U.S. Attorney General Resigns 845
willie3204 is one of many to mention that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. One of Gonzales' main opponents praised his decision stating that: "'For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional and desperately needs new leadership,' said the Schumer statement. 'Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations. We beseech the Administration to work with us to nominate someone whom Democrats can support and America can be proud of.'"
Now will the opposing party actually push back? (Score:4, Insightful)
Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (Score:5, Insightful)
Political parties have no duties, only the need and desire to keep themselves in power. Congress (controlled by Democrats) has one of the lowest approval ratings ever at present. They aren't pushing for anything now.
Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's another one...the VP also used this "I do not recall..." slogan while under fire. It's about time our constitution was amended to automatically have a senior official resign when the all of a sudden they cannot recall matters so important and held so dear to these United States.
Re:slashdotliberalwinning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:slashdotliberalwinning (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Ashcroft was a right-wing asshole, with nothing better to do then go after sick people smoking weed (*gasp*, the horror!) but even he had misgivings about the direction this administration is taking civil rights and law enforcement.
I'd take Ashcroft back over Gonzales in a heartbeat.
Reminds me to donate - (Score:5, Insightful)
Events like this remind me to donate to the ACLU.
Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmph. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong; I don't blame the conservatives. They always vote the same way (well, some vote libertarian). Same with the libs when it's their party who is screwing stuff up; gotta ride that sinking ship right to the bottom. The thing that pisses me off is the damn fickle swing vote. You'd think, since they're not really wedded to an ideology, they'd be better than the right or the left, but really, they're just a bunch of jokers who vote based on whether a candidate has "Presidential Hair" and other such simplistic crap.
We may blame all the problems on the government, but it's the responsibility of the people to demand good government, and to put good people in power.
Re:Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen. (Score:1, Insightful)
There may be someone in the wings, but no obvious successor as there was during the end of Ashcroft. And say what you will about Alberto "thumbscrews" Gonzales, at least he didn't sing in public.
Chertoff to replace him (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Thank Talking Points Memo. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I do remember the Republicans complaining when Clinton did it.
It was normal, and is expected by both parties.
Midterm, targetted firings are unprecedented, though.
Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Better late than never (Score:5, Insightful)
Until there are term limits on every office, real congressional districts instead of roarshark tests, and a voting populace with a brain you're not going to see much different.
We've done too good of a job polarizing the two parties. everything they do is boiled down to one issue for that voting block and that is what makes the call. If you're against abortion, you'll vote republican no matter what because the Denmocrats want to open Joe's Abortion Clinic - you rape em we scrape em - on every corner.
If you're gay, well, you're fucked because neither party will support you 100%. However the democrats will at least wave your direction when you walk by but then turn around and tell the other folks you're just being nice to them because you feel sorry for them.
If you like guns, you'll vote republican because no matter what they say the Democrats will take away your gun the first chance they get, don't know how to hunt, or many other problems.
It doesn't matter that the candidate is a closeted gay, child molester, or anything else long as he votes for / against whatever one issue you let decide.
And I don't think this is a new phenomenon, they've just gotten better at it. No one wants to compromise anymore. It's my way or the highway seems to be the prevailing wind. You see that attitude everywhere from open source vs. closed source to civil unions vs. marriages. We wouldn't know what to do with someone who actually tried to work for a solution instead of standing up top going my way or the highway. The one campaign statement that to this day that infuriates me to know end is that over and over Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider. Post 9/11 he is the perfect example of a divisive president. The entire world was ready to invade Afghanistan and destroy anything that looked at you crosseyed after 9/11 and then next thing you know forget Afghanistan and the real issue, let's go to Iraq.
I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was some feel good hippie that just got in the way, he killed a good chunk of people and is up there with some of the bigger bad guys in the past. However the path we took really screwed us, but we can't bail out now or our leaving will kill more people than Saddam did in the first place. It's a culture battle at this point and we're too stupid to realize that. Democracy isn't for everyone, and you can't force it on them any more than you can anything else.
I've gotten to the point where I don't know what we can do. the Democratic party currently isn't offering anything worth looking at as far as the 'front runner' is. By the time my state's primary comes around the decision will already be made for me as to who the candidate is because of our fucked up system of nomination. I truly believe that the primary should be one day, nationwide, in February before the election. It's an IRV ballot where you rank your choices, winner take all. the fact that I believe it is after 'super tuesday' nothing can change the outcome.
It's not like IA, NH, and SC are really representative of the US Population either. Iowa gives whitebread a new meaning, as does NH. SC starts to represent the mix of ethnicity that makes this nation so great, but the real melting pot states aren't until later and receive less focus than any other state.
My $0.02 of ranting.
Ablative Armor (Score:5, Insightful)
To those who call themselves Republicans and resist this idea, just imagine Hillary Clinton as president with all the powers Bush and Cheney have arrogated to themselves. It should give you screaming nightmares, because it sure does me.
Re:his replacement will be so much better (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:slashdotliberalwinning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tough Position (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tough Position (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the whole loyalty thing works out when people are loyal to an honest person. I think the problem is that the Noble Kings of Yore probably weren't as noble or just as the stories claim they were, and they were probably many more unscrupulous rulers and other characters in the court. Loyalty simply doesn't belong in a society that claims to abide by the rule of law, or provide equal opportunity for all. If your child, parent, or sibling does something wrong, you've got to turn them in.
Loyalty more important than competence (Score:5, Insightful)
While this may have always been true, it's never been more true now and this exemplifies the weakness of the American system of government. You elect a president, and then he puts incompetent cronies in positions of huge responsibility in important areas of the government. We've also seen that Bush has no reservations against using loopholes like congressional recess appointments to get around the checks and balances in Congress.
In other countries like Switzerland, heads of each major area of government, from transportation to defense, are independently, democratically elected. The next time an American starts talking about "democracy", remind them that they need to look elsewhere, far outside of their own country, to find a more true example of the democracy.
Re:i didn't think much of ag ag (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are all mere comedians. Find it ironic or not; The Daily Show is the single most factual source of political news and comentary in the US.
Re:Better late than never (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're going for a laugh, but it has to be said: "A congress which watched the constitution with even half as much attention as it watched it's ass."
Re:The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (Score:4, Insightful)
And repeating that sentence over and over doesn't mean there is no causation. Correlations are important, because they do imply something significant every now and then.
In this case the correlation is mostly comical though. So laugh.
Re:How is this News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or do you live on a planet where 80% of the world's telecommunications links do not run through the United States of America, where those 80% are not illegally wiretapped, where strong encryption wasn't suppressed under a fifty-year-old munitions law, where the most popular vendor of operating systems software did not secretly include an escrowed backdoor to their encryption engine, where merely fixing broken technology doesn't earn you an indictment and/or a designation as a terrorist, where the US government doesn't kidnap innocent people off the streets of foreign countries, torture them for months, and dump them in countries that will torture and kill them?
Nerds are still People.
Oh noooo... corruption to incompetence (Score:1, Insightful)
I was very wrong.
Chertoff, the dangerously incompetent man who was defensive of at his lack of understanding during the chaotic handling of Hurricane Katrina.
I saw him on TV a while ago, and wondered why he still was still in the government. And now attorney general.
Incompetence is rewarded, if you show loyalty to the club.
Bush wishes to nullify the position of Attorney General, to give himself more direct control.
it took you this long? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy to be suspicious when the wind if finally blowing that direction--where were you when this crap started? I knew about Abu Ghraib before I knew about Abu Ghraib, because I've read about the Zimbardo prison experiment. This has been ugly since day one, and I'm not too sympathetic to anyone who gave Gonzalez et al the benefit of the doubt for this many years when they gutted habeus corpus, normalized torture, built secret prisons, etc.
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bull-fucking-shit. Care to try to explain the Clinton impeachment process then?
Re:Thank Talking Points Memo. (Score:4, Insightful)
You make me sick.
Obligatory Douglas Adams (Score:4, Insightful)
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
--Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not likely (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why would he keep his word? (Score:2, Insightful)
And you know that if he did break the agreement, you'd see Faux News and the other talking heads rush to his defense, screaming about obstructionist Democrats who won't give his people an "up or down vote" which they "deserve".
Re:Loyalty more important than competence (Score:5, Insightful)
What's really fun/annoying about this is the win/win nature of it for the ones who did it.
They've got their cronies in all of these positions and are tilting the agencies agendas in "loyalist directions" besides. Clearly a WIN.
On the other hand, if those agencies are called upon to fulfill their primary missions, as understood by the rest of the nation...
Those filling the positions are not fully competent to do so, and the agency falls down on its job. How is this a WIN? Simple, the folks selecting the appointees also like to say that they're in favor of smaller government, and that anything that can be privatized, should be. If the agency fails in it's job, it's clear evidence that government is incapable, therefore it should be privatized. Of course you're supposed to ignore the fact that their appointees caused the failure in the first place. It becomes a WIN.
What's truly sad here is the decimation of institutional memory. Some of that may be bad, but not all, and at the very least if the institutional memory is gone, you can't learn from it to improve. The top tier has always been political, but what's happened this time is that the second and third tiers have resigned because they couldn't stomach what the top tier was doing. There's the real problem, the core agency competence has left.
Re:The people's office.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in my I Myth-ed the special they did for Walter Cronkite's 90th birthday. This weekend my wife and I finally got around to watching it.
-----------------------
Imagine Walter Cronkite as a guest on The Daily Show!
-----------------------
Strategic Resignation (Score:5, Insightful)
An old sentiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics is like football. We've been at it so long that we forget that fitness was the original purpose of the game, and just care about winning.
Re:Why would he keep his word? (Score:3, Insightful)
WRT losers: damn right. I'm almost more disgusted with the Congressional Dems who don't have the spine to stand up to Bush's abuses than I am with The Decider himself.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in other words, the message you're sending them is "Unless you do what I want, I'll just ignore you and let you do whatever you want".
Yeah, good plan. To express your disapproval of government power-grabbing, you're going to help them grab more.
Re:Not likely (Score:1, Insightful)
You can't commit perjury during a frivolous lawsuit and do you honestly think who the president messes around with is so important? Replacing the U.S. attorneys at the beginning of your term is standard practice. Removed the ones who don't follow your political agenda to the letter and to replace them without consent of congress is very different. But you know all this.
You're just playing dumb to try to confuse the point. It's not like Clinton killed anyone. Oh, you think he killed Vince Foster. What a moron.
Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week. (Score:3, Insightful)
Satire isn't in itself informative, but the people who read it are informed because the content of the media is directed towards the informed.
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, they'll notice alright. They'll just campaign to only the 20% of people who vote.
Re:Obligatory Douglas Adams (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, this is very true. If I, for example, really voted my conscience, I'd have to vote Green. Now, that's one less vote for the Democrats, which weakens them. If enough people on the far left vote Green or Socialist or something, it significantly weakens the position of the left-of-center party so that the right-of-center party wins the election. And since they're opposed to positions that I'm in favor of, I'm usually voting against the Republicans rather than for anyone.
The only way you'll ever have a system where people can vote their hopes instead of their fears is if we get rid of this ridiculous notion of winner-takes-all elections.
Re:Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)
Two Words: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, and EVERY one of your points is wrong:
Foreign intelligence agencies - you mean like the discredited yellowcake? More BS.
Previous Clinton? Where? More BS.
Bush admin? Scott Ritter ring any bells? They KNEW, you spew yet more BS.
Saddam's Generals. You mean that they didn't want to say that they were defenseless to Iran? More BS.
Inner Circle defectors. You mean people with a motive to lie? More BS.
You and those like you are totally full of shit. We KNEW there were no WMD, we went to war anyway with them as an excuse. Almost everyone? You mean the UN officials (Hans Blix et al) who said it was BS? Or the MILLIONS of people who marched in protest? Or do you just have your head stuck so far up your anus all you can see is your own shit?
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course this was how the founding fathers envisioned that the government would work, three equal branches of government would check each other. Instead, in the early part of the 21st century, the three branches of government shifted dramatically to the right and began to collude with each other, instead of checking each other. The result is the fascist government we have had these last (almost) 8 years.
Oh give me a break please (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the people have to exercise that power for it to make any difference. The #1 thing that takes power away from the people is this depressive meme that what they do doesn't matter anyway. So yeah, if you're sitting around bitching about how you don't have power, instead of voting and writing letters and making phone calls and attending town hall meetings--you're right you don't have power. I'd submit that that's your own fault though.
I think the money aspect is usually overplayed. Money matters, but it's not the only thing. For example--which side of the "drill in ANWR debate" has more money? But they've lost like 20-some votes now, most of which were even under Republican rule. In the end it always comes back to votes. Money can help with those, but it can't actually buy them. No amount of money was going to get Mark Foley back into office.
And to continue my rant just a little longer, it seems like the power of the president is always overplayed in these discussions. Congress is directly elected by the people (even Senators now--another example of increasing power to the people), and is directly accountable to them in a very local way. A lot of the problems of the past 6 years could have been avoided or at least mitigated had Congress been in greater opposition to the President.
So maybe you say: well there's always only two candidates, and I don't agree with either. Well first of all I'd say you're probably not paying attention, since most elections go through a primary process that involves many more candidates than 2. So there's your first chance to affect an election.
I'd also say that there's another way to look at elections--as a beginning not an end. The goal is not to get someone who will "represent you" perfectly, the goal is just to get the person elected who is most likely to be sympathetic to your position on your pet issues. The key is what happens after the election, when the rep. has to start making actual decisions and votes--that's when citizen activity matters most. This is how all the trade associations and interest groups and lobbyists view elections BTW.
You're never going to get someone who agrees with you on more than a couple issues. If we imagine some simple world of only 6 for/against policy positions, that's still 64 possible combinations of beliefs. Whether there are 2 or 4 candidates to choose from does not significantly change the odds that you'll get someone you agree with 100%. And the real world is way more complicated than that.
Finally, losing is not necessarily proof that the system is broken, it's probably just proof that more people disagree with you than agree with you. So what next? It's possible to change minds but it takes time. It took decades of continuous work for the Republicans to get Congress, but they did it. They fucked it up in record time, but the point is that they wanted it, they worked for it, and they got it.
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
"Stop doing what you're doing, or I'll ignore you even harder and make it even easier for you to keep doing what you're doing, and to make more money and power for you and your friends."
I bet they're terrified of your apathy-foo.
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
we the American people hired incompetents to run our business. or we abdicated, left the hiring up to the lamers who'll actually stand in line to vote - those dumbfucks don't have anything else better to do??
we the people used to be in charge but we slacked off. and now who's in charge? assholes. but who hired them? who _let_ them?
if the American people are ever going to be in charge of their own lives again then we have to wake up, take responsiblity, quit crying like pussies that "someone stole my country" and fucking take it back
fucking vote! even if it's for Ralph Nader. fucking vote. campaign. volunteer. shoot your mouth off. act like you give a shit! be loud. be proud. be a real patriot. and realize you might have to sacrifice something. do it anyway
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the use of electoral districts, compounded by gerrymandering [wikipedia.org]. If Proportional Voting was used, then from your example above 32 of California's seats would go for the Democrats and 23 for the Republicans (and a similar adjustment would take place in Texas). Even beter, Proportional Voting means that smaller parties actually have a chance to elect one or more representatives.
The truth is, as long as not every vote is equal and some are more equal than others, the US is not a true democracy.
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
The 90's were great because Clinton stood up the Republicans on bs like the bankruptcy bill and slashing the budget to give tax cuts to the rich. The main issue that the Republican's stood up to Clinton and won was defeating universal health care, which has cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for crappy care. Thanks, GOP! Once they had the White House and Congress all bets were off.
It's also worth mentioning that Clinton was a conservative president: pro death penalty, pro law enfocement, NAFTA, deregulation, COPA, Defense of Marriage Act, etc. He only looks liberal next to today's fascist republicans. To get real political balance you would need to appoint Castro and Chavez and a few family members to the Supreme Court.
tricks are not new (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
He also would have won the electoral vote in 2000 if there had been a statewide recount of Florida's votes.
You mean like this [cnn.com]?
With the electoral college, the only votes that are fought for are those in battleground states. The rest of the country is lucky to settle for a visit from the VP nominee.
And without the electoral college, the only votes that would be fought for are those in big cities. The rest of the country would be lucky to get a campaign stop from a candidate traveling between cities.
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)
As for Gonzales, he is merely a vehicle by which the democrats have sought to destroy President Bush. US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the current President. He decided that he didn't want them working as US Attorneys so they had to go. Should have been end of story, but democrats are too driven in their hatred of Presidnet Bush. President Bush is not perfect, but he is not nearly what the media portrays him to be. We can only thank God that it was he and not Al Gore who appointed the recent Supreme Court Justices. A liberal stacked court would have easily cranked out more new laws than congress... all with no recourse from the people.
~AR
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is the correct way to run a war.
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
Tragic. They'll have to feel how 47/48 non-swing states feel right now.
Re:It's not ironic. (Score:2, Insightful)
Since their MO is to scrutinize the media, they must hold up to an equal level of scrutiny from their viewers.
Instead of shoving their opinions down the viewers' throats without supporting evidence, they provide the raw materials--such as video clips of a politician contradicting himself--and have the viewers draw their own conclusions.
- RG>
Re:Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you have a monarchy currently. The fixed term and the elected leader limit it but currently there is less limits on the executive branch than most kings since John have had.
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)