Arkansas Blog

Duh.

I just opened my big cedar chest and put away the sorry I had for U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins. I used to feel sorry for him, but now I see that was a waste of effort. He can't pull that Bushie cap off his head and let his brain cool off enough to realize they FK'ed him like a warm watermelon hidden from view by a big tree next to a junior high in Izard County. I think the ole boy is suffering from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

If'n he's willing to take more lashes from the Bush administration, he should at least worry about others who'll suffer his same fate for their misguided loyalty. As I type some little kid is having a nice afternoon not knowing in 20 years a political administration will use him like toilet paper and flush him like they did Bud, unless we nip this right now. Makes me think Cummins needs a blood test....what are they slipping in his Frosted Flakes. Check him out for a recent butt probing or something. The guy's not right in the head.

There must be a private Scaife to Cummins bank account in the Caymans or something. Maybe he's as scared of Cheney now as many in the DOJ have recently admitted to being for years.

Look, I worked in Washington and what is your point. Are you saying that democrats are any different? Are you saying that they don't put political hacks in appointed jobs? I hope you are not naive but rather just a biased left winger.

strangelove: What is your point?

Are you saying that because Democrats put political hacks into appointed jobs that it is all right for Republicans to break the law to put their political hacks into appointed jobs?

We understand the custom of political appointments. But using commitment to a political party to qualify for appointment in the Justice Department where appointees are expected to be politically neutral?

I haven't heard anybody accusing the Clinton administration of that kind of action. But even if so, are you implying that if Democrats did something illegal that that justifies Republicans' doing something illegal?

That's an old diversion.

An illegal act by one party does not justify or excuse an illegal act by another party, even if the parties are opponents.

George Bush suspended habeas corpus in the 2000s.

Abraham Lincoln is accused of suspending habeas corpus during his administration.

Franklin D. Roosevelt is accused of suspending habeas corpus during his administration.

If those were illegal acts, does either of those illegal acts excuse George Bush?

Is your defense of George Bush's administration, "Well, Bill Clinton's administration did it."?

One person's doing it doesn't make it right for him. Nor does it excuse someone else for doing the same thing.

strange admits to having worked in Washington. Well that explains so much! /s

I wasn't saying anything you suggested, strange. But I would say about 40 percent of Dems are far better than the RICO criminal fascists called the GOP. It ain't much, but it's far better than the McSameBushco alternative for now.

You have got to be kidding? No one ever accused clinton of favoritism for political hacks. I won't remind you of some of his pardons. That would be too obvious. What do you think that Jamie Gorelick's appointment was all about----expertise. She was totally a political hack. I have seen it first hand so I know better. You have no idea what you are talking about. Keep on dreaming that demos are sweethearts and don't reward political hacks but you only show either your stupidity or gross nievete.

strangelove, is it possible for you to read and respond to point?

I said, "We understand the custom of political appointments. But using commitment to a political party to qualify for appointment in the Justice Department where appointees are expected to be politically neutral?

"I haven't heard anybody accusing the Clinton administration of that kind of action."

By "that kind of action," I was referring to using commitment to a political party to qualify for appointment in the Justice Department.

And I said that I haven't heard anybody accusing the Clinton administration of that.

Now you respond, "No one ever accused clinton of favoritism for political hacks." Which I assumed to be a question.

The issue is not "favoritism in political appointments," the issue is "using political commitment in Justice Department appointments."

When was Clinton accused of that?

Are you saying that Jamie Gorelick's appointment was to the Justice Department and based on political commitment? If so, when was Clinton accused of that?