Just a waste of innocent electrons, but I had to respond to Howard Kurtz after reading his Media Notes column this morning:
=========================================
Dear Mr. Kurtz,
In your Media Notes section today, I noticed some of your clever wording regarding the IG report from DoJ on politics illegally influencing AG hirings and firings:
"A reminder that the Bush administration perverted justice--and it's not from carping Democrats:"
The use of the pejorative term "carping" implies an annoying and or irrelevant sound, when in fact the Democrats were accurately identifying another illegal act by the Bush Administration.
You then followed up with this odd bit of attempted humor:
"And this, from another story, is cute, isn't it? "Ms. Goodling blocked the hiring of an experienced prosecutor for a senior counter-terrorism position because his wife was active in Democratic politics."
I would suggest that when a political appointee breaks the law, and that action causes an otherwise qualified person to suffer professionally, and the illegal act persists without consequences, the last term I would think of is "cute".
Finally, I do not agree your assumption in this statement:
"Gonzales was generally unaware of this, the report says. So he wasn't culpable, just clueless. "
So Democrats are "carping", Goodling was "cute" and Gonzales was merely "clueless"? Either you have failed miserable at making light of corruption in the Department of Justice, or you are only trying to be cute while clueless. Please forgive my carping.
Regards,
'- lono- '