he also got help from the Hero of Chappaquiddick to write No Child Left Behind

.
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.

. He didn’t let the assault weapons ban expire, that’s one of the few things Congress has done right

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.

but then he nominated John Roberts (who has turned out a lot better than expected)

So you’re disappointed he nominated a judge you like?

totally abandoned Social Security reform

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

e’s trying his damdest to surrender to Mexico

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.

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….

DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Oh DaveS, I can barely defend myself, please don’t saddle me with the collective you!!!

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.

It’s oddly cultish as well, this adopting of an invented venacular.

Cheers!

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

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.

Sorry, but you did: “people like you, honora, are now literally trying to criminalize politics.”

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”.

And fighting against idiocy, like charity, should begin at home, don’t you think?

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.

I didn’t say you said there was anything illegal.

Sorry, but you did:

people like you, honora, are now literally trying to criminalize politics.

As to

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,

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?

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.

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 do not see anything remotely illegal.

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.

…and it certainly would light a fire under the new USA who replaced the guy who was not going after Dems quickly enough.

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.

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?

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.

When did they admit that “this is not the case”?

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.

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 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.

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…

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

“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?

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

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.

Likely replacement: Chertoff

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?