Democrats & Liberals Archives

Administration-Job Requirements

The Bush Administration has many requirements that must be met in order to obtain a job appointment, especially for those who would like to work in the Whitehouse. In addition to the usual Republican requirements of faith in religion as well as in deregulated business, and loyalty to the boss, a prospect must have a terrible memory.

How do I know this? I learned this directly from the former Whitehouse political director, Sara Taylor. If she does not know the requirements who would? She "testified" today before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

When Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) asked Taylor if she and Rove ever had a conversation about whether to remove a Wisconsin U.S. attorney, she answered, “I don’t know.” When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked what criteria was used to remove U.S. attorneys, she said, “I don’t know the answer to that.” When Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked her to “describe” a political briefing she “gave at the Environmental Protection Agency”, Taylor responded, “I don’t recall that briefing.”

She scored a home run. She did as well as that paragon of Bush-Administration appointees, Alberto Gonzales. With him, I think they counted 64 "I-don't-knows" or "I-don't recalls." Counters are not finished yet with Taylor, but I think she will come out OK. I think she will be in great demand in Republican circles for a high-level job.

Taylor has demonstrated that she did not know anything of importance to the Whitehouse. What she did not know she could not recall. Her memory was perfectly flawed. She did so well in her testimony today that I think President George W. Bush should give her a medal. Look, he gave Rumsfeld a medal and Rumsfeld did not remember as many important items as Taylor did not remember.

Sara Taylor had administraton-job requirements down pat and she used her terrible memory skillfully.

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 11, 2007 4:39 PM
Comments
Comment #225908

Paul
People on both side of the polital spectrum play dumb, 435 Reps 100 Senators a President,Vice President, 9 Supreme Court Justices, Numerous aides probably all have played dumb a few times in their careers,so are you trying to tell us something new?

Posted by: KAP at July 11, 2007 5:13 PM
Comment #225918

Paul, since you mentioned deregulated business, I should point out that the current sub-prime mortgage debacle affecting our markets and economy, was caused by the one area of the mortgage industry that is still UNregulated. If the sub-prime customers had been required to seek mortgages from banks, credit unions, and the regulated mortgage brokers, this sub-prime debacle would never have occurred.

There is no more direct evidence of how unregulated greed can cause great harm to very large numbers of people in our society. And Republicans champion such greed as their god. I mean that literally, since, MSNBC’s staunch conservative Kudlow just said 30 minutes ago on TV, ‘Worship Profits’, they make America great.

Sums up political Republican philosophy in a nut shell. Those harmed by the greed deserved the harm they received for not being competitively greedy enough to harm others instead. For a party that has such difficulty with evolution, they sure adhere to survival of the fittest greed as their economic maxim.

I have no love for the Democratic Party, but, it is the lesser of the duopoly evils for this one reason: Democrats acknowledge how interdependent we are upon each other and insist that we take responsibility not only for ourselves, but for each other as well, in considering the consequences of our actions. Which is why Democrats have no philosophical issues with regulation of economic and financial greed institutionalized into powerful corporate organizations.

Now if only Democrats would recognize that the DNC is itself a corporate organization in need of regulation, their stock may go up a notch or two for Independent voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 11, 2007 6:31 PM
Comment #225929

From a more reliable source:

“I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys,” she said under stern questioning by Leahy, D-Vt. “I did not attend any meetings with the president where that matter was discussed.”

So you have a problem with her saying “I don’t know” about stuff that wasn’t her job? Is that the way it works? Make political BS look bad by spreading more political BS about? All to take the focus off the reall issues our nation needs to be dealing with? You’d fit well in Washington, Siegel.

The atourney fireing thing turned out to be a non-issue anyway. Doesn’t Congress have a war to end? An environment to clean up?
We elected democrats to fix the government, but they are just giving us the same political horseshit the republicans gave us.
Forget Bush and get to work fixing the problems our country is facing. And don’t give me the “he’ll just veto everything” BS. That’s just an excuse for doing nothing and you know it!

Posted by: Damn The Parties at July 11, 2007 8:18 PM
Comment #225941

Good article, Paul. I thought it was interesting that President Bush directed a private citizen to obstruct a Congressional investigation. That might mean a contempt of Congress charge and some jail time for Miss Taylor (and Ms. Miers, if she pulls the same stunt tomorrow).

And Bush’s coaching of the witnesses may also have some repercussions for him.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 11, 2007 10:15 PM
Comment #225946

AP, anyone can talk all they want about their activities as private citizens, but this has to do with decision-making they were involved in as employees of the Executive Branch of government.

The confidentiality of Executive privilege doesn’t evaporate when someone leaves their job any more than doctor-patient or attorney-client privilege does.

If a doctor retires, he can’t just say that because he’s no longer their doctor, his former patients have no right to expect him to keep their medical histories private.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 11, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #225947

The president can hire and fire U.S. attorneys for any reason at all. There is no possibility of a crime here. It is none of the Dems business why he did it. The whole think is a political scam.

Maybe the president should demand to know the Dem strategy for the 2008 elections and be shocked - shocked - if they will not tell him.

This whole thing is a poltical scam by the Dems. It is meant to create smoke where there is no fire. They are trying hard to create more political myths. This will go on their myth book, like the Florida elections, the Plame affair and the intelligence maniipulation that tricked all the Dem senators. It is just BS, plain, simple and stinky.

Posted by: Jack at July 11, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #225949

David, I’m on the same page with you, but I feel the need to clarify what you said at the end of your post. Namely:

“Now if only Democrats would recognize that the DNC is itself a corporate organization in need of regulation, their stock may go up a notch or two for Independent voters.”

The DNC has become a corporate organization in need of regulation for one reason alone: The Democratic Leadership Committee, aka the DLC, DINO’s, Republican Lite, Blue Dogs (canine aspect due to their unprincipled greed mirroring that of the GOP), which is in control of the DNC — much like the Neocons control the RNC, at the expense of actual conservatives.
Remove this odious faction, and what will you find? Only the real guts, heart, soul, and conscience of the entire party. (Likewise true of the GOP, as well)
That’s what I’m fighting to revive, and damn it, I really would love it if a whole lot more intelligent liberals with guts, heart, soul and conscience would join me in driving off the disease that’s been killing the Democratic party.

I know you became independent in disgust, and I understand that motive better than you might think, but I also know that without the force and pressure that only large numbers of principled liberals like yourself can provide, this Democratic party, the oldest party in the nations history, soon won’t even be the “lesser evil”.

Don’t we all know this?

Posted by: Adrienne at July 11, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #225953

Paul, yes indeed.
Taylor is a Neocon flunkie. The reason that none of Neocons can’t ever remember anything is as transparent as it is revolting: it’s because they’re lawless, completely unprincipled, and have all got so damn much to HIDE.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 11, 2007 11:23 PM
Comment #225975
The president can hire and fire U.S. attorneys for any reason at all.

Jack, nobody disagrees with that. The problem is, it appears that the White House was obstructing a federal investigation in the case of Carol Lam and then lied, lied, lied to cover it up.

If this was totally legit, then why did Gonzales and his deputy lie about the reasons for the firings and White House involvement? Why are Taylor and Miers forbidden to talk about it?

Maybe the president should demand to know the Dem strategy for the 2008 elections

That’s an interesting analogy because it’s against the law for the administration to go politicking with government property. It looks like that happened as well.

Conversely, it’s against the law for them to conduct government business without keeping records, which also appears to have happened.

This is a legitimate investigation. It appears somebody in the Bush administration broke some laws. I’d think you so-called law & order Republicans would want to know what happened. Your denials are nothing but a political scam.

If there’s nothing to these issues, then President Bush should provide the testimony and documents and make Democrats look like idiots. Why isn’t he doing that?

Posted by: American Pundit at July 12, 2007 1:56 AM
Comment #225986

AP

The investigation is merely mean to create possible crimes. There was no reason to invesigate in the first place. The president can fire for any reason, good or bad. You can almost bet the reason WILL be political. Keep it political; do not attempt to make it legal.

It is as if somebody investigates you for driving your car to work. They imply there is something nefarious. They ask you why you did not take the Metro or ride a bike. They ask if you ALWAYS drove the speed limit and ALWAYS used a seatbelt and ALWAYS signaled before changing lanes and NEVER rolled through a stop sign and ALWAYS tried to get good gas mileage and NEVER accelerated too fast and … Pretty soon they would have you on some “cover up”.

Using the WH for politics was bad when Clinton did it and it is bad that Bush does it, but once again it is primarily a definitional and political thing.

You know that there will never be a conviction of any kind on the merits of this case. It is like the Plame or the Starr/Clinton affairs. The inquisition is looking to create errors it can jump on. It is just dirty politics.

BTW - if Bush answers all the questions (as in your driving) the Dems will just think of some more. They are not interested in solving the problem. They are interesting in investigating and embarassing.

RE the Dems being idiots - The Democrats already look like idiots to their opponents and they will never look like idiots to their supporters, so no good can come from trying to appease them.

Posted by: Jack at July 12, 2007 8:07 AM
Comment #225994

This inquisition is going to end up hurting democrats in congress. So pour it on. Some of the same congressmen and women looked the other way when Bill Clinton fired over 90 prosecutors and America is watchi8ng them.
People, it’s legal and your new congress is wasting time and resouces on a non issue strictly for revenge. 27 percent approval and dropping. And they dont even notice it. Sadly, we are the ones being hurt the most. None of the first 100 days promises have been completed. We should all want our money back.

Posted by: John in Texas at July 12, 2007 9:16 AM
Comment #225995

Adrianne:
well said. what do think of Guiliani? I am a conservative by rule but also pro choice and for gay rights (not marriage, but unions)so i cant be considered a right winger. Just interested in your opinion because you seem to be a more moderate liberal than i have talked with so far.

Posted by: John in Texas at July 12, 2007 9:22 AM
Comment #226030

Jack said: “The president can hire and fire U.S. attorneys for any reason at all. There is no possibility of a crime here. It is none of the Dems business why he did it.”

Jack, you couldn’t be more wrong. It is Congress’s business if the Executive Branch is allowing political considerations to interfere with the Justice Department’s performance of its duties. It is called Constitutional Oversight responsibility. The Executive Branch folks swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the laws that emanate from it, and the President is responsible under the Constitution to enforce the laws of this land.

Therefore, if persons within the Executive Branch or the Republican Party played roles in selecting U.S. Attorneys for dismissal based on whether those attorneys were indicting Democrats prior to an election regardless of the merit of the evidence against those Democrats, or, those attorneys were selected for dismissal because they participated in pursuing investigations or indictments of Republicans, then LAWS of America WERE BROKEN.

The awesome power of the executive branch to investigate and prosecute America citizens comes with legal responsibilities, among those are that such power will NOT be used against citizens based on their political affiliation, personal beliefs, opinions, or how they vote at election time. That is most clearly ILLEGAL. To dismiss U.S. Attorneys for not abusing that power toward Democrats, or for legally exercising that power against Republicans around election time, is a clear violation of our Constitution and laws.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2007 12:12 PM
Comment #226037

And here we are a year later without a shred of evidience a single law was broken. It seems that the new congress is only capable of self destruction. We can prove they are incapable of filling the promises they made to get elected. The first 100 days promises were a total flop. Zero promises kept. AND we are still in Iraq. The tax cuts are still in place. Nothing done to save Social security, no moves on health care.
It appears nothng can get in the congress’s way when it comes to revenge. Not even America’s welfare.

Posted by: John in Texas at July 12, 2007 12:43 PM
Comment #226047

John in Tx, while I agree with the gist of your last comment, it helps to avoid appearances of being politically biased and therefore unfactual, if one uses real facts.

Democrats lack the votes to halt the war, because Republicans haven’t gone along. The Democratic numbers in the Congress were the people’s choice. It is difficult to make that charge against Democrats stick. They tried twice to halt the war despite their lack of Veto Override numbers. Yet, the continue to work on new avenues toward that end. For voters who want the war to end, Democrats are by and large working diligently toward that end.

Zero promises kept is not factually correct. They promised ethics reform, and did in fact alter some ethics rules for the better and launched ethics oversight investigations. They have brokered some promises for greater assistance to voters in the budget, which are a few more promises kept. They promised better medical care for our GI wounded and veterans, and that legislation has passed.

Democrats have made moves on health care via Committee hearings from patients, health care providers, insurers, the Administration, and these steps are necessary in order to draft new legislation. These hearings were aired on C-Span.

I agree, they have not done enough, nor is the leadership garnering the kind of brokered bi-partisan compromise many had hoped for. But, to make ignorant claims of having done nothing, only makes your comment appear as a talking point from the right without merit or fact. I use the word ignorant literally, meaning your comment ignores the verifiable facts I have presented.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2007 1:42 PM
Comment #226053

“The awesome power of the executive branch to investigate and prosecute America citizens comes with legal responsibilities, among those are that such power will NOT be used against citizens based on their political affiliation, personal beliefs, opinions, or how they vote at election time. That is most clearly ILLEGAL. To dismiss U.S. Attorneys for not abusing that power toward Democrats, or for legally exercising that power against Republicans around election time, is a clear violation of our Constitution and laws.”

David R. Remer,

Excellent and concise explanation!

In fact Jack’s scenario about investigating someones driving habits could be spun exactly the opposite direction. If the RNC wanted a Democratic congressman’s driving habits investigated and the US Attorney were fired for declining to pursue that investigation then there is a problem!

To suggest that congress should just ignore this is absurd.

Posted by: KansasDem at July 12, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #226054

D Remmer.
First, thanks for the considered response.

My referance to zero promises kept refers to the ones made by Pelosi for the first hundred days of her charge. There were 6 defined promises, none to fruition.

Also i would have to say that the efforts to halt the war you mention were (at least in the House) both voted overwhelmingly against by democrats. Only three voted for the Murtha plan. So i find your anser to to my post in this area confusing. How can 3 votes be considerd an effort and what does the Republican lack of cooperation have to do with either vote? I was discussing the democratic promises to end the war and the lack of effort in practice. Maybe I misundersttod you?

last, overall i can find no important legislation attributed to this new majority, despite all the pie in the sky promises. The ethics reviews you mention are in my opinion nothng more than a vengeful crusade to wave the new sword of power.
Perhaps they could ask Pelosi about her violations of US law whan she misrepresented Our country and Israel in Syria? That would show me they are concerned with ethics more than going after whoever they think they are going to nail on the legal firing of attouneys for over a year with no sign of a broken law.

Posted by: John in Texas at July 12, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #226056

Kansas dem:

If there was anything clear about violations, as you post, during these firings somebody would have uncoverd them in the last 12 moths of fruitless investigation. Just another attempt at painting over a routine action with the brush of criminality. Those people serve at the discretion of the President. Period.
I do admit how i admire the new propaganda machine of the democrats though. However destructive to the country, it is effective.

Posted by: John in Texas at July 12, 2007 2:45 PM
Comment #226089

“Adrianne:
well said.”

Thank you. I guess David doesn’t agree, since he has chosen not to acknowledge anything I addressed to him directly.

“what do think of Guiliani?”

Not much. I agreed with what Woody wrote about him in his article entitled “The Republican’s Can’t Win” that you’ll find further down the main page of WB. I also contributed more regarding Guiliani to that thread.

“I am a conservative by rule but also pro choice and for gay rights (not marriage, but unions)so i cant be considered a right winger.”

I think that the true conservative view is currently being best represented by the candidacy of Ron Paul.

“Just interested in your opinion because you seem to be a more moderate liberal than i have talked with so far.”

Generally speaking, on most matters my views are dead center of Liberal, while on Fiscal Matters, I tend towards Russ Feingold’s hawkishness. You’ll find that in this blog I am often labeled “far left,” but don’t believe it for a minute. Those who label me as such obviously don’t know from far left. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at July 12, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #226094

“My referance to zero promises kept refers to the ones made by Pelosi for the first hundred days of her charge. There were 6 defined promises, none to fruition.”

Fact check #1: It was 100 hours, not 100 days!

Fact check #2: All six objectives were met by the house. Pelosi is barred by the criminal code from holding a gun on any of our 100 Senators or the President to “push” any of these objectives any further.

Fact check #3: The minimum wage law did pass, albeit as part of a “pork” package attached to the war spending supplement:
http://tinyurl.com/yqw2fe

Finally, oversight of the Executive branch had been sorely lacking the past 4 to 6 years! Oversight is alive and well once again, hip-hip-hooray!

Posted by: KansasDem at July 12, 2007 6:26 PM
Comment #226104

Adrienne, I can neither agree nor disagree with your assertion about the DLC. I am not versed in their dealings and effects upon the DNC sufficiently. Hence, the absence of a reply. Your mistake to assume the absence of a reply meant anything. In that regard, it was you who lacked sufficient information to assume what it meant.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2007 7:48 PM
Comment #226113
Keep it political; do not attempt to make it legal.

LOL! Is that an order, Jack? Let me put it this way: You wish it was all political. Unfortunately, there are just too many aspects of this issue that signal illegal actions and cover-ups.

Being a Republican, with your party’s rich history of purely political investigations, I understand why you’d automatically assume everybody acts for purely political reasons when given the chance, but its just not true.

Where there’s real smoke, there’s usually real fire.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 12, 2007 8:37 PM
Comment #226122
Therefore, if persons within the Executive Branch or the Republican Party played roles in selecting U.S. Attorneys for dismissal based on whether those attorneys were indicting Democrats prior to an election regardless of the merit of the evidence against those Democrats, or, those attorneys were selected for dismissal because they participated in pursuing investigations or indictments of Republicans, then LAWS of America WERE BROKEN.

It’s incredibly ironic that the Democrats are demanding an investigation to uncover evidence about whether attorneys themselves were pressured to launch investigations without evidence. Can nobody see the ridiculous double-standard in play here?

Perhaps we need a brand new investigation: one to investigate whether Democrats have political motivations to investigate Republicans for investigating Democrats for political motivations.

In any case, the only way to decide whether this evidence against Democrats that Republicans supposedly wanted investigated had “merit” would be try to the cases and see if the Democrats in question are convicted by juries. Otherwise we’ll never know if, as David says, “laws were broken” not for investigating these Democrats but for WANTING to investigate them. And hey, maybe we’ll find out that the laws that were broken were by Democrats and there was sound reason for wanting to investigate them… a possibility that never seems to cross anybody’s mind.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 12, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #226135

LO, I was thinking more of how Republican US Attorney Carol Lamb told Gonzales she was going after Republicans Darryl Issa and Jerry Lewis, and the next day emails were flying around the Justice Department about what to do about the Lamb “problem”. They fired her.

That looks like a clear case of obstruction of justice by the AG. Apparently the White House was also involved in Lamb’s firing making Karl Rove and the President possible accessories — or even the main perpetrators of the crime.

A real “law and order” Republican would be very concerned that laws were broken and would want to see the investigation intensify and justice be done no matter where it leads.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 12, 2007 10:47 PM
Comment #226141

AP, all of what you say might have merit if it weren’t for the fact that Issa and Lewis are still being looked at by Lamb’s replacement. If getting rid of Lamb was done to protect Issa and Lewis, then look how that worked out. It just doesn’t add up.

And it might have merit if it weren’t for the additional fact that even Diane Feinstein, who happens to be a Democrat, in case you’ve forgotten, was herself a very vocal critic of Lamb and was complaining loudly about the fact that Lamb was failing to prosecute illegal immigrant smugglers.

This is how ridiculous this debate has become.

There were no charges filed against Issa and Lewis, and no charges have even been filed now, so according to the law there is NO CASE that can be made that the Lamb’s firing was in retaliation to an ongoing case. That is simply a fact. There’s no debate. No case had been filed.

But what’s even worse and more ridiculous is that Diane Feinstein herself said that Lamb was doing a terrible job and deserved to go. But now Feinstein is among the hypocrites saying that Lamb shouldn’t have been fired.

Try to figure it out, if you can. There’s only one explanation: that Democrats are putting on a ridiculous and hypocritical partisan show.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 12, 2007 11:26 PM
Comment #226144

LO- Lamb has put the #3rd most wanted Drug Person,
from the FBI wanted list along with several high profile people
an possibly two American Politicians. Looks like
lamb may have been doing her job too well!

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 13, 2007 12:43 AM
Comment #226145

————should be , put several high profile people
in prison.——-Sorry for typo-

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 13, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #226167

adrienne:

Ron Paul was my rep in Texas until we were redistricted. I like much of what he suggests , but he is a little to far out there on many issues. He does not represent mainstream Conservatives by any stretch. He advocates ending the Dept of Education, national endowment for the arts ect. He is also a Doctor and his ideas on tort reform and malpractice are decent. Over all he is not really representative of any core group of voters. Some great ideas, some not so great.
The one piece of legislation that he offered that should have been passed, but was not : Paul wanted any new law on the books to invoke the section of the constitution that authorized the legislature to enact it. That alone made him an outsider in washington.
Cheers.

Posted by: John in Texas at July 13, 2007 9:14 AM
Comment #226169

Kansasdem:
“Fact check #2: All six objectives were met by the house. Pelosi is barred by the criminal code from holding a gun on any of our 100 Senators or the President to “push” any of these objectives any further.”

Then she should not have made the promises. Or she should have rounded up the votes before she made the promises. If this were a republican majority , you would be all over them for it. The fact remains the first hundred hours are a big zero. Like the first hundred days. The first year.
As far as the minimum wage, like I said: No meaningful legislation by this congress, even with a majority in congress. Whataburger pays 10.50 hr. for crying out loud.
I dont understand how anyone could defend such a weak congress especially since they have a majority in both Houses of congress. Yet the inquisistion goes on. What a waste.

Posted by: John in Texas at July 13, 2007 9:38 AM
Comment #226183

Nice spin there, looks like just another one
of those Big Texas Whoppers (^?^)

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 13, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #226193

27 percent apporval rating for the democratic controlled congress. Not spin friend, fact. Why, even GW has 29 percent.

Posted by: John in Texas at July 13, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #226200

John In Texas-
Up to 31. GW is now at 25, as bad as Nixon during the height of the Watergate Scandal.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 13, 2007 1:34 PM
Comment #226203

Bush cannot be re elected. And neither can a congress at 31 percent. Somebody better mention that to them.

Posted by: John in Texas at July 13, 2007 1:54 PM
Comment #226244

David:
“Adrienne, I can neither agree nor disagree with your assertion about the DLC. I am not versed in their dealings and effects upon the DNC sufficiently.”

A good rule of thumb is to look at who votes for things like the credit card company written bankruptcy bill, or CAFTA/NAFTA. The majority of those who do tend to be DLC Democrats. This group seems to see nothing wrong with taking money for their campaigns from special interests and lobbyists in exchange for votes that those entities want, at the expense of the American people. Anti-populist is what they are. The Clinton’s are DLC. Joe Lieberman whose wife is a lobbyist for Big Pharma was a former head of the DLC.
Paul Wellstone once made a point to say that he was “from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” in order to distinguish himself from this group. I knew exactly what he meant, and had nothing but admiration for Wellstone’s voting record and with the way it always matched up with his rhetoric.

“Your mistake to assume the absence of a reply meant anything. In that regard, it was you who lacked sufficient information to assume what it meant.”

Well David, I did start out that sentence with “I guess.” Since you replied to others in this thread, but made no comment to me, I simply wasn’t sure.

John in Texas, re Ron Paul:
“He does not represent mainstream Conservatives by any stretch.”

I realize that John, but I still think that many of the things he says comes closest to what I think of as old-school Conservative, while none of the other candidates do (IMO). They all sound too much like Neocons to me.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 13, 2007 7:53 PM
Comment #226506

Adrienne- Sorta funny, Tex John will tell us next
that he is Pecos Bill an lassoed a tornado!
Guess not. just another spinster.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 16, 2007 1:42 AM
Post a comment