AG Gonzales has resigned

pgwenthold said:
If you want someone who is not connected to G W Bush, he should nominate G H W Bush.
Click to expand...
Not a lawyer. I get the joke, but the AG tends to need at least law school level of familiarity of The Law.

How about Rudi Giuliani? :D

DR
 
pgwenthold said:
Head of the CIA doesn't give you knowledge of the law?
Click to expand...
You seem to have forgotten the smilie for that one. ;)

Bill Clinton as AG? He's been disbarred in at least one state, I don't think that is a good choice. (I think the idea of restoring trust in the AG's office would be poorly served by putting a perjurer into the office. It is one thing to risk an AG being so disposed to be careless with the truth, it is another to knowingly take on a guy who has demonstrated that habit in the past.)

How about the Return of John Ashcroft? Gonzo made him look good. :D

DR
 
A more intriguing pick, [Hunter College political scientist Kenneth] Sherrill said, would be Sen. Joe Lieberman, the hawkish Connecticut Democrat whose nomination would allow his state's Republican governor to appoint his replacement - wresting control of the Senate from Democrats to a tie between the two parties.
Click to expand...


Source.

Yikes.
 
Cain said:
Psssht. What have you noticed? In the last month? You can, if you want, PM me the relevant posts, as I guess they only appear in the past few weeks.

Yes, on one level I am embarrassed by Bush as an American. He embarrasses me as a human, too, but I figure that will go away soon after he does, which is 75% likely after Jan. 20, 2009. I think it's rather different for his naive enablers.
Click to expand...
Speaking of naivity, or perhaps rampant paranoia; what exactly does your estimated 25% chance that Bush will still be in office after the 20th jan. 2009 cover? Military coup? cosntitutional change? Or perhaps an alien invasion?
 
I went looking for the most pro Gonzales editorial that I could find on the resignation.

Mostly, what I found was amazing unanimity about what a Bozo the guy was, pretty much across all political persuasions. I read through about twenty of the responses to the NY Times article on the resignation and I didn't hit a pro-Gonzales comment. Here is the result of the search for the most pro-Gonzales article: from Newsmax.com

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/gonzales_resignation/2007/08/27/27744.html

To be sure, Democrats manufactured a scandal by pouncing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys to create the impression that the Justice Department and the White House did something improper. In fact, the firings were no more improper than the Clinton administration�s dismissal of 93 U.S. attorneys in 1993.
Click to expand...

I hope Hispanic voters in the future will remember who appointed the first Hispanic attorney general, and who ran him out of town,� says David Fuller Holt, a former Bush legislative aide. �This is just another head on a platter for congressional Democrats at the expense of actual accomplishments,� Holt says. �I think out in middle America, we never got that engaged in the fight over U.S. attorneys, and that's probably because it was obviously a political stunt.
Click to expand...
 
Katana said:
The fact that anyone still supports him is, perhaps, most embarrassing of all.
Click to expand...
I still run into people who are hard-core Bush supporters. I asked one (a female dealer at a Reno casino) recently, why she supported Bush with his clearly bad leadership over the last 6 years. Her response was "have you ever heard of Monica Lewinsky"? I really didn't know how to respond to that, except to say "you listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot"

Charlie (still amazed at Bush supporters) Monoxide
 
Kerberos said:
Speaking of naivity, or perhaps rampant paranoia; what exactly does your estimated 25% chance that Bush will still be in office after the 20th jan. 2009 cover? Military coup? cosntitutional change? Or perhaps an alien invasion?
Click to expand...

It's an admittedly crude ballpark figure that tries to take into account every conceivable contingency. I may have said 80% a few weeks ago. See for instance this development, which I learned of after the above posting:

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/08/26/in-case-you-missed-it/#comments

A website run by the neocon thinktank the Center for Security Policy (members include Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle and Doug Feith) has published (then removed) a piece calling for Bush to use his military powers to become “the first permanent president of America” and “ruler of the world”. Along the way he suggests that the population of Iraq should have been wiped out. The website Family Security Matters also runs pieces by Newt Gingrich, Judy Miller and other luminaries.
Click to expand...

People on Free Republic are apparently defending some of those views as reasonable, which is revealing even if it was Sokal-like hoax.
 
Cain said:
People on Free Republic are apparently defending some of those views as reasonable, which is revealing even if it was Sokal-like hoax.
Click to expand...
Freepers? They seem to fit into the category of "the peanut gallery."

DR
 
Katana said:
A more intriguing pick, [Hunter College political scientist Kenneth] Sherrill said, would be Sen. Joe Lieberman, the hawkish Connecticut Democrat whose nomination would allow his state's Republican governor to appoint his replacement - wresting control of the Senate from Democrats to a tie between the two parties.
Click to expand...

Source.

Yikes.
Click to expand...


Any Hunter College students who have a class with Professor Sherrill should get a refund.

The Senate of the 110th Congress has been organized already, with the Dems in control. The organizing motion did not include any provision for reorganizing if the numbers in the caucuses change. This is the only reason Lieberman has not already jumped to the Republicans. If he does, he loses his committee chairmanship. If he leaves the Senate and is replaced with a Republican who actually calls himself one, and Republicans have a numerical majority, Reid will still be Majority Leader and Dems will still control the committees.

So I say by all means, Lieberman should be offered and take the job. Let the CT governor appoint a Republican. That means that in 15 months Lieberman would be out of politics for good. It would be a blessing.

Incidentally, the Senate in 107th Congress was organized with a provision to re-do it if the numbers changed. That was because it was 50-50, and that was one of the compromises. When Jeffords jumped to the Dem caucus, the Dem were able to take full control
 
Cain said:
It's an admittedly crude ballpark figure that tries to take into account every conceivable contingency. I may have said 80% a few weeks ago. See for instance this development, which I learned of after the above posting:

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/08/26/in-case-you-missed-it/#comments



People on Free Republic are apparently defending some of those views as reasonable, which is revealing even if it was Sokal-like hoax.
Click to expand...

What development? The fact that there are retards in the world isn't exactly news to most of us. I might, on the strenght of similar evidence argue that there is roguhly 25% chance that Bush is behind 9/11, that creationism is true, that the moon landing is fake or that the british royal family consist of shapeshifting reptilian aliens.

Does the board allow betting? I'd be happy to give you 10 to 1 odds that Bush will be out of office at the time mandated by your constitution or earlier.
 
Kerberos said:
What development? The fact that there are retards in the world isn't exactly news to most of us. I might, on the strenght of similar evidence argue that there is roguhly 25% chance that Bush is behind 9/11, that creationism is true, that the moon landing is fake or that the british royal family consist of shapeshifting reptilian aliens.

Does the board allow betting? I'd be happy to give you 10 to 1 odds that Bush will be out of office at the time mandated by your constitution or earlier.
Click to expand...

Oh, I now see you're being entirely serious. What a shame.
 
Cain said:
Oh, I now see you're being entirely serious. What a shame.
Click to expand...

Could you translate that into plain English for me? In other words are you disapointed that I don't suffer from rampant paranoia or was the 25% chance of military coup just a joke?
 
Last edited:
How long are we going to put up with this ********? How many of Bushes lackeys are we going to have to see booted out for unlawful conduct before we finally cut to the chase and boot that uneducated spoiled rich kid out of the White House?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darth Rotor said:
Not a lawyer. I get the joke, but the AG tends to need at least law school level of familiarity of The Law.

How about Rudi Giuliani? :D

DR
Click to expand...

So the AG has higher requirements than the supreme court?(There is no legal requirement that someone must be a lawyer to sit on the supreme court, it would just be laughted out of the senate)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom