As part of the next Democratic administration, a lot – a whole lot – of Republican-installed hacks are going to have to purged from our government. The usual suspects on the right and in the MSM will whine and bitch about this, but in the long run its for the good of our nation.
I dub the next presidency “The CTRL-Z Presidency“.
Surely you’re not recommending firing political appointees?
That would be SO wrong!
I am all for removing the ideologues in favor of more pragmatists. It seems that Mr. Bush’s crew contained a lot of the former who should all be purged. If there were any honest brokers among them, there would be no reason to turn them out. I suspect that most of the partisans will leave of their own accord if confronted with a Democrat.
Lysander is right. Don’t you go firing no US Attorneys. There will be investigations demanded and the competence of the Dem AG will be called into question. Nope, all Repub USAs must stay.
We like missing points!
Tangenitally related: anyone who can read to the end of this list without getting angry has something wrong with them.
Dugger continues to demonstrate his ignorance regarding the Attorney Purge Scandal. Keep that head buried in the sand child.
All those unemployed Loyal Bushies will just get on Repub Welfare, which pays very good.
Good god, Frank and Dugger are actually getting dumber by the post. You officially entered the realm of criminal stupidity.
Incompetent people need to be fired. However, using government agencies for partisan political goals is against the law.
But I want you two to keep shouting about these scandals, because fewer and fewer people are buying your lies and the more you shout, the more the Democrats will win in 2008. Perhaps they can win enough to kill the Republican Party for years to come.
Hey, Clem*! (aka CSS) the scandals disappear Nov 12 2008, no matter who wins.
using government agencies for partisan political goals is against the law
Talk about dumb! The Democrats have been doing it since 1964, if not earlier. If you’re so smart, what law does it violate?
* Clem is your new name, until I decide otherwise.
“Hey, Clem*! (aka CSS) the scandals disappear Nov 12 2008, no matter who wins.”
No. No it doesn’t. The scandal remains until those who broke the law are punished.
Me: “using government agencies for partisan political goals is against the law”
“Talk about dumb! The Democrats have been doing it since 1964, if not earlier. If you’re so smart, what law does it violate?”
Two points:
1.) Prove your claim.
2.) No getting caught is not the same as not breaking the law. And the Republicans have been caught.
“* Clem is your new name, until I decide otherwise.”
Nope. My name remains C.S.Strowbridge and your impotent ass can’t do anything to change that. So you can go fuck yourself, you self-hating asshole. I know your limp dicks still attached to your pathetic self, so you probably aren’t turned on by that thought.
One last though for you tonight. The vast majority of your fellow Republicans think you should burn in hell. And a significant portion would gladly send you there.
I hope that keeps you warm and happy while you try to sleep.
Prove YOUR claim, Clem: “[U]sing government agencies for partisan political goals is against the law.”
Suddenly that’s forgotten, eh?
Shitheel.
“Prove YOUR claim, Clem: “[U]sing government agencies for partisan political goals is against the law.”"
You’re not even allowed to use the phones in the White House for fund raising purposes. The Republicans accused Al Gore of doing that just before the 2000 election.
Let me help out Frank…sorry, I mean Lysander…with this one.
http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm
This link gives you clear details of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from certain political activities.
Lois… I mean locus: I don’t have to look up the Hatch Act. I was a federal employee for 15 years. It only applies to Civil Service employees, and the activities referred to are in the realm of electioneering.
http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm#may
It’s the “certain political activities” that provide the contention.
You’re not even allowed to use the phones in the White House for fund raising purposes. The Republicans accused Al Gore of doing that just before the 2000 election.
That may be a violation of Election law, Clem, but that is not the same as using “government agencies for partisan political goals”.
Not to mention the fact that he could have sloughed it off, but he probably (in the Clinton tradition) slimed the accuser, then said you can’t prove it, then blamed someone else.
What one does in the course of every day business; and what one does to get elected are two different things here in America, Clem.
“That may be a violation of Election law, Clem, but that is not the same as using “government agencies for partisan political goals”.”
Er, yes. Yes, it is. It clearly is.
Grand Central: It isn’t because you say it is. If that’s the case, then I say, “It isn’t. It clearly isn’t.”
I like that piece, Nimrod. Especially liked this bit:
That may be a violation of Election law, Clem, but that is not the same as using “government agencies for partisan political goals”.
Jeesum Crikey, Frank. The head of FEMA had no past experience in emergency management. None. Zero. NAAAAAADA. But he was a friend and support of the Bushes and the GOP. You connect the dots. Does your man-crush on the GOP extend that far you can’t even acknowledge shit like that?
*supporter*
Wait a minute! A politically motivated appointee!
O my stars!
Did you know that about 80% of the US ambassadors were major campaign contributors?
No matter which party won the White House?
You are all failing to distinguish between political appointees — a tried and true tradition in American politics; and people using political power to accomplish illegal and / or unethical things.
How about this? From Nimrod’s link.
To be fair, Michael Brown was way more qualified to be an ambassador than the head of emergency management.
Nothing, Frank? No rejoinder? so sad.
Let’s try this again, Lysander. The Hatch Act doesn’t only apply to Civil Service Employees, but also to certain political appointees unless granted an exemption under Section 7324.
This is the reason why the U.S. Office of Special Counsel cited Lurita Doan for violating the Hatch Act when she took part in a video conference with Karl Rove and other White House officials, and sent letters asking how to help Republican politicians get elected. The head of the GSA is a political appointee.
Did it or did it not apply to the employees in question? I don’t care about Lurita Doan.
There are people you just can’t fire.
“It isn’t because you say it is”
No, but…it clearly is, though. There really isn’t anything else to say. You’re simply wrong.
Grand Central: I counter your evidence with mine, from the originating link:
Now, could we ditch the Hatch Act nonsense, and get back to the point?
That’s an opinion, Frank, not evidence.
Seriously, that bullshit reflux disease is gonna rot your esophagus.
At least don’t drag Elizabeth Smart into this.
Scott, that’s the opinion that generated the link. Where have you been?
But will the next Democratic president have the balls (or the ovaries, or what have you) to do it?
I wish I had your optimism, Oliver.
When Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1992, he decided to make nice and keep most of the GOP hacks in place — he thought if he could just make nice with Louis Freeh and the repug joint chiefs, etc etc, that they’d respond in kind.
We all saw how well that worked out.
And by all indications, Hillary is just as much of a pathetic GOP doormat as her husband.
“Did you know that about 80% of the US ambassadors were major campaign contributors?”
Yeah, and 80% of ambassadors have no real function other than to throw the occasional cocktail party.
On the other hand, the head of FEMA is a real position where a lack of competence can have real consequences.
Is it possible to be a Republican and a good American? No, it is not.
“Is it possible to be a Republican and a good American? No, it is not.”
Yes it is, but you would be called a RINO today.
You need to be fiscally responsible while detesting government interference in personal lives. Using military force would be an option only if diplomacy failed not a rallying point for the base.
I’m sure people could add more to that list.