Partisan Bias Alleged as Bush Fired DAs...

[Nickdfresh]

The Failed Attorney General

Published: March 11, 2007

During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.

He has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush’s imperial presidency. If anyone, outside Mr. Bush’s rapidly shrinking circle of enablers, still had doubts about that, the events of last week should have erased them.

First, there was Mr. Gonzales’s lame op-ed article in USA Today trying to defend the obviously politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, which he dismissed as an “overblown personnel matter.” Then his inspector general exposed the way the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been abusing yet another unnecessary new power that Mr. Gonzales helped wring out of the Republican-dominated Congress in the name of fighting terrorism.

The F.B.I. has been using powers it obtained under the Patriot Act to get financial, business and telephone records of Americans by issuing tens of thousands of “national security letters,” a euphemism for warrants that are issued without any judicial review or avenue of appeal. The administration said that, as with many powers it has arrogated since the 9/11 attacks, this radical change was essential to fast and nimble antiterrorism efforts, and it promised to police the use of the letters carefully.

But like so many of the administration’s promises, this one evaporated before the ink on those letters could dry. The F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, admitted Friday that his agency had used the new powers improperly.

Mr. Gonzales does not directly run the F.B.I., but it is part of his department and has clearly gotten the message that promises (and civil rights) are meant to be broken.

It was Mr. Gonzales, after all, who repeatedly defended Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans’ international calls and e-mail. He was an eager public champion of the absurd notion that as commander in chief during a time of war, Mr. Bush can ignore laws that he thinks get in his way. Mr. Gonzales was disdainful of any attempt by Congress to examine the spying program, let alone control it.

The attorney general helped formulate and later defended the policies that repudiated the Geneva Conventions in the war against terror, and that sanctioned the use of kidnapping, secret detentions, abuse and torture. He has been central to the administration’s assault on the courts, which he recently said had no right to judge national security policies, and on the constitutional separation of powers.

His Justice Department has abandoned its duties as guardian of election integrity and voting rights. It approved a Georgia photo-ID law that a federal judge later likened to a poll tax, a case in which Mr. Gonzales’s political team overrode the objections of the department’s professional staff.

The Justice Department has been shamefully indifferent to complaints of voter suppression aimed at minority voters. But it has managed to find the time to sue a group of black political leaders in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters.

We opposed Mr. Gonzales’s nomination as attorney general. His résumé was weak, centered around producing legal briefs for Mr. Bush that assured him that the law said what he wanted it to say. More than anyone in the administration, except perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Gonzales symbolizes Mr. Bush’s disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.

On Thursday, Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted very obliquely that perhaps Mr. Gonzales’s time was up. We’re not going to be oblique. Mr. Bush should dismiss Mr. Gonzales and finally appoint an attorney general who will use the job to enforce the law and defend the Constitution.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/opinion/11sun1.html)

[Nickdfresh]

March 13, 2007
Gonzales Says ‘Mistakes Were Made’ in Firing of Prosecutors
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, March 13 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said this afternoon that “ I accept that mistakes were made” in the decision to replace some United States attorneys, but he vowed to stay on the job and fix the system.

Speaking at a news conference at the Justice Department, Mr. Gonzales said he did not have personal knowledge of the discussions involving individual United States attorneys, but he accepted responsibility for the errors that were made. He said he rejected an earlier White House proposal to replace all the United States attorneys at once as “too disruptive.”

His statement came as Senate Democrats vowed to get explanations, with or without subpoenas, from high Bush administration officials as revelations about the dismissal of federal prosecutors put renewed pressure on the White House.

“Just when we thought our faith could not be shaken any further, it has been,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The latest revelations prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been unprecedented breach of trust, abuse of power and misuse of the Justice Department.”

Mr. Schumer was reacting to disclosures by administration officials on Monday that the White House was deeply involved in the decision late last year to dismiss federal prosecutors, including some who had been criticized by Republican lawmakers.

The furor was heightened this afternoon as the House Judiciary Committee released copies of e-mail messages between Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and D. Kyle Sampson, a top aide to Mr. Gonzales who quit on Monday, discussing changes among United States attorneys. A Sept. 13, 2006, note from Mr. Sampson to Ms. Miers, for instance, names some prosecutors “who, rumor has it will be leaving” and other “in the process of being pushed out.”

Mr. Schumer, who called over the weekend for the resignation of Mr. Gonzales, renewed that call today. The senator also said Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser, “should not wait for a subpoena” but should come before Congress at once to tell what he knows about the affair.

So should Ms. Miers, the one-time Supreme Court nominee, “who was deeply involved in this ill-conceived project,” Mr. Schumer said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and also a member of the Judiciary Committee, said she had always believed that the attorney general’s office “stood apart from the White House.”

“And now I learn that much of what I had believed, at least about this attorney general’s office, is in fact not the case,” Senator Feinstein said. Predicting that a full inquiry may take a while, she said: “We will go that distance. And we will dig just as deep as is required.”

Mr. Gonzales, for his part, said this afternoon that he believes deeply in the “advise and consent” role of the Senate and that he would do what he could to win back the confidence of lawmakers. “I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department, but when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions made that I’m not aware of in real time.”

Mr. Gonzales brushed off any notion that he might resign, saying he would concentrate on mending lines of communication within the department. “I’ve overcome a lot of obstacles in my life to become attorney general,” he said. “I am here not because I give up. I am here because I’ve learned from my mistakes, because I accept responsibility and because I’m committed to doing my job, and that is what I intend to do here on behalf of the American people.”

The political problem for the White House was underscored when some Republicans criticized the administration for its handling of the controversy. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said the whole affair had shown “idiocy on the part of the administration.”

“They have the right to let people go, they are political appointments, but why would you do it in a way that creates a political problem?” Mr. Coburn said. “I don’t understand it.” He demurred when he was asked if he had faith in Mr. Gonzales.

And Senator John Ensign, a Nevada Republican who is not on the committee, said he would reserve judgment on Mr. Gonzales. “I want to see how the attorney general leads the Justice Department in this time of crisis,” Mr. Ensign said. “Things have been handled poorly at this point.”

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, seemed to want to give the White House the benefit of the doubt, for now, but said the administration should offer explanations. “The situation has become so convoluted that I think the administration would be best served for people to come forward and discuss the matter, even if they acted entirely properly,” Mr. Specter said in an interview on Monday.

Last October, President Bush spoke with Mr. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official.

The president did not call for the removal of any specific United States attorneys, Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, said Monday. She said she had “no indication” that the president had been personally aware that a process was already under way to identify prosecutors who would be fired.

But Ms. Perino disclosed that White House officials had consulted with the Justice Department in preparing the list of United States attorneys who would be removed.

Within a few weeks of the president’s comments to the attorney general, the Justice Department forced out seven prosecutors.

Previously, the White House had said that Mr. Bush’s aides approved the list of prosecutors only after it was compiled.

The role of the president and his advisers in the prosecutor shakeup is likely to intensify calls by Congress for an investigation. The crisis is the worst of Mr. Gonzales’s tenure and provoked charges that the dismissals were a political purge threatening the historical independence of the Justice Department.

The idea of dismissing federal prosecutors originated in the White House more than a year earlier, White House and Justice officials said Monday.

In early 2005, Ms. Miers, then the White House legal counsel, asked a Justice Department official whether it would be feasible to replace all United States attorneys when their four-year terms expired, according to the Justice Department. The proposal came as the administration was considering which political appointees to replace in the second term, Ms. Perino said.

Ms. Miers sent her query to Mr. Sampson, the Justice officials said. Mr. Sampson replied that filling so many jobs at once would overtax the department. He suggested replacing a smaller group, according to e-mail messages and other memorandums compiled by the Justice Department.

Mr. Rove, the senior White House adviser, also had rejected the idea of replacing all the prosecutors, Ms. Perino said. But as Ms. Miers worked with Mr. Sampson on devising a list of attorneys to oust, Mr. Rove relayed to her complaints he had received that the Justice Department was not moving aggressively on voter fraud cases.

The White House continued to defend its handling of the dismissals.

“We continue to believe that the decision to remove and replace U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president was perfectly appropriate and within our discretion,” Ms. Perino said. “We stand by the Department of Justice assertion that they identified the seven U.S. attorneys who were removed, as they have said, based on performance and managerial reasons.”

The chief White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said today that President Bush had “made no recommendations on specific individuals.”

“We don’t have anything to indicate the president made any calls on specific U.S. attorneys,” Mr. Snow told reporters in Mexico, as Mr. Bush neared the end of his trip to South and Central America.

Justice Department officials have said they removed the United States attorney in Arkansas earlier last year to make room for a Republican Party lawyer and onetime adviser to Mr. Rove.

In the other cases, though, the department at first denied that the dismissals were performance related, and then said they were, citing managerial problems, lack of aggressiveness and conflicts over seeking the death penalty or enforcing immigration laws.

Justice Department officials said Monday that they had only learned recently about Mr. Sampson’s extensive e-mail and memos with Ms. Miers about the prosecutors. The communications were discovered Thursday when Mr. Sampson turned over the material to officials who were assembling documents in response to Congressional requests.

The documents did not provide a clear motive for the firings. Some suggested that department officials were dissatisfied with specific prosecutors, but none cited aggressive public corruption inquiries or failure to pursue voter fraud cases as an explicit reason to remove them.

On Dec. 4, 2006, three days before the dismissals, Mr. Sampson sent an e-mail message to the White House with a copy to Ms. Miers outlining plans to carry out the firings

“We would like to execute this on Thursday, Dec. 7,” Mr. Sampson wrote. Because some United States attorneys were still in Washington attending a conference, he planned to postpone telling them they were being fired. He wrote, “We want to wait until they are back home and dispersed to reduce chatter.”

Mr. Sampson predicted that dismissals might stir debate. “Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval,” he wrote in describing what to expect as a result of the firings. “U.S Attorneys desiring to save their jobs aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department community, likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. You should expect these efforts to be strenuous.”

Mr. Rove’s role in expressing concerns about prosecutors had emerged in recent days. The White House acknowledged Sunday that Mr. Rove had passed on complaints to Mr. Gonzales and Ms. Miers about David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as the United States attorney in New Mexico. Mr. Rove’s role surfaced after the McClatchy Newspapers reported that a Republican Party official in New Mexico had complained to Mr. Rove in 2005 and again a year later about Mr. Iglesias’s failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation.

Concern about voter registration fraud turned political in several states in 2004 where there were close elections, including some lost narrowly by Republican candidates.

An associate of Mr. Rove said Monday that although he had learned in November that the prosecutors were being replaced, his conversation with Allen Weh, the Republican Party chairman in New Mexico, and subsequently with Mr. Gonzales, were brief exchanges at holiday parties and that they occurred after Dec. 7, when Mr. Iglesias and six other prosecutors were dismissed.

John McKay, the ousted United States attorney in Seattle, said last week while in Washington to testify before Congress that White House lawyers interviewing him for a possible federal judgeship had asked him why he had “mishandled” an investigation into voter fraud allegations in his state following the 2004 elections.

House and Senate investigators have already made clear that they want to examine exactly what role the White House, Mr. Sampson, Ms. Miers (who left the administration in January), Mr. Rove and other senior officials played in the matter. Last week, six of the fired prosecutors testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Officials said Mr. Sampson, who once worked at the Bush White House interviewing candidates for United States attorney, was largely behind the effort at the Justice Department.

Senator Specter said in the interview on Monday that, while he had no independent verification that Mr. Rove was “part of any purge,” the issue “ought to be evaluated.”

“We have to go to the performance records of those who were asked to resign and see if there is a valid reason,” Mr. Specter said.

This week, the United States attorney dispute will be aired on the Senate floor during debate over legislation to roll back a provision of the antiterrorism law that allows President Bush to appoint interim United States attorneys indefinitely.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/washington/13attorneys.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

David Johnston, Eric Lipton and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting from Washington, and John Holusha from New York.

[Nickdfresh]

"Mistakes were made...?"

Really Speedy? Ya' sure?

http://www.magnaws.com/junk/WhiteHouseTPDispenser.jpg
Don't forget to flush...


Idiots!!

[studly hungwell]

Bill Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys when he took office. Bush had this insanity he called "a new tone" that he was gonna bring to DC. Congruent with this....many Clinton holdovers are still in office. Hillary calls for AG resignation????????? Please!!!!!!!! Either everyone is on dope (no short term memory) or Mrs. Clinton is on dope. Tell me, Watson......which is more viable?

[Nickdfresh]

He fired them at the beginning of his term, not because they failed to investigate "voter-fraud cases," but only ones where Republicans alleged such discrimination.

And he also didn't happen to fire a prosecutor that received an ominous phone call from a member of congress asking him if he was going to press charges against a Democrat before the Nov. elections

[studly hungwell]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He fired them at the beginning of his term, not because they failed to investigate "voter-fraud cases," but only ones where Republicans alleged such discrimination.

And he also didn't happen to fire a prosecutor that received an ominous phone call from a member of congress asking him if he was going to press charges against a Democrat before the Nov. elections

Sorry dude.....Clinton fired 93 because he had a problem in Little Rock and Chicago. Also there are political reasons for a president to stock his own justice department. Position on the death penalty being a damn good example. It is all politics....no foul here, dude.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by studly hungwell
Sorry dude.....Clinton fired 93 because he had a problem in Little Rock and Chicago. Also there are political reasons for a president to stock his own justice department. Position on the death penalty being a damn good example. It is all politics....no foul here, dude.

Or to fire them as a means of political intimidation?

And Gonzales is a pinhead with or without this scandal...

And BTW, I bet if I find and research something on the controversial "93 judge purge" by Clinton, I bet I'd find it pretty much the norm...


Firing prosecutors because they fail to carry out your political agenda?

That's bullshit...

I think all but one of those now ex-DAs received positive performance reviews...

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think all but one of those now ex-DAs received positive performance reviews...

Right. The Nevada attorney received his last review in 2003 and got high marks. The next time he's contacted by the AGO is with a pink slip?.....

House cleaning is something that is done at the start of a new administration, not after you decide certain individuals may not be promoting your agenda as vigorously as you would like. Inventing lame-assed excuses to shit-can someone is what's making this of interest.

[studly hungwell]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Right. The Nevada attorney received his last review in 2003 and got high marks. The next time he's contacted by the AGO is with a pink slip?.....

House cleaning is something that is done at the start of a new administration, not after you decide certain individuals may not be promoting your agenda as vigorously as you would like. Inventing lame-assed excuses to shit-can someone is what's making this of interest.


It may be of interest but no law was broken here. Why waste time investigating a totally legal thing. Distasteful?..Maybe, Disgusting to some people?....Yes. But, not illegal.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Right. The Nevada attorney received his last review in 2003 and got high marks. The next time he's contacted by the AGO is with a pink slip?.....

House cleaning is something that is done at the start of a new administration, not after you decide certain individuals may not be promoting your agenda as vigorously as you would like. Inventing lame-assed excuses to shit-can someone is what's making this of interest.

This administration also fired the very same peopel they hired in most cases...

[Nickdfresh]

White House Now Unsure of Miers Role
White House Cites "Hazy Memories" in Prosecutor Firings; GOP Support Erodes for Gonzales
By LAURIE KELLMAN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The White House dropped its contention Friday that former Counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys, blaming "hazy memories" as e-mails shed new light on Karl Rove's role. Support eroded further for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Presidential press secretary Tony Snow previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea, but he said Friday, "I don't want to try to vouch for origination." He said, "At this juncture, people have hazy memories."

The White House also said it needed more time before deciding whether Miers, political strategist Rove and other presidential advisers would testify before Congress and whether the White House would release documents to lawmakers.

"Given the importance of the issues under consideration and the presidential principles involved, we need more time to resolve them," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. She said White House Counsel Fred Fielding suggested to the House Judiciary Committee that he get back to members on Tuesday.

Fielding called a staff member of the House Judiciary Committee Thursday afternoon, saying he needed to clear the White House's position with Bush, according to an official who works for the panel. That official spoke only on condition of anonymity because the conversation had been private.

After receiving word of the delay, committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said his panel would vote next week on subpoenas for Rove, Miers and other officials.

Snow's comments came hours after the Justice Department released e-mails Thursday night pulling the White House deeper into an intensifying investigation into whether eight firings were a purge of prosecutors deemed unenthusiastic about presidential goals.

Snow said it was not immediately clear who first floated the more dramatic idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys shortly after President Bush was re-elected to a second term.

"This is as far as we can go: We know that Karl recollects Harriet having raised it and his recollection is that he dismissed it as not a good idea," Snow told reporters. "That's what we know. We don't know motivations. ... I don't think it's safe to go any further than that."

Asked if Bush himself might have suggested the firings, Snow said, "Anything's possible ... but I don't think so." He said Bush "certainly has no recollection of any such thing. I can't speak for the attorney general."

"I want you to be clear here: Don't be dropping it at the president's door," Snow said.

Subpoenas demanding testimony from White House officials could come next week.

Conyers said the House Judiciary Committee "must take steps to ensure that we are not being stonewalled or slow-walked on this matter." He said, "I will schedule a vote to issue subpoenas for the documents and officials we need to talk to."

"We hope that this delay is not a signal they will not cooperate," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate's probe into the matter. "The story keeps changing, which neither does them or the public any good."

Meanwhile, a Republican House member suggested it might be time for Gonzales to go.

"It is ultimately the president's decision, but perhaps it would benefit this administration if the attorney general was replaced with someone with a more professional focus rather than personal loyalty," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. He complained of "a pattern of arrogance in this administration."

Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire has called for Bush to replace Gonzales, and a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, speaking on condition of anonymity, has said he plans to do the same next week.

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina said the controversies reflected poorly on administration officials generally.

"They don't know anything about running government. They're just political hacks," Clyburn said at a news conference in Columbia, S.C. "Gonzales is just a political hack."

Other GOP lawmakers have joined Democrats in harsh indictments of Gonzales' effectiveness but have stopped short of saying he should be fired.

"I do not think the attorney general has served the president well, but it is up to the president to decide on General Gonzales' continued tenure," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

The latest e-mails between White House and Justice Department officials show that Rove inquired in early January 2005 about firing U.S. attorneys. They also indicate Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.

In one e-mail, Gonzales' top aide, Kyle Sampson, said an across-the-board housecleaning "would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only." The e-mail concluded that "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."

Sampson resigned this week amid the uproar.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote for next Thursday on authorizing subpoenas for Rove, Miers and her deputy, William K. Kelley. The panel already has approved the use of subpoenas, if necessary, for Justice Department officials and J. Scott Jennings, a White House aide who works in Rove's office.

E-mails between the White House and the Justice Department suggest that Jennings was involved in setting up a meeting on a possible replacement for soon-to-be-fired New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias and in responding to "a senator problem" with the proposed replacement of Bud Cummins, then U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

Among the Justice Department officials named in the subpoenas is Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella. Lawmakers want him to testify about whether the White House consented to changing the Patriot Act last year to let the attorney general appoint new U.S. attorneys without confirmation.

In an interview with The Associated Press this week, Moschella said the change was not aimed at bypassing the Senate but ending meddling by judges in filling vacant prosecutors' jobs. Under the former law, federal judges could appoint interim U.S. attorneys in jobs that were vacant for more than 120 days.

"There's a conspiracy theory about this and it's nothing other than that," Moschella said.


Copyright © 2007 ABC News (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2958356) Internet Ventures

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And BTW, I bet if I find and research something on the controversial "93 judge purge" by Clinton, I bet I'd find it pretty much the norm...

Actually, it was unprecedented up until that time to remove every US attorney in the country.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Inventing lame-assed excuses to shit-can someone is what's making this of interest.

The President and the Justice Dept do not need excuses.

They can fire any US Attorney they want at any time for any reason. Even no reason.

There's nothing to this.

One of these US Attorneys was going to resign anyway this year. They basically pushed him out the door a months ahead of schedule.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The President and the Justice Dept do not need excuses.

They can fire any US Attorney they want at any time for any reason. Even no reason.

There's nothing to this.

One of these US Attorneys was going to resign anyway this year. They basically pushed him out the door a months ahead of schedule.

It's okay War, even a lot of Republicans think Roberto is a flaming idiot, and Rove/Bush asslapper...

You don't have to be such a BuSheep all of the time...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It's okay War, even a lot of Republicans think Roberto is a flaming idiot, and Rove/Bush asslapper...

You don't have to be such a BuSheep all of the time...

I'm not, as I've been quite irritated by many Bush decisions, but this ain't one of them. Much ado about nothing.

I don't think any Republicans have called him an 'idiot'.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
The President and the Justice Dept do not need excuses.

They can fire any US Attorney they want at any time for any reason. Even no reason.

There's nothing to this.


You're an ass! A fool! An ass-fool!

Who would want the fucking job under those circumstances?

More rhetoric from your Pig Master Limpdick?

This holds as much water as a spaghetti drainer.:rolleyes: :p

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm not, as I've been quite irritated by many Bush decisions,


Liar.

Name 3.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Who would want the fucking job under those circumstances?


You could ask the same thing about being the manager for the Cubs, but people line up for that job every time it's open.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't think any Republicans have called him an 'idiot'.

If you're still a "Republican", you ARE an idiot.....


You have nothing onto which you can claim victory on any issue.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Liar.

Name 3.

1. His immigration policy stinks.

2. He hasn't clamped down on the border like I and many conservatives hoped.

4. He's never vetoed anything with massive pork in it. Rampant, ridiculous spending (not defense). Too many entitlements. He spends like a 60s liberal.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
You could ask the same thing about being the manager for the Cubs, but people line up for that job every time it's open.

Not so, 'ham....you know people have turned it down.......


Look what you get when you blame your failures on your subordinates...

You get a shit-well from which to draw your prospects from....

Lowering the standards, expectations, and the team will follow...

Same holds true with Dumyah....

Except I don't believe he is really running things....

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
If you're still a "Republican", you ARE an idiot.....


You have nothing onto which you can claim victory on any issue.

I'll always be a Republican, and there's no shame in that at all. Ronald Reagan's my political idol.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Not so, 'ham....you know people have turned it down.......


Look what you get when you blame your failures on your subordinates...

You get a shit-well from which to draw your prospects from....

Lowering the standards, expectations, and the team will follow...

Same holds true with Dumyah....

Except I don't believe he is really running things....

Lou Piniella just signed on as the Cubs manager, and he's one of the best managers from the past 25 years. They didn't have a hard time finding anyone.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
1. His immigration policy stinks.

2. He hasn't clamped down on the border like I and many conservatives hoped.

4. He's never vetoed anything with massive pork in it. Rampant, ridiculous spending (not defense). Too many entitlements. He spends like a 60s liberal.

1 and 2 are the same issue.

you skipped 3.


His spending habits shouldn't concern you, if you benefit from his so-called tax cuts.
He just stops state-funding, forcing the individual states to raise it's taxes to make up for the lost Govt. revenue, so your "break" gets eaten up anyway....

Boy, you Repukes sure like getting money from the govt! Don't think you should have to pay your way,do ya? To hell with the poor and the handicapped, I need a SPEEDBOAT!!! You greedy bastards are gonna kill this nation.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
Lou Piniella just signed on as the Cubs manager, and he's one of the best managers from the past 25 years. They didn't have a hard time finding anyone.

You're welcome for the leftovers!

Yes, we had sweet Lou down here for awhile........


I wished I were here in '90....


Back to you being a loser repuke....:p

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
I'll always be a Republican, and there's no shame in that at all. Ronald Reagan's my political idol.


Shit! Do you say that out loud? People must think you have turrettes! Does your 'ol lady have a t-shirt like this?........ :stupid:

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
1 and 2 are the same issue.

you skipped 3.


His spending habits shouldn't concern you, if you benefit from his so-called tax cuts.
He just stops state-funding, forcing the individual states to raise it's taxes to make up for the lost Govt. revenue, so your "break" gets eaten up anyway....

Boy, you Repukes sure like getting money from the govt! Don't think you should have to pay your way,do ya? To hell with the poor and the handicapped, I need a SPEEDBOAT!!! You greedy bastards are gonna kill this nation.

I did benefit from his tax cuts, because I'm a rich Republican. :)

New Hampshire doesn't have taxes, so I'm fortunate, eh?

No, we Republicans like to KEEP the money we made in the first place, instead of giving it to the government.

And because of Bush's tax cuts, there's more money in the federal government's coffers than than was during the Clinton administration, when everyone was getting taxed to death.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
I'll always be a Republican,

You can get therapy for that....OCD is a motherfucker....

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Shit! Do you say that out loud? People must think you have turrettes! Does your 'ol lady have a t-shirt like this?........ :stupid:

It's well known around these parts, and I have no problem saying it in public.

He was a great president, and a great man. :)

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
You can get therapy for that....OCD is a motherfucker....

I'm just fine being who I am.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I did benefit from his tax cuts, because I'm a rich Republican. :)

I thought it was your wife, "Heintz," that was rich.;)


New Hampshire doesn't have taxes, so I'm fortunate, eh?

So that's why my brother moved there...


No, we Republicans like to KEEP the money we made in the first place, instead of giving it to the government.

We sensible, patriotic moderates are willing to sacrifice a little bit to have better, more stable gov't and longevity of the American dream.


And because of Bush's tax cuts, there's more money in the federal government's coffers than than was during the Clinton administration, when everyone was getting taxed to death.

What complete, unadulterated crap.:)

And if we were getting "taxed to death" under Clinton, why was the economic engine, powered by the Internets, roaring along?

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham


And because of Bush's tax cuts, there's more money in the federal government's coffers than than was during the Clinton administration, when everyone was getting taxed to death.



You're out of your fucking dome!

Don't gimme that shit there's more money in the coffers shit! There's less than nothing in there! YOu are a joke!

You're a rich republican who can be taxed to death? How does that work? You claim to be rich...

And if you personally don't want to "give the govt. your money", who pays for the war, asshole?! You would rather keep your precious paper than help the cause in any way...

You are a true fucking hypocrite and if I ever see you, I'll kneecap your ass.:argh: :mad2:

[Warham]

Rich people pay more in taxes than poor people. That's how they get my money. :)

[hideyoursheep]

Whatever, yellow scum.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Rich people pay more in taxes than poor people.

Really? Are you sure? No shit!!


That's how they get my money. :)

You mean...your wife's money.:)

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
You're out of your fucking dome!

Don't gimme that shit there's more money in the coffers shit! There's less than nothing in there! YOu are a joke!

You're a rich republican who can be taxed to death? How does that work? You claim to be rich...

And if you personally don't want to "give the govt. your money", who pays for the war, asshole?! You would rather keep your precious paper than help the cause in any way...

You are a true fucking hypocrite and if I ever see you, I'll kneecap your ass.:argh: :mad2:

Read and learn.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Warham, although I do admire your tenactity, sometimes you really really really bring these arguments on yourself.

Nothing to see here? If politics played a role in how the US attorneys approach their jobs, then potetnitally if Clinton had abused his office half as much as this administration seemingly has, Bush could never have become president.

The allegations at this point are that the law should have been side-stepped for the likes of Duke Cunningham, and overextended for the likes of voters in St Louis for posting their addresses on voter rolls as living in vacant lots.

And then abusing something as important - and controversial - as Tyhe Patriot Act to slip in a little provision to allow yourself to slip anyone you like into a US attorney's office without congressional oversight or approval? Well, the three equal branches of government was a nice concept while it lasted.

Nothing to see here? Only if you think the end of our country's legal guidelines and ethics and morals are nothing.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Whatever, yellow scum.

At least Nick's got a sense of humor. Don't take yourself too seriously, because we don't!

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Warham, although I do admire your tenactity, sometimes you really really really bring these arguments on yourself.

Nothing to see here? If politics played a role in how the US attorneys approach their jobs, then potetnitally if Clinton had abused his office half as much as this administration seemingly has, Bush could never have become president.

The allegations at this point are that the law should have been side-stepped for the likes of Duke Cunningham, and overextended for the likes of voters in St Louis for posting their addresses on voter rolls as living in vacant lots.

And then abusing something as important - and controversial - as Tyhe Patriot Act to slip in a little provision to allow yourself to slip anyone you like into a US attorney's office without congressional oversight or approval? Well, the three equal branches of government was a nice concept while it lasted.

Nothing to see here? Only if you think the end of our country's legal guidelines and ethics and morals are nothing.

Thanks for the compliment...I think.