I'm just a guy who enjoys watching conservatives make complete fools of themselves as they try to defend the administration.
I heard no new conspiracy theories or innovative ways to help the President. Instead, conservatives have fallen back on an old standby,
BILL CLINTON DID IT TOO:
liberals seem conveniently to forget that Bill Clinton had Janet Reno fire 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office so that, in the words of Clinton fans such as CNN’s Ken Bode, the new administration could make sweeping, decisive and aggressive changes to a Justice Department that had become "a warehouse for conservative thinkers" and "a political arm of the White House".
Yes, they are still trying to equate what normally occurs with a change in administration with what is occurring under Bush. But this next little bit of deception is truly Rovian:
These firings were apparently at least partially motivated by the fact that these liberal U.S. Attorneys were dragging their heels in investigating possible voter fraud in 2004 by 527s like MoveOn.org on behalf of Democratic candidates.
The implication being these USA's were Clinton holdovers-amazing.
Another old refrain came up, "democrats are playing politics". Just look at Bush's offer of staff testimony:
From a legal and policy perspective, the White House position is unassailable. Quite apart from what it may want, and what may be politically expedient for the administration to give, Congress is entitled to nothing from the president’s staff. Its demand is no more appropriate than would be a summons from President Bush to Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy’s staffers to press them on whether Leahy’s blocking of highly qualified judicial nominees stemmed from principle or bare-knuckles partisanship. We want our president and our legislators to get good, creative, uninhibited advice from their counselors — the kind of advice you don’t get if your aides must assume they will someday be grilled in public by political adversaries.
Oaths?
Furthermore, placing someone under oath connotes subservience — the way, for example, any citizen owes truthful testimony once he is sworn in the public’s courts before a grand or petit jury. Our political branches, to the contrary, are equals. The mere issuance of a subpoena does not alter that relationship, rendering the president subservient to congress.
Transcripts?
Similarly, a transcript among equals is not a quest for the truth. It’s a set-up. It can’t help but induce stinginess and parsing from the witness who well knows the interrogator is simply gathering ammunition for later use. If equals truly want a mutual understanding, they can get that by talking informally. Do you suppose Senator Leahy would want all his conversations with administration officials transcribed? You know, to promote the public interest in an accurate record?
I literally almost fell off my chair when I read this. I don't know even what to say.
One new note did appear:
The Democrats are frustrated. They recaptured Congress but they have been unable to address the main issue they campaigned on – their opposition to the war in Iraq. Despite their claims that the war was wrongly joined they have not been willing to do the one thing that would bring it to a conclusion - cut off the funding. Democrats pushed through votes in the House and Senate expressing disapproval of Bush’s plan to deploy 21,500 more troops but they have mustered little more than symbolism. Critical issues such as energy and immigration wait in the wings and the hubbub over eight U.S. attorneys might be a useful distraction from the majority party’s failure to accomplish anything substantial.
This new note has appeared in the MSM a little and I'll be interested to see if it gets any real play. It would do us all good however, to remember that true conservatives are out there and one day we'll deal with them again:
Hitherto, the choice of these officials has been subject to local and political checks. As contemplated by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No.75, the requirement of Senate confirmation has operated to prevent the staffing of these positions by pliant presidential cronies: the local Senators, particularly those of the president's party, in practice have nominated United States attorneys and normally have been concerned not to outrage the local bar by parachuting in persons with no knowledge of the culture, mores and customs of a state. While the appointees have always served at the President's pleasure, and are usually of his party, politically motivated removals have been guarded against by vesting the power of interim appointment in the local federal judges, usually drawn from both parties, who have generally appointed senior career officials pending a presidential nomination and Senate approval of it.
The enthusiasts for unlimited executive power and a compliant Congress have now changed this. Defenders of the change declare a purpose to uphold the separation of powers by excluding the judiciary from appointments and rendering appointees fully subject to the will of the President; they also laud the academic qualifications and experience of the seven new 'inside the beltway' appointees. But their theory of government is not that of the Constitutional framers. Art II, Sec.2 of the Constitution expressly allows judicial appointing powers. The Humphrey's Executor and like cases allow Congress to limit presidential removal powers on Justice Brandeis' premise that the function of the Constitution was "not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power." The current apostles of a 'unitary executive' are less vocal in its support during Democratic administrations and do not seek to impair the independence of the Federal Reserve Board; we may hope that the swing of the political pendulum
will clear their minds even further.
One thing I've noticed is that the released emails are generally not talked about. I wonder why? Would they destroy all of the talking points they've tried to put out? Only time will tell.