That was my fault. I should have read it before it came out
ArchPundit
Tom DeLay meet Charles Barkley. Charles Barkley meet Tom DeLay
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/XvOugoeztB0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
2007
Mark Kirk loves veterans
Daniel Biss
Mark Kirk loves to point out that he is, himself, a veteran.
Mark Kirk loves to brag about the North Chicago Veterans Administration Medical Center in his district.
Mark Kirk loves to pose in photo-ops with African-American veterans of World War Two.
Mark Kirk loves to grandstand about sponsoring legislation to issue coins commemorating disabled veterans.
Unfortunately, Mark Kirk doesn’t appear to care nearly as much about actual troops who are currently serving in harm’s way. He recently voted against requiring that the troops sent to Iraq be properly prepared for their mission and protected with armor.
The vote took place in the House Appropriations Committee, where he was joined by fellow Illinois Republican Ray LaHood. The whole House will vote on this bill soon, probably tomorrow. Will Kirk vote again to send our troops into battle without the proper equipment? How will other Illinois Republicans vote?
Don’t worry, troops. As soon as you get home, you’ll be a veteran, and then Mark Kirk will love you. I’m hoping and praying that you come home safe and sound. Too bad Mark Kirk doesn’t care.
Undistinguished
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had “not distinguished themselves” on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.
The ranking placed Fitzgerald below “strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty” to the administration but above “weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.,” according to Justice documents.
One of the most experienced terrorism prosecutors-foreign and domestic, one of the most tenacious and successful public corruption prosecutors, a successful mob prosecutor. He’s mediocre.
What is it going to take for the 33% of Bush deadenders to see what happens when you run an entire executive branch by political hackery?
Slow
Sinus Infection—trying to regroup.
Who Would Have Expected No Child Left Behind standards in the state to be reduced?
The essential idea that 100 percent of students should be proficient summons up the notion of all of the children being above average in Lake Wobegon. The reduction in standards is statistically necessary. Furthermore, as I said back in 2003 small differences in small populations are often used to calculate whether an entire school district meets the criteria. This is statistical malpractice. Whether the new standards solve these problems is in doubt, but the need was there.
Obama and Ethics Legislations
One of the interesting aspects of the campaign is that people keep claiming that Obama doesn’t have a record, but even in Illinois he worked on several decent proposals for tougher ethics in state government–one which many wish would have happened is public financing of judicial elections which he got through the Senate with Republican cosponsors only to be killed in–the Illinois House. Dan Vock did a really good run down on Obama in general and ethics in particular in last months Illinois Issues.
“Any time a politician at the federal level is willing to take a leadership role [on ethics], they undoubtedly open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy,” says Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes stringent campaign finance and ethics laws.
In fact, she notes, McCain survived a brush with a savings-and-loan scandal in the late 1980s. But the scare convinced McCain of the need for ethics reforms, a cause that’s raised his profile across the country.
Like McCain, Obama has made ethics reform a central part of his political career. Two years into his first term in the U.S. Senate, he has had limited opportunities to leave a mark at the federal level, especially as a member of the minority party. But he has worked with Republicans on new good-government laws. He co-sponsored one, signed in September, that will create a federal spending database so Web users can track all grants, loans and awards greater than $25,000. He also pushed to limit the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s authority to award open-ended, no-bid contracts in the wake of major disasters — a reaction to post-Katrina abuses.
More to the point, last year Senate Democrats tapped Obama as the chief negotiator for their caucus in talks over post-Abramoff ethics reforms, though those negotiations faltered.
Ethics reform was one of Obama’s signature issues in Springfield, as well. Beyond the Gift Ban Act, he helped push Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s 2003 ethics reforms. The gift ban law, the first broad ethics reform in Illinois since the Watergate era, prohibited politicians from using campaign funds for personal use, barred fundraising on state property, established ethics commissions, curtailed fundraisers in Springfield during legislative sessions and mandated online reporting of campaign finances. The 2003 ethics package created independent inspectors general with subpoena powers to look into abuses by legislators, statewide officeholders and their employees. It further clamped down on the types of gifts lawmakers can receive and prohibited lobbyists and their spouses from sitting on state boards and commissions.
Obama also touted publicly financed judicial campaigns, an idea that was approved by the Illinois Senate but languished in the House.
The Continuing Travails of the Illinois Circular Firing Squad Team
With the quote of perhaps the year:
“My favorite conversation with Jack Roeser was about the second year I was governor when he came in and said, ‘We should be more like George Ryan,'” Edgar says. “Of course he turned on George Ryan — not because of the ethics issue but because George turned out to be more liberal than he thought he was going to be.”
There’s a lot in the article and I’ll revisit it, but it’s a must read.
Oops, Bush Administration Pointed Out That Clinton Was Different
Kyle Sampson, Gonzalez’s Chief-of-Staff explains in an e-mail to Harriet Miers. Rove attempted to say that the replacements were sort of like finally getting around to replacing holdovers. Not true.
The only case involving hold overs is the acting US Attorney in Guam in 2002. The acting US Attorney had been acting for 12 years–since the Bush I administration. Making someone permanent makes perfectly good sense in such a case, but it oddly came one week after the acting US Attorney for 12 years reported he was opening an investigation into Abramoff. Of the seven that are at the center of the controversy right now, all were Bush appointees.
Lying Liars
The best bit of hubris coming out of the US Attorney firings is the notion that Bill Clinton did the same thing by firing 93 US Attorneys upon taking office. Except it isn’t analogous at all and it’s an outright lie.
Every administration of a different party than it’s predecessors replaces the US Attorneys and in Bush I, many changes were made.
From before Reagan’s Inauguration:
Copyright 1980 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
November 28, 1980, Friday, Late City Final Edition
SECTION: Section B; Page 11, Column 1; National Desk
LENGTH: 956 words
HEADLINE: DECISION BY REAGAN IS AWAITED ON U.S. ATTORNEYS WHO ARE DEMOCRATS
BYLINE: Special to the New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Nov. 27
Many Federal prosecutors, former prosecutors and Justice Department officials say they hope that Ronald Reagan will depart from custom by allowing incumbent United States Attorneys to complete their terms.
Of all the Government officials subject to replacement by the new President, few are in so delicate or ambiguous a position as these 94 Presidentially appointed prosecutors, who try cases involving Federal laws throughout the country. They are supposed to be strictly nonpolitical in their work, though in many cases they were appointed as a result of political patronage.
They have four-year terms, but serve at the pleasure of the President. The law says that ”each United States Attorney is subject to removal by the President.” It does not say that removal may be ”only for good cause,” as some statutes provide.
Those who hope that Mr. Reagan will let the incumbents finish their terms said that such a move would enhance the lawyers’ status as professionals. He might also avoid the fights that caused embarrassment to President Carter when he removed several Republican prosecutors against their will, most notably David W. Marston, in Philadelphia.
Aides to Mr. Reagan said last week that they had not set a policy, but would be inclined to review separately the qualifications of each United States Attorney.
Merit Over Partisanship
In some large metropolitan districts, merit has begun to overtake partisan politics as a major factor in the selection and retention of United States Attorneys. Senators in about eight states, including New York, have set up merit selection commissions to screen candidates.
The terms of 52 of the 94 prosecutors expire in 1981. Another 15 terms will be up in 1982. In addition, Federal District Courts have appointed United States Attorneys to fill vacancies in 12 districts. The President could appoint new people to those positions at any time. All nominees would be subject to Senate confirmation.
The decision to retain incumbent United States Attorneys depends at least as much on senators, because Senators of the President’s party have usually had the dominant voice in choosing Federal prosecutors.
Going back in time, one can find the same thing asked in 1977 and in 1989, Jack Danforth began a panel to nominate new US Attorneys for Missouri at the request of the Bush Administration. George W. Bush retained a few, but not many.
WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys. Attorney General Ashcroft said, "We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President 's priorities."In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.
Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year. President Bush will make announcements regarding his nominations to the Senate of new United States Attorneys as that information becomes available. Pending confirmation of the President's nominees, the Attorney General will make appointments of Interim United States Attorneys for a period of 120 days (28USC546). Upon the expiration of that appointment, the authority rests with the United States District Court (28USC546(d)).
The only difference in what Clinton did in 1993 was that he set out clear expectations on the first day in office. Other administrations let the question languish and created a lot of confusion. Carter in particular got a lot of flack after promising merit would only matter, but then replacing nearly all of the US Attorneys with Democrats.
Firing 8 US Attorneys during a Presidential term is unprecedented. The Congressional Research Service found 3 similar cases between 1981 and 2006. Comparing the purge of 8 US Attorneys in the middle of term to the replacement of US Attorneys at the beginning of a President’s term is so incredibly obtuse those making the argument can only be said to be lying.
A perfect example of this was Audrey Fleissig who was replaced by Ron Gruender in the Eastern District of Missouri in 2001. She only took office in September of 2000 yet was still replaced.
In addition to being a lie, this is a basic point of American democracy that is taught in Polisci 101. Those promoting the comparison should be ashamed of themselves.
Today’s Tosser
Yesterday at the House Armed Services Committee hearing on veterans care, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) attempted to stand out from the rest of Congress and argue that the conditions in Building 18 weren’t that bad. Instead of criticizing the cockroach infestation, he said, “I was glad to know that those cockroaches were belly up. It suggested to me that at least someone was spraying for them.” He also tried to blame the soldiers for the conditions, stating, “And, of course, if you leave food around in a motel room or a dorm room at a college, you’re going to get some mice show up at some point in time.