Tuesday, October 16, 2007

My man

My man Rush had an unfortunate tear today, funny and ironic. He asserted, quite clearly, that it was routine for presidents to take office and fire every existing us attorney. Every president (essentially) did it except Bush; even Bill Clinton did it.

From there, the logic went, Hillary would come to office and do what? Fire all the US attorneys.

ANd then-Rush concluded-we'd have her! Republicans in Congress could say, "oh, no, no, no, *you* tried to criminalize that when Bush fired only eight of them."

And then, I don't know. I guess American voters would swoon en masse and regret their error, the way Ralphie's parents did when he grew up blind.

There are so many things wrong with the logic it's hard to know where to start; minority Republicans aren't going to do much; spineless, the Republicans aren't going to do much; unsupported by the NYTimes and its diminishing but still broadcasting followers, Republicans aren't going to do much.

But what's really troubling is that, what Bush didn't isn't criminal and shouldn't be cast as such, even for super really good we'll show you revenge (particularly for wishful thinking srgwsyr).

More, it isn't true that presidents fire US attorneys en masse. Rush had it precisely backwards. The *only* president to do so was Bill, and there's a fair chance he did it precisely for banana Republic reasons, to interfere with the legal process to cover his own ass.

Of course Hillary will do the same, but she won't be carrying out grand American traditions when she does. I'm confident that when she does, Rush will be droning for hours about how she's only the second man in the Oval Office to do so.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Hillary fires all the US attorneys and then sends a no-count timeserver up to the hill to prevaricate and act guilty- yes she will be in the same boat. Clearly partisanship was at work in the brouha over the firings of the US Attorneys but it was brought about by the complete and utter incompetence of and lack of political foresight by the administration.

5:30 AM, October 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this old canard still floating out there? Of course presidents replace many or all of the U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of their terms. Of course they can legally replace them then or later. What they should not do is replace their own appointees based on whether they are vigorously pursuing legitimate corruption investigations against members of the President's party or failing to follow instructions to pursue members of the other party on flimsy grounds.

9:46 AM, October 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous no. 2, you shouldn't make such allegations against President Clinton so casually. You might try a fact or two to back them up.

SWMBCg, etc.

(ps. I love the preemptive cya-"then or later" indeed.)

1:32 PM, October 17, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter