charts and used them when it came time for new U.S. Attorney nominations, detailee assignments, and other hiring decisions. If you didn't vote Democrat, you weren't going anywhere with us. It was that simple."

In fact, according to this source, at least 25 career DOJ lawyers who were identified as Republicans were shifted away from jobs in offices they held prior to January 1993 and were given new "assignments" which were deemed "noncritical" or "nonpolitically influential." When these jobs shifts came to light in 1993, neither the House nor Senate Judiciary committees chose to pursue an investigation.

"The difference between then and now, is that they [Department of Justice] didn't coordinate so openly with the White House," says a former Clinton White House staffer. "Remember, we had our own separate database that we could cross check if we had names. Everybody today forgets about the databases we created inside the White House. It's funny no one talks about that anymore. We were doing stuff far more aggressively than this White House or the Department of Justice did."

Well, what now?

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
- H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

Ouch!

Further proof that you never want to get on the wrong side Christopher Hitchens.
Jimmy Carter is perhaps a little too easy, but then again, he deserves it.

Sigh . . .

At the above link, Jay Stevens of LITW thinks he makes some cogent points by linking to other half thought, or completely wrong assertions. More than anything, Jay exemplifies the problem with civil discourse. It feels like I am dealing with a severe schizophrenic when I read his stuff sometimes.
The most offensive to me though was the link about the doxa of the military being the true defenders of liberty and freedom. I became so enraged at the half truth and invalid assertions while reading the article that I couldn't finish it. Some of the points that the author was trying to make are that lawyers and protesters are greater guarantors of our freedom.
Sigh.
How do they get the right to protest or sue anyone, unless the military has provided the basic structure of stability necessary? The most amazing thing about the American military is that they could stage a coup at any moment, because no one has the force or capability to oppose them. Wait, you say, protesters would rise up, letters to the editor, the ACLU would be in the courts. If the military was as ruthless as some have insinuated they would move quickly to set an example by summary execution. And then what would we do?
Instead, the American military is made up of individuals who have the personal sense of loyalty to which they have sworn their allegiance: The Constitution of these United States!!!
God help us all if that ever goes away.

Impeach Bush

The Anchoress has a good point at the above link. We do need to impeach Bush!
As a general rule, I always tell my clients that they can do nothing about press coverage, and that the best thing to do is just shut up. Most want to write the newspaper and tell them all of the factual errors. I tell them that it just reopens the issue, and that the best thing to do is to present the full story to a jury, and let them sort it out.
But maybe in Bush's case, we should ask for an expedited trial schedule. In the past, I had seen impeachment as a waste of time. The House would vote articles of impeachment, but the Senate Republicans would remain as a block, just like their Democratic counterparts did, and there would be no impeachment.
But think about old Chuck Schumer being embarassed by the paucity of evidence to support the Left's favorite themes. If the case was fair, it would expose those who want to impeach Bush as either liars, political hacks or charlatans. Not serious minded folks.
One article that the Left may get a conviction on is that Bush is "incompetent." Okay, and what kind of a high crime or misdemeanor is that? And besides, wouldn't the defense be Jimmy Carter? The standard was set by him, and I don't even think that Bush has approached Carter's nadir.

The end of civilization as we know it.

So, Congress now wants to tax the Internet. I can see them drooling over it right now. A chance at a revenue stream that will continue to keep growing and growing. Since it is a sales tax, I hope that the Democrats realize how regressive of a tax that can be. If you figure that disposable income will by definition be less for poor people than the rich, then poor people will pay a higher proportion of their hard earned dollars than they should.
And I don't know if we have the ability right now to means test Internet connections.

I hate people telling me what to do

All of these do-gooders from Gov. Corzine to Al Gore and his private jets blowing more carbon for every trip to talk about global warming than I make in a year are driving me crazy.
Somehow, they all seem to think that they are our "leaders." No, they are our representatives. I don't want them telling me what to do especially when they are hypocrites, but I do want to tell them what they should be doing.

US Torture methods exposed!!

For all of the complaints about Gitmo and torture, the above link shows what torture really is.

Democrats are going to save us!!

At the above link, Democrats are going to force Detroit to make more fuel efficient cars. Now, why didn't someone think of this before? All of these automakers who are going bankrupt, somehow couldn't seem to figure out that the American consumer wanted a car that gets 35 mpg.
Well, with the Democrats telling them to do this now, I am sure that all of those pesky technological problems will just go away. I just wonder why they took so long.

Why Democrats are safe until 2012

Michale Barone has an interesting take of the demographic developments and it got me to thinking about the political fortunes of the Democratic party. First, the Democrats receive extremely favorable coverage from the mass media, so their generalized corruption will go unreported even if it is as flagrant as that which drove the Republicans from power. I anticipate a Democratic President, unless Hillary wins the nomination. More than likely it will be Obama, unless he falters and someone who isn't presently in the race comes in to save the day.
But the Democrats are getting set for a trap that they have made for themselves. Much has been made of repealing Bush's tax cuts, which I don't think will happen, but instead they will allow them to expire in 2010. Wealth will flow away from the soon to expire cuts, which will drive down tax revenues, and probably tank the bond market and stock markets as well.
2010 will also see the reapportionment of seats in Congress. Now think about it for a minute. Democratic President, and a Democratic Congress, and the economy tanks. I'm not so sure that Jon Tester will actually get re-elected.