Monique-if you took Charlie Bakst,gave him a shower,lenghtened him,and put him in a suit that fit,you’d have Sherbet Whitebread.
Phil
16 years ago
Monique and Joe Bernstein
Can you tell us what you think about the Justice Department hiring and firing practices under Attorney General Gonzalez and President Bush?
bobc
16 years ago
I’ve been yelling that at Sheldon Whitehouse for years.
Phil, the hiring or appointing of an individual to a government position should be done on the basis of merit and qualification, even or especially when the position is a political appointment. Were all nine of those firings based upon misconduct in office or a subsequently revealed lack of qualification? Though I don’t have the time to research all nine, some were, as I understand. Any that were not, shame on President Bush.
Conversely, not much research is needed to determine that the firing in 1993 of all ninety three US Attorneys was not done on the basis of merit or qualification.
joe bernstein
16 years ago
Phil-go ahead,assume I am a Bush/Gonzalez supporter.Ask where someone stands before you ask a question like that.I thought Monique made a very good point-the Clintons sacked every serving US Attorney upon taking office.All due to misconduct?It’s politics.I do believe the US Attorney in San Diego was relieved for good reasons.Any AG and President who suborned the railroading of the two Border Patrolmen are worthless in my book.
brassband
16 years ago
In 1993 here in Rhode Island, the United States Attorney was Lincoln Almond. Newly-appointed A.G. Janet Reno demanded his resignation along with all other sitting U.S. Attorneys.
And with whom did President Clinton and Reno replace Lincoln Almond?
Why with Sheldon Whitehouse, that’s who!
Any idea whether Sheldon, when he was elected R.I. Attorney General in 1998, replaced any line prosecutors for political reasons?
What’s your guess?
On this issue, it would be hard to be more hypocritical than Sen. Whitehouse has been.
joe bernstein
16 years ago
Bush actually didn’t replace Meg Curran,who left due to chronic illness.Sheldon was the worst US Attorney I ever served under as a federal agent-even in bad old corrupt Chicago we had Dan Webb,who was outstanding and honest.Sheldon is no doubt dollar honest-why would a rich fop need money?He is just the worst case of empty suit since H.G.Wells was writing.
Pragmatist
16 years ago
Monique,
You are missing the point entirely. Perhaps you should put your venom for the Senator on standby for a moment or two and spend some time trying to understand the substantive issue.
US Attorneys are political appointees. They are hired and fired at the pleasure of the President. The wholesale replacement of them at the beginning of a Presidential term is neither remarkable or inappropriate. You have no problem with a President replacing his predecessor’s Cabinet do you?
The issue at stake here is the use of partisan political standards to hire the “career” non-political appointees in the Justice Department. The report issued by DOJ clearly determines that the White House, and that embarassment of an Attorney General Alberto Gonsalez, crossed the line in a way that no administration has ever done before.
You need look no further than former AG John Ashcroft’s resignation from the Cabinet in disgust over the political shenanigans of the President, Vice President, and Karl Rove.
After the 4,000+ deaths of American soldiers he caused needlessly, his mismanagement of the economy, his bungling of the response to Katrina, and his neolithic energy policy, the politicization of DOJ is one of the great failures of this presidency.
I would hope that conservatives could put aside their partisan political hats for a moment every now and then and call out this administration when it clearly steps over the line.
Pragmatist:
You missed entirely the point of the post (humor) and clearly did not read my comment to Phil. Perhaps you should put your venom for anything right of center on standby for a moment or two and spend some time trying to understand the substance of posts and comments.
Unless and until you do, further conversation is pointless.
Brassband, thanks for reminding us of the substance of Senator Whitehouse’s questioning. So 93 firings were fine with him while nine were unacceptable. That seems awfully … consistent.
joe bernstein
16 years ago
we might need an advisory opinion from Charley Bakst-if can get him to stop rooting around in the chopped liver….
Phil
16 years ago
Monique
Thank you for your reply. It’s something Susan from Providence would say.
Joe Bernstein
I don’t assume anything about you. You have said that you have worked for the federal government in law enforcement so naturally I wanted your opinion.
Thanks to Pragmatist for centering in on what’s important for all of us.
“The issue at stake here is the use of partisan political standards to hire the “career” non-political appointees in the Justice Department. The report issued by DOJ clearly determines that the White House, and that embarassment of an Attorney General Alberto Gonsalez, crossed the line in a way that no administration has ever done before.”
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 down the hiring process at critical times, and damaging the department’s credibility, an internal report concluded. Prov. Journal July 29, 2008
joe bernstein
16 years ago
Phil-I retired in 1996,so Bush,Gonzalez,etc never were factors when I did the job-if you want to know how bad the Justice Dept was under Clinton,ask me-particularly the INS(predecessor to ICE)which was part of Justice.DHS is only around since 2002 I believe.
Pragmatist
16 years ago
Ah Monique, ducking the central issue again. You continue to equate the firing of US Attorneys en mass at the beginning of a presidential administration with the Bush administration’s illegal use of partisan standards in the hiring of career prosecutors.
One would think that a conservative would value the importance of conserving the impartiality of the civil service in the administration of justice.
As to my political leanings, I have supported both Republicans and Democrats, both through campaign contributions and on the ground efforts. I just value intellectual honesty and balance. A purely partisan advocate such as yourself who is blind to even the most egregious abuses of an administration is something I have little tolerance for.
Keep Up via Email
Tip Jar
Subscription
Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.
Monique-if you took Charlie Bakst,gave him a shower,lenghtened him,and put him in a suit that fit,you’d have Sherbet Whitebread.
Monique and Joe Bernstein
Can you tell us what you think about the Justice Department hiring and firing practices under Attorney General Gonzalez and President Bush?
I’ve been yelling that at Sheldon Whitehouse for years.
Phil, the hiring or appointing of an individual to a government position should be done on the basis of merit and qualification, even or especially when the position is a political appointment. Were all nine of those firings based upon misconduct in office or a subsequently revealed lack of qualification? Though I don’t have the time to research all nine, some were, as I understand. Any that were not, shame on President Bush.
Conversely, not much research is needed to determine that the firing in 1993 of all ninety three US Attorneys was not done on the basis of merit or qualification.
Phil-go ahead,assume I am a Bush/Gonzalez supporter.Ask where someone stands before you ask a question like that.I thought Monique made a very good point-the Clintons sacked every serving US Attorney upon taking office.All due to misconduct?It’s politics.I do believe the US Attorney in San Diego was relieved for good reasons.Any AG and President who suborned the railroading of the two Border Patrolmen are worthless in my book.
In 1993 here in Rhode Island, the United States Attorney was Lincoln Almond. Newly-appointed A.G. Janet Reno demanded his resignation along with all other sitting U.S. Attorneys.
And with whom did President Clinton and Reno replace Lincoln Almond?
Why with Sheldon Whitehouse, that’s who!
Any idea whether Sheldon, when he was elected R.I. Attorney General in 1998, replaced any line prosecutors for political reasons?
What’s your guess?
On this issue, it would be hard to be more hypocritical than Sen. Whitehouse has been.
Bush actually didn’t replace Meg Curran,who left due to chronic illness.Sheldon was the worst US Attorney I ever served under as a federal agent-even in bad old corrupt Chicago we had Dan Webb,who was outstanding and honest.Sheldon is no doubt dollar honest-why would a rich fop need money?He is just the worst case of empty suit since H.G.Wells was writing.
Monique,
You are missing the point entirely. Perhaps you should put your venom for the Senator on standby for a moment or two and spend some time trying to understand the substantive issue.
US Attorneys are political appointees. They are hired and fired at the pleasure of the President. The wholesale replacement of them at the beginning of a Presidential term is neither remarkable or inappropriate. You have no problem with a President replacing his predecessor’s Cabinet do you?
The issue at stake here is the use of partisan political standards to hire the “career” non-political appointees in the Justice Department. The report issued by DOJ clearly determines that the White House, and that embarassment of an Attorney General Alberto Gonsalez, crossed the line in a way that no administration has ever done before.
You need look no further than former AG John Ashcroft’s resignation from the Cabinet in disgust over the political shenanigans of the President, Vice President, and Karl Rove.
After the 4,000+ deaths of American soldiers he caused needlessly, his mismanagement of the economy, his bungling of the response to Katrina, and his neolithic energy policy, the politicization of DOJ is one of the great failures of this presidency.
I would hope that conservatives could put aside their partisan political hats for a moment every now and then and call out this administration when it clearly steps over the line.
Pragmatist:
You missed entirely the point of the post (humor) and clearly did not read my comment to Phil. Perhaps you should put your venom for anything right of center on standby for a moment or two and spend some time trying to understand the substance of posts and comments.
Unless and until you do, further conversation is pointless.
Brassband, thanks for reminding us of the substance of Senator Whitehouse’s questioning. So 93 firings were fine with him while nine were unacceptable. That seems awfully … consistent.
we might need an advisory opinion from Charley Bakst-if can get him to stop rooting around in the chopped liver….
Monique
Thank you for your reply. It’s something Susan from Providence would say.
Joe Bernstein
I don’t assume anything about you. You have said that you have worked for the federal government in law enforcement so naturally I wanted your opinion.
Thanks to Pragmatist for centering in on what’s important for all of us.
“The issue at stake here is the use of partisan political standards to hire the “career” non-political appointees in the Justice Department. The report issued by DOJ clearly determines that the White House, and that embarassment of an Attorney General Alberto Gonsalez, crossed the line in a way that no administration has ever done before.”
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 down the hiring process at critical times, and damaging the department’s credibility, an internal report concluded. Prov. Journal July 29, 2008
Phil-I retired in 1996,so Bush,Gonzalez,etc never were factors when I did the job-if you want to know how bad the Justice Dept was under Clinton,ask me-particularly the INS(predecessor to ICE)which was part of Justice.DHS is only around since 2002 I believe.
Ah Monique, ducking the central issue again. You continue to equate the firing of US Attorneys en mass at the beginning of a presidential administration with the Bush administration’s illegal use of partisan standards in the hiring of career prosecutors.
One would think that a conservative would value the importance of conserving the impartiality of the civil service in the administration of justice.
As to my political leanings, I have supported both Republicans and Democrats, both through campaign contributions and on the ground efforts. I just value intellectual honesty and balance. A purely partisan advocate such as yourself who is blind to even the most egregious abuses of an administration is something I have little tolerance for.