Politico: Bush lining up replacement for Gonzales; Update: New e-mails show deep WH involvement in attorney firings?
posted at 7:29 pm on March 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The vultures are circling. I won’t be sorry to see him go, and neither will a lot of other conservatives.
In a sign of Republican despair, GOP political strategists on Capitol Hill said that it is too late for Gonzales’ departure to head off a full-scale Democratic investigation into the motives and timing behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
“Democrats smell blood in the water, and (Gonzales’) resignation won’t stop them,” said a well-connected Republican Senate aide. “And on our side, no one’s going to defend him. All we can do is warn Democrats against overreaching.”
A main reason Gonzales is finding few friends even among Republicans is that he has long been regarded with suspicion by conservatives who have questioned his ideological purity. In the past, these conservatives warned the White House against nominating him for the Supreme Court. Now they’re using the controversy over the firing of eight federal prosecutors to take out their pent-up frustrations with how he has handled his leadership at Justice and how the White House has treated Congress.
Complaints range from his handling of immigration cases to his alleged ceding of power in the department to career officials instead of movement conservatives.
Likely replacement: Chertoff. Possible replacement: Fred! Although if it’s Fred, that means he’s not running.
Specter’s making a halfhearted attempt to fling a little shinola back at Schumer, but I think we’re going to end up having to assume the position here and just take what comes. Rahm Emanuel is thinking big — conspiracy-theory big — but Pelosi will sedate him if he keeps up with that.
As for Bush, Bloomberg attributes his neverending political lucky streak to having “delegated to the point of detachment.” Which is a fine managerial style, provided you don’t also have crappy taste in personnel.
Update: Looks bad:
New e-mails released this evening by the Justice Department reveal the depth of White House involvement in the discussions to fire eight U.S. attorneys last year. The thousands of pages of e-mails suggest the White House was involved in the plan from the beginning.
The e-mails detail conversations about attorneys targeted for dismissal. There are no e-mails from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who reportedly does not use e-mail, though the Justice Department says messages show some indication that Gonzales’ former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, kept the attorney general apprised.
No details whatsoever yet about just how “deep” it goes, though. Question: How’d they manage to review thousands of pages in a few hours?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I hear Mike Nifong might need a job…
Slublog on March 19, 2007 at 7:35 PM
On the one hand im glad to see him go, on the other im sad to see Bush cave again. Especially since he was well within his rights to fire those guys.
Hopefully he will pick somebody good (NOT FRED!)and things will work out for the best.
amish on March 19, 2007 at 7:37 PM
I don’t think Miers was “crappy”. There’s a lot of daylight between “not ready for the supreme court” and “crappy”.
As for Gonzales, if it’s too late to head off an investigation Bush should stick by him. Otherwise it looks like he’s done something wrong, which as far as I can tell he hasn’t. I’m not the biggest Alberto fan in the world here, but this seems like a complete non-scandal to me.
see-dubya on March 19, 2007 at 7:39 PM
I didn’t say she was crappy. I said his taste was crappy. Michael Brown, Miers, Gonzales, Mineta…
Also, remember that they got rid of Miers two weeks after the election in anticipation of the Democrats’ subpoena blizzard. Once they needed real lawyering, they went elsewhere.
Allahpundit on March 19, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Beat me to it.
I like Mark Levin’s idea, find 6 democrat hold overs and fire their (butts) and say HA! what are you going to do about that?
- The Cat
MirCat on March 19, 2007 at 7:43 PM
So where’s our wartime consigliere?
Slublog on March 19, 2007 at 7:44 PM
bush is such a wimp. He had the balls to appoint (pandering) this lousy appointment, where his balls now to support him? Same place as his balls to support the Haditha Marines and the Border Patrol Agents. Same place as his balls to close the borders and send the illegal aliens (criminals) home. I am so sick of bush and his lack of leadership the past 3 years.
Wade on March 19, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Bush might cave because again the dems know the stupid conservatives won’t back him…It doesn’t matter who replaces him…they won’t fair any better. Weak weak people.
Conservatives keep giving freebies.
tomas on March 19, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Mixed feelings here. I won’t miss Gonzales one tiny little bit … but the fact that he is going to get thrown overboard for this absolute non-scandal which could have been prevented if Bush and his administration had even a hint of backbone just sickens me to no end.
If it wasn’t for Gore and Kerry, I would be ashamed to have voted for him twice.
thirteen28 on March 19, 2007 at 7:55 PM
No gumballs to be found Wade, that’s for sure.
If he had a real mean-streak, he’d fire 85 more of them so he could at least be even with Slick Willie.
I guess it’s too much to ask for a man to simply stand up, say what he means and tell the rest of us it’s his responsibility and his decision and his right to do it, so he did.
Next question. Helen?
BacaDog on March 19, 2007 at 8:00 PM
I am a conservative and why should I back bush? He is not a conservative, he is a RINO. I would be a stupid conservative if I backed him as I did in the past. He has deserted the conservatives and caused great harm to the party.
Wade on March 19, 2007 at 8:03 PM
you guys are no better than the leftists in this country. Bush stood up for man and a woman marriage and other issues as well. Selfish political snobbery.
tomas on March 19, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Though I apologize fr being off topic, these points bring me to my theory that a 4 party system isnt too far away. Too much disivion on both sides of the hall. I don’t see eye-to-eye with religious conservatives, and fiscal hawk democrats are feeling isolated from the nutroots. At a bare minimum 3. I think.
Ringmaster on March 19, 2007 at 8:12 PM
As I recall, Bush has promoted the FMA just before elections each time. Sorry, but cynical politics does not equal leadership to me.
Slublog on March 19, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Chertoff may be the logical replacement; doubt Fred would do it. The Paul Harvey gig gives him a forum for now before he decides to make the plunge. Wouldn’t make sense to join this administration unless it was for the VP job in the event Cheney had to step down for health reasons.
JammieWearingFool on March 19, 2007 at 8:16 PM
I will defend my president against all comers…you are weakening him around the world. It disgusts me.
tomas on March 19, 2007 at 8:17 PM
So where’s our wartime consigliere?
Pop had Genco and I’m stuck with this!
It’s not that I thought you were a bad consigliere. Santino was a bad Don.
TheBigOldDog on March 19, 2007 at 8:21 PM
I will defend my president against all comers…you are weakening him around the world. It disgusts me.
At some point, he’s got to defend himself a little. It’s like helping friend who always leans on you but never does any of the things they promise to do to help themselves. At some point, the act gets old and you have to cut the cord.
TheBigOldDog on March 19, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Well played, Slublog!
mikeyboss on March 19, 2007 at 8:25 PM
He stands for very few conservative issues. He is too middle of the road, trying to please everyone. What part of his stance on immigration do you like, tomas ? How about him locking arms with Kennedy (again) while telling Mexico he will do everything to keep the borders open. That is a leftist side of the issue. Get some coffee tomas the man is not conservative. I thing you mistake conservative dislike of bush with ‘bush bashing’ from the left. I think he has lost his leadership and I don’t like it one bit.
Wade on March 19, 2007 at 8:26 PM
It’s not that I thought you were a bad consigliere. Santino was a bad Don.
OUCH!
see-dubya on March 19, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Heh heh.
Egads, I love that movie.
Slublog on March 19, 2007 at 8:30 PM
He brought most this upon himself. His stance on some issues are not defendable. Please tell me tomas you are not for his stance of allowing paths to citizenship for criminals in this country.
Wade on March 19, 2007 at 8:34 PM
He stands for very few conservative issues. He is too
I never said he was conservative, but he is a republican and we are at war at he is a man of principle. He is a good christian.
tomas on March 19, 2007 at 8:36 PM
I’d be much more interested in standing by President Bush if he would stand up for himself once in a while. As it is I’m afraid I’d end up standing all by myself while he continued his agenda of pushing me and the other conservatives out of the party. He totally lost me on the border.
And if Fred is someone who Bush would think of to replace Gonzales then maybe I need to think a lot more about Fred for Pres in ‘08.
Buzzy on March 19, 2007 at 8:38 PM
You all spit on Ronald Reagan’s memory. He would fight for this president.
tomas on March 19, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I dunno about that.
The only good pick Bush has made is Tony Snow. The rest are just cronies.
PRCalDude on March 19, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Reagan also stood behind his people. He didn’t throw them under the bus every time the dems threatened an investigation.
Farmer_Joe on March 19, 2007 at 8:56 PM
The only good pick Bush has made is Tony Snow. The rest are just cronies
Cheney, Colin Powel, Condi Rice, Rummy…. cronies? I don’t think so…
TheBigOldDog on March 19, 2007 at 8:57 PM
tomas (sic) You bring up Reagan, no one else here mentioned him or spitting. Being a good Christian does not singularly qualify anyone to be a good president. Please answer my previous question about citizenship or are you too sick and disgusted. LOL
Wade on March 19, 2007 at 9:00 PM
and his nose
Wade on March 19, 2007 at 9:01 PM
I hope it’s not Fred Thompson for the wrong reasons. Of course…he could pass the Senate as ‘one of us’, be there for a year, then Mr. Cheney resigns…
Watch the same Lefties who want Mr. Gonzales out now, claim later that Mr. Bush and righties are mean to Latinos…I can just see that coming. Another planet couldn’t separate these idiosyncratic people from us more…
Entelechy on March 19, 2007 at 9:23 PM
What a strong leader GWB is! Selling out and throwing his own men to the mobs on demand. Wow!
Egfrow on March 19, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Farmer_Joe,
Bingo!!
Egfrow on March 19, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Bush has gone spineless. Let him spare us the grinding agony and get it over with quickly. Fire Rove and replace him with Schumer.
petefrt on March 19, 2007 at 9:26 PM
This just proves that if you give a turkey enough rope, it will hang itself.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 19, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Brutal crowd…I’m with tomas and will back the President until the end.
But we need Bush to stand behind his own choices, too.
I’ve never been a Gonzales fan, but I’m not the President–Time to cowboy up, President Bush. The Dems are like sharks and they think this non-scandal is blood in the water…
Don’t give them anymore heads! Rummy was enough (too much really).
P.S. I loved Reagan, too, but he let Ed Meese go and Alex Haig, too, for similar political reasons.
Jen the Neocon on March 19, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Point well taken, Jen. I’m still with Bush, since the alternatives are far worse. But I can barely stand it when he seems so spineless.
petefrt on March 19, 2007 at 9:49 PM
I am at at loss………..
Deep? It’s COMPLETELY LEGAL!!! They are POLITCAL APPOINTEES!!!
President Bush should instruct his Administration that if called before a committee, march down there in defiance, hold up documentation that Clinton fired all 93 (or 94 I keep loosing count), show them the law that it is legal, then tell them to shove it up their collective a”"es!
Rush had it right, talk to the American people through the cameras, and over the heads of these walking genital warts!
I am so sick of this, FIGHT BACK!
PinkyBigglesworth on March 19, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Welcoming illegal aliens
No Child Left Behind
Refusal to veto any spending bill
If it wasn’t for his stance on fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq I would consider this a failed presidency.
dawgyear on March 19, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I’m not as exercised as PinkyBigglesworth, but I’m also at a loss in trying to understand the significance of this “scandal”. People elect a President as the chief law enforcement officer in the US, and expect him (or her) to prosecute crimes in a manner that is consistent with the views that they lay out when seeking the public’s vote. The prosecutors, therefore, are political appointees. That isn’t just a talking point.
What I’m getting annoyed at is the fact that we are watching, yet again, this White House twiddle their thumbs while the left fabricates yet another scandal out of thin air.
DaveS on March 19, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Considering that the US Attorneys serve absolutely at the will of the President, I’d be very upset if the ‘WH’ was NOT deeply involved with the firings.
I’ve never been a fan of Gonzalez, wouldn’t mind seeing him go at all, but not for this.
This is just a replay of the Trent Lott situation a few years ago: Totally ineffective as Senate Majority/Minority Leader, but the ‘reason’ for him eventually stepping down was not REASONABLE at all; just typical GOP weakness compounded by foolishness
LegendHasIt on March 19, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Hammer. Nail. Head.
PRCalDude on March 19, 2007 at 10:16 PM
What’s John Ashcroft doing right around now?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 19, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Sooooooo tired of this freakin’ non-story. It’s not against the law for them to have fired those attorneys!!
Why the bloody hell is the Administration even answering this freakin’ nonsense???
(P)wussies!!!!!
tickleddragon on March 19, 2007 at 10:49 PM
New Emails show that Bush conspired to fill the supreme court with conservatives
Schumer demands death penalty
EricPWJohnson on March 19, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Why is everyone acting as if something illegal and unprecidented happened here. Over a week into this scandal and i still dont understand what the scandal is.
Verbal Abuse on March 20, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Chertoff is suspect number one in the “wanted to shoot some Mexicans” scandal. Chertoff’s DHS is a disaster and I think the “hot seat” in the confirmation hearings would be more like an electric chair.
Wasn’t Chertoff the only “Republican” US Attorney that Clinton didn’t fire?
Perchant on March 20, 2007 at 12:45 AM
I’ll second that. Were you people saying he wasn’t a conservative when he was cutting your taxes? When he was joining the fight against affirmative action in Michigan? When he was letting the assault weapons ban expire? When he was appointing pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? The Bush hatred by commentors on this site has reached a point of being disgusting. You people call him chimpy and say he should be impeached, just like the idiots at kos and huffington. Well keep at it, and enjoy your loss in ‘08. It’s well deserved.
forged rite on March 20, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Memo to Self:
“If” another Republican is elected into office, take the hint by the American public………
Fire every Democratic Political Appointee in the Justice, Defense, State Department, FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, HUD, Social Security Administration, and every other agency that you have “Legal” authority to do so……
Then maybe we just might not find our “battle plans” and “intelligence” on the front page of the New York Times without prosecution, we won’t let future “Sandy Burglars” off with a hand slap, but “Scooter Libby” is facing jail time, and you will not have “endless scandal” for the last two years of your second Administration!
Yeah, “We just want to get along”…….. Can anyone name one committee, one legislation, one law, one policy, one action that the Democrats “worked with” the Republicans on and gave in the past, let’s say, fifty years?
Just one?
PinkyBigglesworth on March 20, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Eh… Bush is a mixed bag. Conservative on taxes, sort-of on judges (Alito wasn’t his first choice), etc… not so conservative on other things. The problem comes in those situations where he might be conservative, but in which the White House exhibits near total ineptitude in communicating with the public… they just suck really bad at selling their ideas.
DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 1:43 AM
“I won’t be sorry to see him go, and neither will a lot of other conservatives.”
I disagree.
I’m with Jen. It would be a strategic mistake to fire Gonzales and would not appease the Democrats one iota. Further, there IS not scandal here as all US Attorney appointments ARE POLITICAL.
Bush ought to tell the Democrats and the media that Gonzales’ tenure is at HIS PLEASURE, too, and that it does not please him to fire him at this point.
georgej on March 20, 2007 at 5:16 AM
I’ll give it a go. First, yes Clinton did fire all 93 Bush 1 USAs. This is the norm. Bush fired nearly all of Clinton’s appointees. After the 2004 election, there was talk of removing all the USAs again–this would have been unusual–the wholesale firing of people that you yourself had appointed. This was nixed by Rove apparently.
Now comes the interesting part–at least what is being put forth by the Dems–there were 8 USAs who were let go. In 7 cases, the USA was either actively persuing Republican election shennanigans or NOT actively persuing Democratic election shennaigans (the latter being most egregiously played out with Pete D in New Mexico). This is frowned upon–it’s one thing to appoint folks who share your political bent, it’s one thing to make room for your supporters, it’s another to attempt to influence the course of an investigation. Anyway, that’s what the Dems are putting forth.
And as usual, why tell the truth when lying will do? The admin (including the AG) made statements, including statements to Congress, that these USAs were let go for performance reasons. They have now admitted this is not the case. This is why Bush is (rightfully) royally pissed at Gonzo.
I feel sorry for Bush–he has the classic Hobson’s choice. Let G go and attempt to stop the bleeding, and appear weak; keep G and the subpeonas keep on coming.
honora on March 20, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Looks like Bush in backing Gonzales, so it’s all moot.
Much ado about nothing anyway, Democrats are still trying to make it illegal for Republicans to play politics, Republicans are wetting themselves trying to appease the left.
I see a massive landslide victory for whoever wins the Dem nomination in ‘08. Every election the most conservative Republicans bite the dust, I’d hate to see what the party looks like in 2012.
As far as Bush going spineless - the whole party is spinless, and that includes most of it’s supporters. I don’t think I’m exaggerating or being pessimistic when I say the GOP completely impotent.
Oh… but we took the high road, I forgot. Can’t have poloticians playing politics now can we?
reaganaut on March 20, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Oh Noooes! Bush talked about firing attorneys that he has the constitutional/statutory right to fire at any time for any reason! Eeeek!
Neo on March 20, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Cherry picking active cases in their jurisdiction is more like something I would expect from conspiracy theorists. I’m sure you could just as easily find some common thread involving immigration policy or anything else. That point aside, 2 things remain true: 1) Firing a prosecutor does not make the “undesirable” cases go away, so that’s a stupid point, and 2) even if the worst charges are true, no crime was committed (though, I would be disappointed).
And doesn’t the presence of the 8th fired prosecutor (who was NOT pursuing the election blah blah) sort of undermine the conspiracy theory?
Since there was not conceivably a crime committed, I haven’t really been following this as closely as I should have, perhaps. When did they admit that “this is not the case”? Didn’t they just release thousands of pages that included prosecutors ranked by their perceived performance and loyalty to the administration’s prosecutorial agenda?
That sounds like performance, to me.
DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Oh now don’t be so hard on yourself. Under the Clinton admin, the Republican Congress filed 1032 subpeonas to investigate the administration. Under W’s administration, the Republican Congress has file 0, as in zip, subpeonas to look into any of the administration’s policies or actions. (Way to exercise that oversight responsibility. Kinda makes things like Walter Reed a bit more understandable.)
So I would say your boys do ok in the playing politics arena. Funny how things look a little different when you’re no longer in the majority.
honora on March 20, 2007 at 10:49 AM
It might not make it go away, but it sure puts a damper on the vigorous pursuit–these guys have lots of discretion; and it certainly would light a fire under the new USA who replaced the guy who was not going after Dems quickly enough.
The 8th one is kinda interesting–he is a Karl Rove accolate and the sbj of a lot of the e-mails, big concerns that he couldn’t get appointed due to a weak resume. You want conspiracy? This guy they were putting in Little Rock AR. Let’s say you are a Republican operative and you are really interested in getting all the dirt you can on a politician who spent a lot of time over the years in Little Rock. Would be nice to have your own guy there to help out.
Think this sounds crazy? Just wait.
Gonzo’s recently fired/resigned chief of staff admitted he was lying; Gonzo then claimed he was simply not aware of any of this (???).
Note to self: don’t accept any chief of staff position in the Bush admin. Quick way to find yourself under the bus.
Don’t get me wrong: while I believe what was done here is pretty slimey and emblematic of this bunch (let’s not worry about the WOT or immigration or the escalating crime rate, let’s go after this chickenshit stuff), I do not see anything remotely illegal. It’s just another case of bungling something that could have easily been handled correctly. Bush league indeed.
honora on March 20, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Eh, the whole thing sounds a bit retarded to me. No offense. Like so many other “scandals”, it sounds like you guys have convinced yourselves that the one possible scenario that is most damaging is the one that took place and you are going to run with it, and try to convince as many people as possible that your “truth” is the real one before the facts come out.
We’ve seen it time and time again. You and I both know that you couldn’t care less about fired prosecutors, or why they were fired, or what cases they were working on. You simply see this as a political opportunity, and you want to make sure that you establish the narrative early before any facts are known.
DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 11:32 AM
I do think that this validates the point that a lot of republicans were making about the Libby issue… people like you, honora, are now literally trying to criminalize politics.
DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Well actually what it validates is that people like you, DaveS, don’t or can’t listen. Allow me to quote myself from above:
I’m not sure how I could make that any clearer. And why bother–you need to assume I think this to align with your simplistic view of the world. Republicans, good; Democrats, bad. See, so easy a caveman can do it. LOL.
honora on March 20, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I didn’t say you said there was anything illegal. But you are pushing this narrative–right here in this thread–that they fired the guys because they were or weren’t prosecuting particular cases… In fact, there is not evidence at this point that they were fired for any particular reason. But this whole exercise is designed to give the illusion of illegality without actually claiming it.
And if you think I’m a “rep good dem bad” kind of guy, you haven’t paid much attention to me in the past. I can’t stand idiocy on either side, and I see the constant scandal-mongering as an appeal to the stupidest elements of our population. The problem I have with this whole thing is the “wink wink nudge nudge” approach the Dems are taking… they know there are no laws broken, but–just as with the Libby case–they are carefully wording everything they say to mislead the less intelligent, Jon Stewart crowd into thinking something illegal happened. It’s reprehensible, and it’s far, FAR more dangerous to the well being of our country in the long term than a president who may or may not have fired a political appointee for political reasons.
DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Sorry, but you did:
As to
I don’t know if I have paid attention to you or not, too many posters to keep straight.
And fighting against idiocy, like charity, should begin at home, don’t you think?
honora on March 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM
You’re misunderstanding… you guys are getting all excited about the possibility of turning a legal, political action into something criminal. If I’m wrong, then what’s with the retarded hearings and the dog-ang-pony show on TV? You readily admit that nothing illegal happened… but you (the collective you) are trying to MAKE something illegal out of thin air, hence “trying to criminalize politics”.
I agree… that’s why I am constantly telling people how stupid they sound when they say things like “Clinton News Network”, or “Dhimmicrats”, or any of the other completely retarded things that posters here have started saying.
DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 12:48 PM
If someone stabs you in the back every time you stand up for them, pretty soon you’ll learn to keep your seat.
Yeah, he fought affirmative action in Michigan, he also got help from the Hero of Chappaquiddick to write No Child Left Behind. He didn’t let the assault weapons ban expire, that’s one of the few things Congress has done right. He appointed constructionists to lower courts, but then he nominated John Roberts (who has turned out a lot better than expected) and Harriet Meiers to the Supreme Court. He’s also signed McCain-Feingold, totally abandoned Social Security reform, he’s trying his damdest to surrender to Mexico, and he threw Rumsfeld under the bus to appease the libs. I’m terribly sorry if I don’t have a lot of patience left for his antics.
Speaking of testing my patience, they are planning to replace Gonzales with Chertoff?! Chertoff makes me pine for the days of Mike Ridge. You know, he might have been boring, and I don’t know, but maybe he was a moron, but he didn’t proudly announce his stupidity the way Chertoff does.
Wolfman on March 20, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Oh DaveS, I can barely defend myself, please don’t saddle me with the collective you!!!
It’s oddly cultish as well, this adopting of an invented venacular.
Cheers!
honora on March 20, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Honora, the troll said: “Under the Clinton admin, the Republican Congress filed 1032 subpeonas to investigate the administration.”
Under the “Clinton admin,” MORE administration staffers and cabinet officers were indicted and convicted than under any other administration in history. This, in spite of the coordinated effort to obstruct justice by faux “I don’t remember” by the White House, and overt strong arm tactics by Sid “Vicious” Blumenthal and Rahm Emmanuel on witnesses.
Kathleen Willey can probably fill you in on the specifics.
You Democrats have SOOOO much to be proud of….
georgej on March 20, 2007 at 4:04 PM
.
So what? Most of the people upset about no child left behind are the in the extremely liberal teachers union. If you want to criticise Bush for doing something liberals don’t like go right ahead. I won’t be joining you.
The renewal of the assualt weapons ban was of the few things Bush could have easily gotten from congress if he had wanted it. But he didn’t want it, so he didn’t push it and deserves credit.
So you’re disappointed he nominated a judge you like?
Bush spent the first six months of his second term travelling the country trying to get SS reform passed and nobody supported him on it. If you don’t like the fact that no one’s talking about SS, then call your congressman because he’s the one to blame, not Bush.
h
That may sound good to all your fellow nau conspiracy nuts,but the reality is Bush’s immigration policy hasn’t changed since he was governor here in Texas. If you voted for him, he’s giving you the policy he said he would.
Unlike the people on this site who never give Bush credit for anything, i’m more than willing to criticise him when he deserves it, and you’re right that he deserves it regarding McCain-Feingold and Rumsfeld.
forged rite on March 20, 2007 at 8:13 PM
test
redshirt on March 21, 2007 at 1:25 AM
test
redshirt on March 21, 2007 at 1:26 AM