News-Record.com

Doug, here's the Pitts column.

You could substitute the name of any past president in that column and it would also be accurate. There's nothing new or sensational about a president putting loyalists in positions.
Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys when he took office because they were Republicans. Witness the recent furor over President Bush firing 7 or so because they weren't following his policies. Dems seem to forget the transgressions of their own party idols when rushing to damn those of their opposition.

So what are you saying Jaycee, that you approve of such tactics or are you joining Pitts and Clark in condemning them?

Jaycee:

The scandal in the Goodling case is that these were career civil service positions, not political positions. Although Goodling's actions came to light as part of the investigation of the U.S. attorney firings, they were a different issue and were clearly against the law.

The closest counterpart from the Clinton administration was probably the firing of the White House travel office. But even there, that staff served at the pleasure of the President and did not enjoy career civil service protections. As with the current U.S. attorney firings, the scandals did not concern the firings but rather (a) the possible reasons behind them and (b) the inconsistent statements given to investigators.

I think the big news here is that Leonard wrote a column which was not about race. So many of his columns seems to be little else than a black man complaining about being black.

I must admit, I don't see Leonard Pitts as a race player at all. He seems solidly in the middle between Sharpton and Jackson who milk racism for profit and Thomas Sowell on the right who goes so far the other way he makes me want to stop having illegitimate kids, smoking crack and get a job and I, to my knowledge, have never done these things, and have the good fortune at this time to have employment.

I don't think Pitts considers white people worthy of indictment as institutional racists because their skin is white as some of our local fauna here in GC do. He isn't that brainwashed or gullible. I think he's one of the best columnists going.

The other thing that Jaycee ignores (or isn't aware of) is that it's been common for incoming presidents to replace most or all of the previous president's U.S. Attorneys. So yes, it's true that Clinton fired all 93 in 1991. But it's also true that in 2001, Bush dismissed all remaining Clinton appointees, though he did so more gradually. Within two years, 88 new U.S. attorneys were in place. And back in the early 1980s, Reagan replaced 89 of 93 within two years of entering office. So it's apples and oranges to compare Bush's midterm firings with Clinton's start-of-term firings.

Jaycee doesn't understand that until Bush 43, the custom was that once appointments were made at the beginning of one's presidency, there would be no further political firings. I don't believe anyone has claimed that Bush 43 broke the law in having Gonzales fire those U.S. Attorneys. The claim is that he broke with a time-honored and very sensible tradition. Unless that tradition is codified somehow, it means that some future president, even a liberal one!, could cite Bush's precedent for midterm political firings of U.S. Attorneys. I presume Jaycee would object to, say, a President Obama firing a U.S. Attorney because she isn't liberal enough. So would I.

To be sure, this is old news, and I'm mentioning it only to correct Jaycee's muddled history. As Dave noted, the significance of the news of Monica Goodling's activities is the politicization of the hiring of career employees of the Justice Department, which by law is supposed to be non-political.

Mr. Ribar, Mr. Brod, et.al., I disclaim the title of muddled historian.
Clinton fired US Attorneys and many others. So did most every other President upon entering office. It's their business to put people in responsible positions to carry out their policies. Whom would you suggest they bring on board---people who will fight against them??
So why the big deal only now when George Bush is President? Where was your outcry when Democrats did this same thing?
Could your opinion be a bit slanted because you're suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome? Oh, of course not...you're liberals and therefore "right and proper" about everything, aren't you? It's only wrong if a Republican does it, isn't it?
The depth of your hypocrisy is exceeded only by the inflated value you place on your own opinions.

Checking in from Up North:

Thanks for the discussion.

Presidents are allowed a certain, limited number of political appointments. These are the people who are supposed to give the ideological or philosophical direction to the administration. However, career employees are supposed to perform their duties without regard to political influence. The Bush Justice Department crossed a well established line. It's not at all comparable to Clinton's replacement of U.S. attorneys, who expect to come and go when administrations change.

Doug, don't go trying to insert facts into this discussion. Facts make Jaycee angry.

If "career employees" conduct themselves in a partisan manner (working against the current administration's goals) is it not the responsibility of the Justice Dept. to replace them? I'd certainly think so.

A Brod, I know nothing of this. However Jaycee is one of best posters here. I have 100% respect for him. He nailed the Duke case the first day. While all the liberals were screaming, hang them, screw a jury. Now if the shoe fits some of the above tough.