Politics, Lies, and 93 v. 8

This must be some sort of record.

Not even seven words into the post, and it just made me lose all hope.

" I do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics—punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal. "

Uh, Mike, dude, why do you think the Framers created separation of powers, checks and balances, and little things like impeachment? Electoral politics is lovely, but in between elections we still need accountability for egregious acts like, say...firing USA's for political reasons, lying the nation into war, failing to protect us on 9/11, stains on blue dresses...well, skip that last one.

Do you remember the polling that showed 2 big reasons for the Dems' sweep of Congress were Iraq and corruption? Do those electoral politics not speak to a desire of the electorate to, you know, do something about those issues NOW with the tools available?

Really, stop breaking into Joe's liquor cabinet. He's gonna notice you're watering down his vodka.

"because he comes halfway toward us."

Who's "us", Kemosabe?

How many of Clinton's US Attorneys were submitted for Senate approval?

How many of Clinton's US Attorneys were investigating high=level corruption among Democratic lawmakers and high=level appointees?

How many US Attorneys have ever been fired mid-term?

And the one that really stumps me --
How could you be this stupid and still manage to use a keyboard?

Truly unbelievable....

PS: There's the paraphernalia of scandal because THERE IS A SCANDAL!

Buh Bye Mikey

Just Buh Bye

Who's next - Charles Krauthammer? Oh goody

"comically mendacious"

Good God.

As I plow deeper into this prose, it unfurls new hideous depths, like a bad fart traveling slowly across an enclosed room.

If you find "comedy" in the mendaciousness of this administration, I suggest you keep it to yourself. The dead aren't laughing.

Well Mike, you got the generally flacid part right.
Brooks is wrong again. Lam was most likely removed due to her Cunningham investigation and indictments of Foggo et al. Failure to prosecute enough immigration cases is just the cover story.

If you want to dwell in counter-factual history I suggest the "What If" series of books. You are better than this.

"If Karl Rove had gotten his way and Bush had fired all 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his second term, would you (that’s you, Brad DeLong, and Kevin Drum, among others) actually have shrugged it off as no big deal?"

If your grandmother had had wheels, would you be a bike?

The entire point is that some--very few, in fact--US Attys were targeted for "defenestration", and others were not. Are you really too stupid to understand the import of the phrase "loyal Bushies"? Are you even a little bit familiar with the case of Kevin Ryan, US Atty for San Francisco, who is apparently the paradigmatic "loyal Bushie" of the US attorney system? Your willful obtuseness in this matter, your desperate desire to pretend there is some validity to the Clinton comparison in order to give your self a patina of "reasonableness" or independent thinking are truly exasperating.
In fact, I don't think you're this stupid, I just think you have a warped, broderist idea of what it means to be "thoughtful".

Suck lemons.

That Potomoc Pundit Puke is awash in a dismal swamp of self-justification for failure to take responsibility for promoting the likes of DeLay and then turning it back to the voters who look to the MSM to be at the least honorable.

'Hail, Halliburton,' said the Hooker walking down K Street.

Today, a new report concludes that Bush's actions were completely unprecedented. The study was conducted by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) and released by House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Rep. Linda Sánchez.

The CRS found that of the 486 U.S. Attorneys confirmed in a president's initial term since 1981, 54 left voluntarily before completing a full four-year term. Of those, no more than three had been forced out under circumstances similar to the current situation.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html

What a sad little man you are.

"It appears that as all the top staff at the Bush Justice Department retains criminal defense counsel for the impending investigations, the reliable right-wing mouthpieces are dragging out the 'Clinton fired his US Attorneys' canard to deny the obvious."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012993.php

THIS SCANDAL IS COMPLICATED! BLOGGING IS HARD!

"comically mendacious"

Sounds like a line in a cereal jingle...

Liberals "like" David Brooks...?

No, the self-satisfied out-of-touch centrist punditry like David Brooks because they have an insatiable appetite for tendentious BS and spurious phony sociology.

LIBERALS DON'T LIKE DAVID BROOKS. Insiders like David Brooks.

And US Attorneys are supposed to enforce the law, and if that means not pursuing half-baked administration electoral imperatives, then there you go.

And electoral politics ARE the point: this congress was hired specifically to issue subpoenas.

Get used to it.

Please, learn to use paragraphs and formatting. This post is almost unreadable, and it's not just that it is wrong.

"David Brooks has an excellent column today, and not for the usual reasons that liberals praise Brooks"

you really don't have to read any further...

what a numbnut.

For one thing, I'm not sure what planet you live on, but in the reality-based world, liberals do not "praise" Brooks, they universally deride him. He serves as a classic specimen of vacuous Beltway Broderism. He hasn't had an original thought in years. He hasn't written a single thing in the -what- four years he's been at the Times that is worthy of anything but eye-rolling derision.

As for the rest of your post, you are so profoundly uninformed about the issue that there is no point in answering. You have not bothered to learn the facts of this issue. You pulled your meager arguments out of thin air, a tactic that seems very much a habit with you, regarding social security, for example, when you wrote an ill-informed editorial supporting privatization.

You might want to read up on the facts before making a further fool of yourself.

"I do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics—punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal."

Let's think this through, Mikey. How exactly are the voters supposed to find out about lying in order to punish the liars? By relying on the investigation and solid analysis of our pundits? No, that's not going to work. You are Exhibit A, Mikey.

The only practical way the voters can learn the depths of Bush and his cronies' lies is if Congress uses its muscle to investigate Bush and then make what it learns public. To put it in your terms, Congressional subpoenas, special prosecutors and impeachment talk are all part of electoral politics.

The investigations Congress is doing right now are a great service to the voters. After six years of a rubber stamp Congress and almost equally compliant media, informed electoral politics are back. You and other republican apologists may not like this, but elections have consequences.

Suck it up.

Kinsley, you're an idiot.

There's really nothing more to be said. And you don't deserve any more.

David Brooks. Yes, us liberals are always talking about David Brooks. I'm sure there are conversations like this one all over America:

Liberal 1: Hey, did you read the latest David Brooks column?

Liberal 2: Wow, yes, he is so insightful and liberal, just like us.

Liberal 1: I wish he would run for president and help advance the liberal agenda.

Liberal 2: We could only hope for a world that brave and liberal.

Michael Kinsley - You are either blatantly dishonest, stupid or you are playing a joke on us liberals. I hope it's the latter.

Flaccid indeed.

We liberals have no use for Bobo Brooks, by the way. He's a liar and a GOP tool.

But you too-clever-by-half (but ultimately flaccid) pundits might like the schmuck.

In Mikey's world the score is 93 to 8. In the real world, it's 233 to 202 and 51 to 49. How's that for electoral politics, bitches?

Cripes, the reasons NOT to have a blood purge of the DC press corpse are evaportating faster than the Arctic ice pack.

The crap that people like Mikey here spew (David Brooks? Liberal? Hah! In the same sense that Goebbels was one of Hitler's "moderates!") is just too damn lame to even begin to try to address intelligently, because it's pure bullshit on its face.

The "Clinton fired 93!" argument is pure GOP talking points horsecrap.

Kinsley, you're definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution.

P.S. If Alterman's still holding a candle for you after this abortion of an analysis, then he's lost his mind too.

We liberals have no use for Bobo Brooks

That's a lie! I use him to feel superior and to clean my windows.

"If one of the prosecutors had just sent a Democratic Congressman to jail, would you be totally untempted by the White House explanation that the real cause was, say, a reluctance to prosecute abortion-clinic protesters under RICO? "

Um, just what exactly does this mean? I can't believe Time would employ someone who possessed no logical faculties.

I am seriously losing respect for Mr. Kinsley. First thing this morning, after reading the Times, I posted this on Swampland. I think it deserves another go around just to show how out-of-touch Kinsley and other beltway insiders are.

WTF is up with David Brooks? I opened the Post today and got the expected rubbish from Broder and vile from Novak, but for some reason I expect more from The New York Times. I know Brooks is supposed to be a liberal man's conservative, but this guy is just as phony and reprehensible as Novak is on a bad day.

His column today in Times Select on the Attorney Purge sent me over the edge. To wit:

“People of good faith disagree about whether the Clinton administration behaved improperly in firing almost all of the 93 prosecutors it inherited, in the midst of some high-profile and politically troublesome caes.”
No mention about George H.W. Bush’s and Ronald Regan’s firing of the entire slate of 93 prosecutors at the beginning of their terms.

“The bad behavior has not stopped there. The Democrats, apparently out of legislative ideas after only 11 weeks in the majority, have gone into full scandal mode, professing to be shocked because politics played a role in prosecutorial priorities. They ad those on their media food chain have made wild accusations far in advance of the evidence, producing enough cacophonous demagoguery to make rational discussion nearly impossible.”
No mention that the Democrats are performing the proper and right function of government oversight – something that was abandoned for six years under the Republicans. Furthermore, they are not simply talking about politics, they are talking about obstruction of justice in the case of at least four of these firings. Finally, rational discussion was ruled out from the get-go when the administration began to repeatedly lie. How could one have a rational discussion when the other side continually lies?

“Carol Lam seems to have been properly let go because she did not share the president’s priorities on illegal immigration cases.”
What? Half her office was dedicated to these prosecutions. She was never informed of any disenchantment by anyone either from the White House of the Department of Justice. Furthermore, everyone knows this was payback for Duke Cunningham and to sideline her from Foggo and Rep. Jerry Lewis (this guy was in charge of Appropriations! The single most important seat in Congress. This guy spent the Government money!)

Let’s just sweep Brooks into the dustbin of right wing hacks. Put him on the McLaughlin Group next to Novak and Blankley. Give him a link from Drudge.

Dear Michael,

The following is a critical difference between firing all 93 prosecutors and, to use your artful term, the "selective defenestration" of eight: Senate confirmation.

If all 93 prosecutors had been asked to hand in letters of resignation, and all 93 were replaced with new U.S.Attorneys, each would have needed approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate. This is not what has happened. The 8 U.S. Attorneys were replaced with interim U.S. Attorneys.

The stink coming from the OEOB has less to do with the firing, and more to do with the appointment of interim replacements, which do not require Senate confirmation.

This is compounded by the provision stuck into the USA PATRIOT ACT which removes the 120-day limitation on interim U.S. Attorneys.

This would only be comparable to the Clinton situation if Clinton had removed all 93 of his prosecutors and then used a string of interim appointees, perhaps rotating them through different districts, to put his own people into office without getting the Senate to sign off on them. If this had been done in his second term, it would have been more ethically questionable because of opposition control over the Senate.

The difference, Michael, is all the difference.

One more time, Mike, so even you can understand it, Clinton didn't FIRE all the USA's. He replaced political appointees at the BEGINNING of his term, just like Reagan did.

For no reason at all, except that it was what Presidents ALWAYS do.

And when Bush replaced all 93 of Clinton's USAs at the beginning of his term, not one single liberal objected.

NO ONE has a problem with that.

People have a problem with firing USAs, highly qualified ones, because they aren't prosecuting, without cause, political enemies. Or because they are prosecuting political friends.

Why can't you understand that simple, simple distinction?

I mean, you can't possibly be THAT stupid.

Um... If he fired all of them, including those with active prosecutions into house members, administration officials, and CIA leadership, and replaced them all with interims who were not to ever face Senate approval? Yeah, I think I'd be pretty goddamned pissed.

Sorry. "not ever to face". Kinsley makes my grammar vomit.

Ricky said: "I mean, you can't possibly be THAT stupid."

He's trying very hard to prove he is.

The Lam situation SCREAMS hack job to protect cronies, like the despicable Dusty Foggo.

Um. Clinton ditched 93 people he had not appointed. At the beginning of his term. Just like his cabinet.

They are political appointees. That's what it means. It's customary.

Bush fired people HE had appointed. If THAT is political, it sure would be nice to have it explained to us. Without lying. Without repeated lying. Without, how shall I put this, "comical mendacity".

Thank you.

By the by, is anybody else enjoying the "Well, Clinton did it!" defense coming from all those impeachment-crazed wingers? They don't even seem to notice the irony.

Michael Kinsley offers the Wall St Journal editorial page as evidence that reasonable people can disagree about the facts of the case.

Even I think that's retarded.

Kinsley,
boy you're just dumber than a sack of hammers, aint ya?

When will Time magazine hire a liberal commentator?
One who understands the situation as do the majority of people in this country?

This column is ridiculous, from the opening words.

The little thing with false pretexts for war is pretty comically mendacious too, Mr. Kinsley.

"David Brooks has an excellent column today, and not for the usual reasons that liberals praise Brooks."

Thanks for going full throttle on the stupid right from the start, so I didn't waste time reading the rest of this, letting the stupid sneak up on me.

For the record, the usual reason liberals praise Brooks is that they aren't liberals at all, but they play them on TV.

Seriously, this case is no big deal. If left wing smear merchants like David Brooks and the Wall Street Journal tell their America hating followers to "Look away, nothing to see here" then we have to follow them. Thats the way the world works, folks. Tony Snow stood there and told us the complete truth and we all know he is not allowed to lie. For gods sake, he worked for Fox News people. FOX NEWS!

"By the by, is anybody else enjoying the "Well, Clinton did it!" defense coming from all those impeachment-crazed wingers? They don't even seem to notice the irony."

Yeah: http://www.dohiyimir.org/2007/03/iokicdi.html

Reading Michael Kinsley today is like reading the second half of "Flowers for Algernon"

Sad and frustrating. It's unimagimable that someone who was once so bright could now be so stupid as to swallow the administration's transparently false talking points hook line and sinker, but there it is right in front of you face. I guess I could refute his nonesense point by point, but that would be like arguing with Charlie Morgan - pointless and cruel.

Can somebody close to Michael please intervene and prevent him from embarrrasing himslef in public any further? Thanks.

Do you suppose Brooks, Kinsley and Broder get together over a fine glass of Cotes du Rhone and some well aged Camembert and chortle over each others bon mots? The rest of us can only throw up in our mouths a little.

Oh lordy. Swamgas just gets gassier. One sentence in and I learn that there are usual reasons liberals love David Brooks. Ladies might love Cool James but liberals don't love David Brooks. Nor thinking people. Nor honest ones, come to think of it.

If the word "flaccid" were to be illustrated in a dictionary, it would be represented by a picture of Kinsley "from the left" on the CNN show Crossfire, which was mercifully put out of its misery in a mere 22 minutes by Jon Stewart.

Kinsley's patented "flaccid" performances helped crystallize the image of "the left" as unappealing, uninformed, unwilling and unable to defend themselves, liberalism, the democratic party, and, in voters' minds, America.

In one respect only was he anything but "flaccid": he did manage to beget Peter Beinart and Alan Colmes.

It's time to sit down and just fade away mike. I recall a time when you were insightful, interesting, maybe even relevant.

But it's only a recollection now.

Seriously, just stop. You don't need the money, do you? Wouldn't a real job, maybe in a convenience store be more honest?

Assuming you can still count change of course.

After spending years throwing fights on Crossfire, it's no real wonder that Kinsley has no manhood left. His lack of integrity is, nevertheless, disgusting. Maybe he can get a job on Fox.

What in heavens name are you talking about invoking Clinton? This is not about staffing the USAs at the beginning of a term. This is about, having first inserted a waiver on legislative review of USA appointments without the knowledge of the legislature according to Specter,of any elected official, selectively firing the people.

At this point I want to use meaningless intensifiers that'll get my message bounced. This quote has me climbing the walls:

"But I still have to wonder: If Karl Rove had gotten his way and Bush had fired all 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his second term, would you (that’s you, Brad DeLong, and Kevin Drum, among others) actually have shrugged it off as no big deal?"

First off, how is that Karl Rove's way? Is there a single document,quotation or anonymous cite that says Karl Rove wanted to fire everybody? This is a ridiculous attempt to equate what happens at the beginning of every modern presidential term of office with firings that happened in the sixth year of a term. Such an idea--firing all 93 appointees is unprecedented, and I know of no indication that was planned. Can we see a link, please?

The problem is not firing and replacing them all. The problem is that they didn't have to be confirmed. Rove could put any political operative into place with no oversight. He could, as he did, replace someone pursuing real honest-to-god corruption with someone who would pursue phony voter fraud cases. He could do this because these appointments could be made without confirmation.

"If Clinton had fired just eight, would you have been hammering him for corrupting justice?"

If Clinton had fired eight using legislation that surreptitiously bypassed confirmation, yeah, I'd be hammering him. In the New Yorker this week, one appointee makes it very clear that he won't go through confirmation hearings--because he'd be tossed.

I'm flat out astounded at how stupid Kinsley is being here. There's no equivalence to ANY OTHER PRESIDENT'S action here--because every other president, Democratic, Republican, Federalist or Whig had to have their appointments confirmed.

his mental faculties are thought to be caused by his m.s.

clearly, it does cause some grotesque form of dementia.

time to retire, mike. get thee to a hospice.

I want to echo ROMO's sentiments as well as...

"Well Mike, you got the generally flacid part right.
Brooks is wrong again. Lam was most likely removed due to her Cunningham investigation and indictments of Foggo et al. Failure to prosecute enough immigration cases is just the cover story. "
Pithy, and it says it all... I had read Brook's column and found it absolutely odious...it is the banal complicity MSM and punditry that sideswiped this country into the morass we are suffering now. Further Ms. Lam was taken out. Pure and simple. The horrifying thing is the country is 'free' enough that we can talk about it but the perps breath free air. Don't forget to add Judith Miller to that dustbin. And if Tom Delay gets anymore face time....well that's another post

As John Ashcroft said in 2001:

Continuing the practice of new administrations, [...] nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations.

Well, how 'bout that! Bush43 fired 92 of Clinton's USAs by June 2001.

I REALLY ENJOYED READING THIS ARTICLE. NOTHING PLEASES ME MORE THAN READING A *BIG BLOCK OF TEXT*. IN FACT, I FEEL DOUBLY REWARDED THAT SUCH A DISTINGUISHED NEWSMAN LIKE MICHAEL KINSLEY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IDEA ON HOW TO USE THINGS LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, INDENTATIONS? IT'S ALMOST LIKE BEING BACK IN MY JRN-101 CLASS. NO, STRIKE THAT. IT'S LIKE BEING BACK IN MY HIGH SCHOOL TYPING CLASS WHERE YOU WOULD LEARN HOW TO MAKE PICTURES OF THINGS LIKE MICKEY MOUSE BY FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS THAT WOULD TELL YOU HOW MANY ASTERISKS AND SPACES YOU'D NEED TO POUND OUT ON YOUR KEYBOARD. I AM CELEBRATING THIS BY TYPING IN ALL CAPS. HUGS AND KISSES MICHAEL!

"Reading Michael Kinsley today is like reading the second half of "Flowers for Algernon""

That made me cry when I was a kid. Somehow I can't find the same empathy for Mikey and his rat Joe that I did for Charlie and Algernon.

David Brooks exists so Times readers can refute him, and the letters invariably are far more intelligent than Brooks. And now Swampland exists for the comments.

Wow, the cynical side of me really believes that this Swampland Blog has been set up to expose just how shallow Time's premier writers are. It's almost like they want us to stop paying attention and reading their magazine.

If Mr. Kinsley really doesn't understand the difference between W's firings and Clinton's, Bush's, and Reagan's firings of people they did not appoint, maybe Time should hire someone to explain it to him.

Furthermore, if Mr. Kinsley doesn't understand why the Framers created separation of powers, checks and balances, and impeachment into the Constitution, or why this country is founded on a concept called the "rule of law" I know a good 8th grade class on American History.

This post more proof that these "traditional" columnists just can't compete in the free market of ideas which is the Blogosphere.

Kinslet, when people break the law, and corrupt the system, voting them out is too little too late. What a stupid, indefensible column. shame on you.

"now Swampland exists for the comments."

I'm here for the snacks.

You know Michael, when I first saw your name here my imediate reaction was "he's still alive?". Now, after reading all the useless crap you've put out I'm come to a conclusion. No, you've been brain dead for a while.

You have no clue what's going on and it shows. Go read Digby for a month and then come back to the grown up table.

Michael Kinsley wrote:

"US Attorneys are supposed to be political in the sense that in performing their duties they reflect the policies of the president who appointed them."

Thanks Mike. Guess that I've had the wrong idea all these years. I thought US Attorneys had a mandate to enforce the law.

NTodd: What kind of snacks do you provide at your blog? Oh wait, you don't have one. Ha!

Kinsley couldn't possibly be this dense.

He's well aware that he's completely full of s***. This is nothing but Bush Apologist Damage Control in action.

I echo Enceladus. But hopeless that I am, I'll try.

Mr. Kinsley, if Bush had fired all 93 it would have and should have drawn the same curiousity - and should have drawn much more, as much as there is now at least, if the odd possibility of obstruction of justice reared its head. Why are you so blase absout possible crimes? It's really mind-boggling. You seem to only care about appearances. That might be fine for a botox injection specialist, but you're supposed to be a jouranlist. Blech.

"NTodd: What kind of snacks do you provide at your blog? Oh wait, you don't have one. Ha!"

DAMN IT! I'M DELETING YOUR FUCKING ACCOUNT!

People who have replaced every US Attorney at the beginning of their presidential term:
1. Reagan
2. Bush
3. Clinton
4. Bush II

People who have had mass firings of elite US Attorneys while abusing a "placed under the cover of night" provision
1. Bush II

Just think about it logically, the only reason this is a story is because it was so unusual at its outset. Sampson admitted this in an internal memo. Do you even read the e-mails?

This isn't a case of one representative only taking into consideration their population's views and compromise being needed. This is a blatantly obvious attempt of a sitting president to obstruct justice and turn a Justice department that investigates Democrats 80% of the time into an extension of the Republican Party whose sole purpose is to suppress democratic votes and to protect Republicans.

The administration was so incompetent that they couldn't even come up with a reasonable explanation before they fired them. All of the internal memos with rationales being formulated take place AFTER the scandal broke. Try explaining that.

Actually, I'd rather hear you try to justify Tony Snow's "Congress has no oversight responsibilities" by quoting Dickens. That or an anecdote from one of your rich buddies.

global yokel: "Thanks Mike. Guess that I've had the wrong idea all these years. I thought US Attorneys had a mandate to enforce the law."

No silly. USAs are supposed to investigate Democrats and make up false charges against them. Anything else is grounds for being fired.

michael said:

"And now Swampland exists for the comments."

You've got that right. But I think Mikey is still at least a little bit higher on the pecking order than Question Hillary.

Kinsley's a great candidate for a re-education camp after the revolution.

Carneyvore: "But I think Mikey is still at least a little bit higher on the pecking order than Question Hillary."

But QH is far funnier to read.

Rather than praising David Brooks for facile distinctions or tut-tutting liberals about how they might have reacted to hypothetical cases that don't obtain, why don't you actually read through the documents released by the Justice Department?

Or why don't you tell us about executive privilege, a crucial topic for the weeks ahead?

In other words, why don't you do some real work, rather than the hand-waving typical of the lazy pundit class?

Or, just retire.

There are two key differences - the lack of senate confirmation, just noted, and this: There is very strong circumstantial evidence that the firings are part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice by Rove et al, by preventing investigations of Republicans (e.g. by Lam) and by instigating spurious investigations of Democrats (e.g. what McKay and Iglesias were supposed to have done). This is not rocket science - it's a fairly naked attempt to subvert police powers for political advantage, and clearly very different from what Clinton or Reagan did. It mystifies me that people who appear to be reasonably bright and appear not to be Republican propagandists, like Mr. Kinsely, can stumble over such an obvious contrast.

If we had wanted Congress to turn a blind eye to lies, criminal behavior and politcal corruption we could have just kept the Republicans in power.

Shorter Kinsley:

Although there are people who think it would be really bad if prosecutors carrying out their legal duties fairly and in an impartial manner by investigating real allegations of corruptions by Republicans and sensibly not prosecuting Democrats when evidence didn't support the charges were fired in order to replace them with people more willing to act in an unfair and partial manner, only extremist crazy people would get excited enough to, like, investigate this and more mature people would just assume the best of Our Leaders and wait for the next election.

Re: "And I remain astounded that people find the Clinton analogy not merely wrong but preposterous. There are plenty of differences, but it’s important to try the shoe on the other foot..."

Not if there are plenty of differences, it's not. If you can't say your comparative cases are comparative with a straight face, there's no reason for us to to consider them.

"I still have to wonder: If Karl Rove had gotten his way and Bush had fired all 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his second term, would you (that’s you, Brad DeLong, and Kevin Drum, among others) actually have shrugged it off as no big deal?"

Yep, I would have shrugged it off as no big deal--especially if they had given the desirable-rotation-in-office excuse.

"If Clinton had fired just eight, would you have been hammering him for corrupting justice?"

Depends on which 8 he fired, if Clinton had kept 85 of Bush I's U.S. attorneys. I tell you one thing, however: you would have been out there loudly denouncing Clinton for not understanding how the system worked and for alienating all the Democratic senators.

You're trying much too hard, and it's painful to watch.

"If the president believes strongly in prosecuting pornographers, he is not just within his rights but within his duties to fire a prosecutor who ignores those cases. If, at the other extreme, he wants a prosecutor to drop a case against a large contributor, that is political in the bad sense."

The first is policy, the second is corruption and obstruction of justice and a perversion of the rule of law.

So is using the Justice department to intimidate your political opponents. It's not just "all politics"; this is the USA we're talking about, not Zimbabwe!

"Just think about it logically"

STOP RIGHT THERE!

his mental faculties are thought to be caused by his m.s.

clearly, it does cause some grotesque form of dementia.

This is too far over the line. Way too far over the line.

NTodd, you can't say "fucking" here. Karen told me their obscenity filter blocks it out...

"this is the USA we're talking about, not Zimbabwe!"

Oops. I just knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've read on Swampland, and Swampland employs Joe Klein and Ana Marie Cox. Bravo.

A hermit:
"NTodd, you can't say 'fucking' here. Karen told me their obscenity filter blocks it out..."

According to joke line, only extremists use bad words.

"NTodd, you can't say "fuucking" here. Karen told me their obscenity filter blocks it out..."

Oh, fuucking fuuck. I didn't fuucking realize that. Now I'm so fuucking embarrassed. My mom would be appalled at how fuucking vulgar I am, mostly because it totally destroys any fuucking point I make. FUUCK!

"Comically mendacious." But that's the attitude of the traditional media when it comes to this adminstration. Bush's dishonesty is entertaining. Too entertaining to call him on it.

Bush telling everyone that he'll try to avoid war and then kicking out weapons inspectors is funny. Bush telling people we found WMDs in Iraq and then joking about not finding them is funny. Bush telling people he had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in is funny. And there's plenty more to laugh about over the past six years.

I hope you enjoy your next two years of entertainment. Most of America will not.

I'm stunned.
Really.
The administration's mendacity _funny_?
3200 dead Americans aren't laughing. Neither are the uncounted (not uncountable, just uncounted) soldiers who will never walk or throw a baseball or think an unclouded thought, ever again. Not to mention the uncountable, probably, dead Iraqis.
Tried traveling abroad lately? Outside the comfortable shell of 4-star accommodations? We're despised, universally, by people who used to admire us, and aspire to be like us.
_Funny_? This really is a game for you, isn't it? Think about this: people's lives are on the line. The future of the country is on the line.
If you had any integrity at all, you would resign immediately.

People who have replaced every US Attorney at the beginning of their presidential term:
1. Reagan
2. Bush
3. Clinton
4. Bush II

People who have had mass firings of elite US Attorneys while abusing a "placed under the cover of night" provision
1. Bush II

Read that again a few times, Michael.

"If Clinton had fired just eight, would you have been hammering him for corrupting justice?"

Hmm, a few questions for this hypothetical:

1. Did Clinton replace one of the fired attorneys with a political crony of his tethered 'brain' without congressional approval?

2. Were his aides and Justice Dept. scurring around writing emails back and forth on how to contain the inevitable fallout and hide the reasons from Congress?

3. Did his aides materially mislead, nay LIE, to Congress?

4. Did he fire these attorneys because they were insufficiently enthusiastic about drawing up bogus indictments of Republican officials?

5. Did he fire them because they were _too_ enthusiastic about drawing up legitimate indictments of corrupt Democratic officials?

6. Did he fire them because members from his party were complaining about #4 and #5?

7. Did he fire them because they weren't 'loyal Clintonites'?

8. Did he get all pissy and have his spokesman claim on national TV that Congress has NO oversight authority over the White House?

9. Oh, and did he or members of his administration... hypothetically speaking ... lie us into a disastrous middle east war, sit idly by while a major American city drowned, willfully out a covert CIA agent, or preside over the most corrupt and contemptible White House in the history of the nation?

Cuz, I probably would a been hammering him then. Wouldn't you?

Idiot.

Seriously, they told me if I put words like fucking in my comments they won't show up in the thread. I'd hate for my fucking comments to disappear...

Dick is apparently OK though,,,

Michael Kinsley is like Steve Carlton at the end of his career - traveling from team to team throwing sliders in the dirt. He used to be able to pitch.

Bears repeating:

People who have replaced every US Attorney at the beginning of their presidential term:
1. Reagan
2. Bush
3. Clinton
4. Bush II

People who have had mass firings of elite US Attorneys while abusing a "placed under the cover of night" provision
1. Bush II

Read that again a few times, Michael.

"'Comically mendacious.' But that's the attitude of the traditional media when it comes to this adminstration. Bush's dishonesty is entertaining. Too entertaining to call him on it."

The WMDs have to be around here somewhere!

HA! HA! HA!

Betcha Michael Kinsley got a few bellylaughs out of that one! Tell it to the guys in Walter Reed without legs!

HA! HA! HA!

Shorter Kinsley: I don't understand the outrage of liberal bloggers, so it MUST be more complicated than they let on. Perhaps they don't read David Brooks and miss his brilliant distinctions.

"Michael Kinsley is like Steve Carlton at the end of his career"

Steve Carlton never said anythin this fucking stupid.

Maybe Tim McCarver intervened to tell him to put a corki n it? Who's Kinsley's McCarver? He needs to stop Michael from embarrasing himself further.

"3200 dead Americans aren't laughing."

Well, they would be if they knew they died to protect the executive branch's privilege to joke about shite.

Oh, heh, Time is blocking me because I'm posting too much. Worse than Helloscan's 20 second rule. Maybe I should take it as a hint that I'm spending too much time at the bar eating pretzels and drinking the pisswater beer...

Liberals "like" David Brooks? In what universe would that be, Michael?

I agree with the others; this is some sort of record for destroying one's own argument.

Michael Kinsley writes, "If Karl Rove had gotten his way and Bush had fired all 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his second term, would you (that’s you, Brad DeLong, and Kevin Drum, among others) actually have shrugged it off as no big deal? If Clinton had fired just eight, would you have been hammering him for corrupting justice? Would the fact that the firings came in the middle of the president’s term loom quite so large?"

Jesus frickin' Christ, Michael... and if Clinton had killed cute little kittens and consumed their raw, bloody flesh on national television, even I might have supported his impeachment.

But that's not what happened, and none of what you wrote above happened. What happened was the Bush administration fired 8 US Attorneys for reasons which seem more and more suspicious as the matter is investigated - and stonewalled.

Wow. I never thought the day would come when I felt so much smarter than Michael Kinsley. Well, at least you were smart enough to ditch "Crossfire" before it turned into the farce it later became.

I LIKE THE WAY YOU TINK. YOU ARE A VERY GOOD LIBURL. YOU THINK BROOKS IS SMART JUST LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH. I LIKE BUSH. DO YOU LIKE BUSH? WHEN WE WIN AGAN IN 2008 YOU WILL BE SAFE. WE MIGHT EVEN LET YOU ON TV SO WE CAN LAFF AT YOU. YOU R A VERY FUNY CLOWN. HAHA

Can't you just see President Bush at next year's press gala playing the inept janitor at Walter Reed, "Ooh, a rat turd, oopsies!" while Kinsley and the gang are laughing their asses off at such silly mendacity.

They laugh.

Iraq burns.

New Orleans drowns.

"What right do you have?" the girls said. "Catch-22," the men said. All they kept saying was "Catch-22, Catch-22." What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?'
'Didn't they show it to you?' Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. 'Didn't you even make them read it?'
'They don't have to show us Catch-22,' the old woman answered. 'The law says they don't have to.'
'What law says they don't have to?'
'Catch-22.'

Mr. Kinsely, please stop. We're all sorry that you have Parkinson's. We all wish you the best. Just stop. Just stop. Please.

"Iraq burns.

New Orleans drowns."

If we introduce the two at the next deb ball, maybe they'll cancel each other out...

Dear Mr. Kinsley:

Ask yourself the question "Why?"

As in:

Why were these US Attorneys fired?

Why can't the Bush administration answer that question without lying and obfuscating?

Why was Karl Rove apparently more involved in deciding which US attorneys to fire (and which to retain) than was Alberto Gonzalez?

And of course,

Why does Michael Kinsley still have a job?

Swampland truly exists for the comments.

Notice that the bloggers don't even get a readable font.

It's sad, though. Kinsley is someone I've respected for a long time.

Does he need a few dollars? There must be a better way for him to make a living than sinking past Wonkette's level to muck around in on-record-bald-faced-liar Joe Klein's level.

Kinsley is right. You liberals are way to worked up about this. Sure Bush fired them and lied about ti, but so whaat! It's not like it matters. It's all politics all the way down. that's what you people don't get.

So what if Lam was fired. What she get? A corrput politician a dime a dozen. All he did was take a few bribes, not like he really hurt anyone. This isn't murder or rape here folks. So bush didn't want him to go after more of his friends. That's the way the world works!

Take a cue from Kinsley and lighten up before you all die from ulcers.

Bush is using the power of the state to punish his domestic political opponents and to protect his allies.

It's that simple.

You may want to read that several times, Mike. "Power of the state to punish opponents".

Can you think of any other countries over the past century where political opponents were held to different standards of justice than loyal party members?

I knew you could.

This is just absurd. How many times do the most basic elements of this scandal have to be explained to Kinsley before he understands them?

I'm starting to agree with Atrios, SWAMPLAND deliberately foists clueless posters on readers in order to incite controversy and boost page views.

Provocative posters are all very well, but I think the MSM is already inundated with rank stupidity -- must TIME add Kinsley to Klein and Carney?

Talk about adding insult to injury.

You had me at: "David Brooks has an excellent column today, and not for the usual reasons that liberals" praise Brooks (and he drives conservatives crazy).

ROTFL!!! Pure comedy gold!!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen, the comedy stylings or Michael Kinsley. Brilliant.

Please give him a hand.

When will you be writing the real column?

Michael Kinsley: The man who paved the way for Alan Colmes.

Forgive me if I suspect your loyalties may be somewhat mixed up.

I always enjoy posts like uh_clem's most recent. It contains statements of fact from which I can induce the outlines of reality with a high degree of confidence. Naively perhaps, I tend to equate liberalism with reason. In fact, their reliance on facts and reason may be the thing that defines the modern blogger, or radical extremist, as some call them. That is the great mystery of their extremism, their insistence on accuracy.

David Brooks has an excellent column today,

Uh. I stopped reading right there.

"David Brooks" and "excellent column" are not two terms that go together.

Wait - I get it! This is Michael's April Fool's Day column, and it was mistakenly published a week and a half early!

David Brooks, liked by liberals??? ROTFLMAO! Good one, Michael!

Michael Kinsley... didn't he used to write a column for Slate, and wasn't he back then not at all a complete fucking fool? What happened? Did someone place a giant seed pod under his bed like in that movie Invasion of the Democracy Snatchers?

Honestly, seriously, the dimwittedness of this column really freaks me out.

So voting will oust the corrupt? But the corruption consists of perverting voting by intimidating through bogus voter fraud cases.

Nice.

Kinsley's TNR was a great magazine, and he was once to be taken seriously.

Michael:

Step back. Inhale. Notice the sulfurous odor coming from the White House. Understand that we're no longer in the world of Beltway Business As Usual.

Because you really can do so much better than this, and I'd love to read you doing it.

I think it's a case of cocktail weenie poisoning.

I'm the liberal William F. Buckley hired so as not to create any embarrassing situations.

Listen to me.

First of all, as I have said many times, David Brooks is America's most disingenuous pundit. So you definitely lost me right away, he is a slimy bastard with no real beliefs of his own, a moldy, but empty vessel.

As for the rest of the crap you've written here, oh my god, its bad. And still, amazingly, you are not informed about some of the most basic aspects of this whole matter. Such as that Carol Lam had actually received praise for the rise in immigration prosecutions. BUT, when you've got Duke Cunningham to deal with, you've got to prioritize that, and that is where Bush, his administration, and all you apologists out there have gone completely and totally off your collective rockers.

How can you let yourself be embarrassed like this? Its understandable for someone like Brooks to be doing his best to muddy the water with his sanctimonious drivel. Its not understandable for it to fool people like you. But that's what happens when you DON'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

The only reason I read this blog is for the comments, and it has quickly become a daily necessity.

I love reading these commentators take Time (gasp!) writers to task. With smarts,analysis, EVIDENCE, and humor it never fails to make my day. I find myself laughing out loud everytime these idiots are taken to the woodshed.

God bless America, God bless these commentators & God bless the internet. It's a miracle to finally see truth spoken to (MSM)power on a daily basis. I don't know how I could have survived this administration without the interent since the MSM has been dead on arrival for the past 6 years.

Suck Lemons numbnuts!

"I do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics—punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal."

When is Alberto Gonzales next up for election, Michael? When is Karl Rove up, or Tony Snow, or Dan Bartlett?

Dear Mr. Kinsley,

If it can be proved that Carol Lam was fired because she was doing her job too well, it is not far different from President Nixon's firing Archibald Cox, a clear case of obstruction of justice that became the basis of an article of impeachment.

It may be that the Bush administration is fighting so ferociously to keep Rove and Miers from testifying as a mere matter of misguided principle. A more plausible inference is that testimony from these two may place the President and many of his associates in serious jeopardy.

Please do not repeat the mistake of thirty-five years ago when a "third-rate burglary" was widely dismissed as something not worth bothering about. Interference in an ongoing investigation is prima facie evidence of obstruction, a felony. Laugh that one off if you like, but Senator Leahy and Congressman Conyers do not seem to see the humor in it.

When the White House and related Republican partisans suggest, or flat-out ask some U.S. Attorneys to (a)stop prosecuting legtimate crimes by Republican office holders or their supporters and (b) start prosecuting Democratic office holders or their supporters, regardless of the evidence, or penalize those Attorneys for not doing so, then it is time to blow the f*king whistle on them.

Related to this is a question just as big or bigger than that of the eight attorneys whose contracts were not renewed: What have other U.S. Attorneys done to stay "loyal Bushies" and keep their jobs?

The first two lines of this blog are possibly the stupidest thing I've read on the internets. The rest was just unreadable.

dude.

I find it hard to believe that you, Mr Kinsey, don't know that USAs are almost always fired en masse at the begginning of a presidents term. Clinton didnt decide to do it on some whim or other wise. It was tradition. Do you seriously not know that?

Kinsley, you're so smart! How could you just not get it? It's about pressuring the most sacrosanct of government's sacred cows, federal prosecutors, to blatantly misuse their god-like powers by prosecuting political enemies and winking at their political friends.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with how many were fired or when they were fired. It's about having a nation ruled by laws and not by men.

I wonder if Michael Kinsley thinks it was just a coincidence that we had so many terror alerts in 2004 and virtually none since then.

Everything is political with these bastards, Michael. What is so hard to understand about that?

Sorry, Mr. Kinsley, but I really couldn't get past your comment about "liberals" heaping praise on David Brooks. I keep hearing that Brooks is supposed to be my favorite conservative. I'm definitely a liberal, but I've yet to read a single intelligent thought from the guy, and I've suffered through several of his columns and a few infuriating chapters of one of his books. (The book was on remainder in my liberal city--maybe that will give you a clue.)

With all due respect, if you're confused by the attorney scandal, maybe you should devote some time to catching up on reading Talking Points Memo, instead of listening a guy who wastes column space in the Times obsessing over his neighbors spending too much cash at Whole Foods.

Liberals like David Brooks? I had pudding coming out of my nose on that nonsense.

Put down the halcyon and step away from your computer you hack.

If there's nothing to see here Michael, then why do you think they were fired? Do you really buy the WH line that it was for performance-related reasons? That one was debunked long, long ago...

No need to rebutt again all the false, misleading and totally idiotic statements in the post... just read the comments.

And to think I really, really used to like and respect Mr. Kinsley. He's really gone off the deep end with this and other recent posts. Sad, very sad for him and for Time thinking that they're enhancing debate in this country.

Damn, Mike, I used to think you were ALWAYS smart and clever and astute.

Dude, read some prominent lefty bloggers, and hopefully get a clue.

Digby
Glenn Greenwald
Billmon, God Rest His Blogging Soul
Josh Marshall
First Draft
The Rude Pundit (of course TRP's language and tone would offend, but not to a whole lot of people in the "heartland")
Atrios
Firedoglake
Matt Yglesias
Ezra Klein
Pandagon

I DEFY you to tell me these bloggers are in any way members of the lunatic fringe.

Jesus.

I used to think you were brilliant. The torch is being passed, and it is weird to witness.

Mr Kinsley is wealthy rich now (thanks to his wife who manages the Bill Gates Foundation) and has seemingly lost his old cutting edge. The good life makes you soft, and I fear that the old Kinsley has been replaced by the new one looking to be the next David Broder. He has lost his old fire if he can't see that using the Patriot Act to replace USAs without Senate confirmation is much different than anything that has come before. If he can't see that putting in new patsies to stymie old and upcoming cases isn't bad behavior. If he calls Bush Administration sociopathy "comically mendacious." The liars WERE punished in the last election (in the Congress at least) but prevaricators are still doing some deciding and so some checking a& balancing needs doing.

Kinsley has lost the old fire he used to call a spade a spade with. Pity. He could have been a contender.

Holy Lord. Please never ever ever be a guest poster here again. Pretty please?

I don't think I've seen such an obviously strained argument.

It is embarrasing how badly you seem to want to bend over backwards to try to squeeze the obvious stench of the U.S. Attys. scandal into a fresh smelling bottle.

Well, I've got news for you. Not only is not working, it is making you look like a foolish pompous you know what.

If Eric Alterman has any sense he'll tear your drivel to shreds. Then again maybe that wouldn't be enough of a challenge for him (and I don't even like him that much mind you).

dude entry 2

Dude. Thanks for this article. I just explained to my girlfriend that a guy who has been writing about politics half his life, this is pretty much all he does, doesn't know something basic about the workings of the executive office for the last 30 years. We had a good laugh. Pretty much underlines the point we crazy net folk have been making for 6 years now. Thanks.

This is the kind of utter crap journalism that rewards dirty, cynical, unethical politics. No matter how blatantly unethical you are you can always count on a Kinsley to write a column saying its not that big of a deal.

Guess what Mike? You are the problem.

I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.I like to write. I don't like paragraph breaks. I like to write stupid things. I don't like paragraphbreaks.

Dear Michael,

you used to be a hero.

obtuse much?

(dontcha' just love the blogosphere?)

you have it all at your fingertips - you know better than a bunch of liberal alarmists - well then please explain how interfering with justice is okay.

It has nothing to do with Clinton any more than it has to do with Reagan - if Clinton had interfered in trhe investigation of a corrupt Democratic congressman taking bribes, the sky would have caved in. If it was 3 or possibly more - "don't forget Guam!" - they would have been screaming from the rooftops for impeachment and your ilk would all nod their heads sadly and unctously say "we're liberals but..." and truth is you're not.

I count you as a sellout 'cause I know how freaking smart you are - those must be some powerful good cocktail weenies they feed you and your confreres.

yeah, that's worth selling out for. weenies.

Wow. I live in a country where this Bush-enabling, millionaire-fellating clown is considered "liberal."

Just... wow.

Atrios is wrong.

Kinsley's problem here isn't one of intelligence. We know he is smart.

There is clearly an ethical problem here. He hasn't bothered to study the facts of the case. So he falls back on his standard line of how people who are outraged by something in politics are being superficial or hypocritical and haven't thought things through carefully.

Kinsley is lazy. Kinsley is unserious. Kinsley has lost the moral perspective to take such matters seriously.

Enjoy your money, Mike. But know that you are disgrace.

"I seem to have displayed a cavalier attitude about official lying. I stand by my description of the administration as “comically mendacious”—anyone who hasn’t been entertained by the tango of mid-course corrections is missing a real treat. But it’s also serious.