What is it About George W. Bush That Makes You Want to Serve Him?

Can anyone be bothered to show some anger at the latest news coming out of the Justice Department? Seems that every rumor about political shennanigans turned out to be true. Here are some of the standard interview questions used when hiring:

Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.

[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.

Why are you a Republican?

Let us be abundantly clear: These criteria were applied to non-political appointments as well as political ones. Lifetime positions in non-political areas were filtered with the same criteria as Presidential appointees.

And remember, the War On Terror is huge and important, and supersedes all laws and conventions of war and justice, except when it doesn't:

Still, anticlimactic or not, its dry recitation of the facts surrounding "Candidate #1" (the first of eight political hit jobs engineered by Goodling) is pretty startling:

He was an experienced terrorism prosecutor and had successfully prosecuted a high-profile terrorism case for which he received the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service....Battle stated that Voris told him that the candidate was head and shoulders above the other candidates who had applied for the counterterrorism detail.

Sounds like a great guy. But there was a problem:

The candidate's wife was a prominent local Democrat elected official and vice-chairman of a local Democratic Party. She also ran several Democratic congressional campaigns....Battle, Kelly, and EOUSA Deputy Director Nowacki all told us that Goodling refused to allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA solely on the basis of his wife's political party affiliation.

....Because EOUSA had been unable to fill the counterterrorism detail after Goodling vetoed this candidate, a current EOUSA detailee was asked to assume EOUSA's counterterrorism portfolio....He had no counterterrorism experience and had less than the minimum of 5 years of federal criminal prosecution experience required by the EOUSA job announcement. Battle, Nowacki, Kelly, and Voris all said they thought that he was not qualified for the position, since he had no counterterrorism experience. The replacement candidate was a registered Republican who Goodling had interviewed and approved before he was selected for his EOUSA detail.

Your Bush administration at work: When it's politically convenient, the war on terror is vitally important. When it's not, it's not.

Anybody care? Hello? Anyone? Bueller? Oh, and apparently it was very bad news if anybody -- anybody -- thought you might be gay. Even unsubstantiated rumors of homosexuality were enough to get people booted out of Justice.

Well, you live in the country where they'd rather have a criminal than an atheist. America is in some respects culturally backwards and Bush is a product of your society.

He's an extreme product, true, but both Obama and McCain made a point that they are committed Christians.

His proclivity to invade countries and execute people. Gets me everytime. :dancing:

Nothing really surprises me at this point, which is why I didn't start a thread on it. Nothing is going to be done about it anyway. Come Jan 19, 2009, there will be get out of jail free cards coming from the White House, and the only punishment will be the cramped hand doing the signatures.

This type of unsavory political behavior has been used to varying degrees by both Republicans & Democrats at the Federal & State level in my neck of the woods. The current administration has just been more bold in using these methods. I'm disgusted with both parties and would throw out every incumbent if I could.

Don't expect the Supreme Court to come to the rescue either. They've thumbed their nose on a recent related case that challenged the politically corrupt method that New York State uses to select their judges. Since Corruption is past practice it's constitutional


Some of my favorite highlights:

Quote:

---

Justice Antonin Scalia's succinct 12-page opinion for the court was dismissive of what he characterized as the lawsuit's premise. ''None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination,'' he wrote.

The fact that the party leadership ''effectively determines the nominees'' at the nominating conventions, Justice Scalia continued, ''says nothing more than that the party leadership has more widespread support than a candidate not supported by the leadership.''

He added, ''Party conventions, with their attendant 'smoke-filled rooms' and domination by party leaders, have long been an accepted manner of selecting party candidates.''

---

The Supreme dodge:

Quote:

---

''I think it appropriate to emphasize the distinction between constitutionality and wise policy,'' Justice John Paul Stevens said in a one-paragraph opinion that was also signed by Justice David H. Souter. Quoting Justice Thurgood Marshall, Justice Stevens added: ''The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.''

---

Two out of nine "got it":

Quote:

---

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer said: ''If New York statutes for nominating and electing judges do not produce both the perception and the reality of a system committed to the highest ideals of the law, they ought to be changed and to be changed now.''

---

New York State has been dominated and run by the Democrats for decades, and I would expect no better from the Republicans. When it comes to power they have no shame.

My favorite part is his blatant flaunting of the Constitution and due legal process. And THEN on top of that, they get mad when they're called to the carpet for it. Pesky laws getting the way of progress, geez...

This is all :(

What happened here?

Simply put, in both cases, Discovery1, is the bald fact that judges don't get selected by their excellence in their field. They get selected by political affiliation and in New York State's case by how willing and well they pimp for the party boss in charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Can anyone be bothered to show some anger at the latest news coming out of the Justice Department? Seems that every rumor about political shennanigans turned out to be true. Here are some of the standard interview questions used when hiring:

Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.

[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.

Why are you a Republican?

Let us be abundantly clear: These criteria were applied to non-political appointments as well as political ones. Lifetime positions in non-political areas were filtered with the same criteria as Presidential appointees.

And remember, the War On Terror is huge and important, and supersedes all laws and conventions of war and justice, except when it doesn't:

Still, anticlimactic or not, its dry recitation of the facts surrounding "Candidate #1" (the first of eight political hit jobs engineered by Goodling) is pretty startling:

He was an experienced terrorism prosecutor and had successfully prosecuted a high-profile terrorism case for which he received the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service....Battle stated that Voris told him that the candidate was head and shoulders above the other candidates who had applied for the counterterrorism detail.

Sounds like a great guy. But there was a problem:

The candidate's wife was a prominent local Democrat elected official and vice-chairman of a local Democratic Party. She also ran several Democratic congressional campaigns....Battle, Kelly, and EOUSA Deputy Director Nowacki all told us that Goodling refused to allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA solely on the basis of his wife's political party affiliation.

....Because EOUSA had been unable to fill the counterterrorism detail after Goodling vetoed this candidate, a current EOUSA detailee was asked to assume EOUSA's counterterrorism portfolio....He had no counterterrorism experience and had less than the minimum of 5 years of federal criminal prosecution experience required by the EOUSA job announcement. Battle, Nowacki, Kelly, and Voris all said they thought that he was not qualified for the position, since he had no counterterrorism experience. The replacement candidate was a registered Republican who Goodling had interviewed and approved before he was selected for his EOUSA detail.

Your Bush administration at work: When it's politically convenient, the war on terror is vitally important. When it's not, it's not.

Anybody care? Hello? Anyone? Bueller? Oh, and apparently it was very bad news if anybody -- anybody -- thought you might be gay. Even unsubstantiated rumors of homosexuality were enough to get people booted out of Justice.

---

Yes, this is the first time in American history that an administration uses politics to choose the people that work for them. Boy, Lemur, you are the king of unecessary outrage.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Yes, this is the first time in American history that an administration uses politics to choose the people that work for them. Boy, Lemur, you are the king of unecessary outrage.:laugh4:

---

That would make things even worse, not better...

Look, it’s the American government going something the American people don’t agree with. At least this time it wasn’t to another country.

I reference my post in the “Yes, the palestianians are indeed the only bad guys in the middle east.” Thread.

Look, it’s the American government going something the American people don’t agree with. At least this time it wasn’t to another country.

It just shows that we do really love americans, were as concerned whether its americans or palestinians being mistreated by the american goverment...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Yes, this is the first time in American history that an administration uses politics to choose the people that work for them. Boy, Lemur, you are the king of unecessary outrage.:laugh4:

---

I'm glad to see you're still with us, DevDave. I got a little worried ...

Adkisson targeted the church "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

Adkisson told Still that 'he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office.'

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly. [...]

Owen said Adkisson had specifically targeted the Unitarian church. "It appears that church had received some publicity in the recent past regarding its liberal stance on things and that is at least one of the issues we believe caused that church to be selected,' he said.

Ya, I live in Tennessee, and while its the capitol of the country music industry, there are still plenty of Starbucks around to shoot up if you feel like starting The Revolution. A Unitarian Church? Just bad form...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Yes, this is the first time in American history that an administration uses politics to choose the people that work for them. Boy, Lemur, you are the king of unecessary outrage.:laugh4:

---

He needed his outrage fix.

Yup, this is terrible. But we shouldn't focus on a George-Bush-is-evil angle if you want to end this kind of crap. That's how you get the Obama worshippers who think he'll lead us into Camelot.

We need to realize this is more widespread than just our political whipping boy of the moment.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm glad to see you're still with us, DevDave. I got a little worried ...

Adkisson targeted the church "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

Adkisson told Still that 'he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office.'

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly. [...]

Owen said Adkisson had specifically targeted the Unitarian church. "It appears that church had received some publicity in the recent past regarding its liberal stance on things and that is at least one of the issues we believe caused that church to be selected,' he said.

---

Wow, good one. You're suggesting I would mow down a bunch of people because they don't believe in what I believe in. Nope, that would be all those terrorist you have such a hard-on for that you think should be freed from Gitmo.

My fellow Americans seem to get too bunged up over this Democrat vs Republican, Blue vs Red, crap.
It doesn't matter to me what party is involved in what corrupt practice. The point is that both these parties are complicit in this misguided party loyalty above loyalty to the welfare of the people of this country. Judges work for us, the people of the United States, not some stinkin' political party.

Perhaps it's time for a new revolution. My late Italian/American freind, when asked how he was going to vote in the next election used to say " Well...I'm a gonna vote the old crooks out and a vote the new crooks in!" I am inclined to agree with him as of late. I think a good clean sweep fore and aft is called for.

Is there anyway out of this 2 party hell for america ?

The only thing i can see stopping this kind of thing is making people realise there are issues above democrat vs republican, but with everyone convinced nobody else can win and everyone more worried about making sure the other guys don't get in your stuck in a rut...

Not that i blame you guys, if i was in america i would probably be a solid blue voter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yup, this is terrible. But we shouldn't focus on a George-Bush-is-evil angle if you want to end this kind of crap. That's how you get the Obama worshippers who think he'll lead us into Camelot.

---

I think the most unique thing about this particular incident is how ham handed they were about it. Obviously, political flunkies are more likely to get hired- they were just far to blatant about it.

Here's further evidence that Gonzales sucked as AG. I laugh at those who celebrated when Ashcroft left office. ~;p

Quote:

---

Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke Civil Service laws by using politics to guide their hiring decisions, picking less-qualified applicants for important nonpolitical positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department’s credibility, an internal report concluded on Monday.

---

Talk about a thankless job, just imagine being the sucker sent out to spin this news. Yikes.

Q Dana, what's your reaction to the Justice Department report where they -- the report essentially says, yes, that there was inappropriate influence on politics and ideology that was part of our hiring and firing practices?

MS. PERINO: Well as I have read the coverage of it -- I haven't read the report, but as I read the coverage of it, there's obviously information in there that would cause concern to anybody. And we agree with Michael Mukasey that -- the Attorney General -- that there was concern. There should be concern any time anyone is improperly using politics to influence career decisions. We believe that is improper. We could absolutely not defend that. And we are pleased that the Attorney General has taken steps to change it there at the Justice Department.

Q Can I infer from that that President Bush is disappointed in Alberto Gonzales?

MS. PERINO: I think that if you look at the report, and it is in line with what the Attorney General said at the time, which was that he was not aware of that going on. And so I don't think there's anything -- disappointment doesn't necessarily go to the Attorney General.

Q You don't think it would change -- it doesn't change the President's --

MS. PERINO: No, I don't. The whole situation -- the whole situation in terms of the politicization -- or accusations of politicization -- if you look at career hires that should not have had any sort of questions put towards them as to what sort of party they represent, or what affiliation they might belong to, or who they might vote for -- those are inappropriate for career positions. And the President is glad that the -- Attorney General Mukasey made sure that that is no longer ongoing at the Justice Department. And it's nothing that we could defend, and we never have.

Q But you won't go so far as to say that, looking at Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department, President Bush is disappointed this was going on?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that we are -- overall disappointment in the situation, sure.