U.S. Attorney General Resigns

willie3204 is one of many to mention that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. One of Gonzales' main opponents praised his decision stating that: "'For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional and desperately needs new leadership,' said the Schumer statement. 'Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations. We beseech the Administration to work with us to nominate someone whom Democrats can support and America can be proud of.'"

Comments

Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[downix]

Right now, the opposition party has failed in it's watchdog duties. This resignation is only good news if they finally gain some moxie and push for a hard Atty Gen, one that will actually ensure oversight of the branches of government as the position is supposed to be doing.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[slughead]

Right now, the opposition party has failed in it's watchdog duties.

Political parties have no duties, only the need and desire to keep themselves in power. Congress (controlled by Democrats) has one of the lowest approval ratings ever at present. They aren't pushing for anything now.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[ajs]

There's no way that the Bush administration will put forth an actual watchdog. The best the Democrats can do is to block the nomination of one Loyal Bushy in favor of the next. No, I think they'll make a show of their resistance, but unless Bush puts forth someone who can't read or burns a copy of the Constitution on the steps of the Capitol Building before the hearing, the nomination will likely go through.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[Xonstantine]

Republican support turned against Bush a while back. Calling your base racist and pushing through an amnesty for 20 million illegals when the base overwhelmingly opposes it tends to do that. What Republicans aren't in favor of is a purely political witch hunt. I mean, if there are more Duke Cunninghams out there either in the administration or Congress, by all means, throw them in the pokey. But while we're at it, how about we apply the same standards across the board? Pelosi seemed to back off pretty quick from her "drain the swamp" pledge considering that both Murtha and Jefferson are sitting on committees.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[r_jensen11]

What Republicans aren't in favor of is a purely political witch hunt.

Bull-fucking-shit. Care to try to explain the Clinton impeachment process then?

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[Anonymous Coward]

So which was he, incompetent or a liar? Either way, shouldn't have been doing the job.

Oh, and EVERY one of your points is wrong:
Foreign intelligence agencies - you mean like the discredited yellowcake? More BS.
Previous Clinton? Where? More BS.
Bush admin? Scott Ritter ring any bells? They KNEW, you spew yet more BS.
Saddam's Generals. You mean that they didn't want to say that they were defenseless to Iran? More BS.
Inner Circle defectors. You mean people with a motive to lie? More BS.

You and those like you are totally full of shit. We KNEW there were no WMD, we went to war anyway with them as an excuse. Almost everyone? You mean the UN officials (Hans Blix et al) who said it was BS? Or the MILLIONS of people who marched in protest? Or do you just have your head stuck so far up your anus all you can see is your own shit?

Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen.

[base3]

Remember how excited everyone got when Ashcroft was fired^W^Wresigned? That's when Gonzales was put in. Be sure there will be someone just as pliable and loyal to the Party--and probably smart enough not to get caught perjuring himself. So I wouldn't get too excited.

Re:Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen.

[Shakrai]

Remember how excited everyone got when Ashcroft was fired^W^Wresigned?

Actually, Ashcroft was a right-wing asshole, with nothing better to do then go after sick people smoking weed (*gasp*, the horror!) but even he had misgivings about the direction this administration is taking civil rights and law enforcement.

I'd take Ashcroft back over Gonzales in a heartbeat.

Re:Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gonzales was obviously being prepped when Ashcroft resigned, the *only* thing that surprised me about the Gonzales appointment was that shameful scene where he prostituted his entire family at his confirmation hearings and made his saccharine "I am not a torturer" speech.

There may be someone in the wings, but no obvious successor as there was during the end of Ashcroft. And say what you will about Alberto "thumbscrews" Gonzales, at least he didn't sing in public.

It was about time

[bogaboga]

What a stint Mr. Gonzales had with my president's White house...but I thought he'd hang on. I will remember him for his 63 times he invoked the "I don't recall..." mantra. On the other hand, I wonder whether any slashdotter can tell me what good has been accomplished by my president to-date. Sincerely, I am at a loss to find anything worthy of a mention.

Here's another one...the VP also used this "I do not recall..." slogan while under fire. It's about time our constitution was amended to automatically have a senior official resign when the all of a sudden they cannot recall matters so important and held so dear to these United States.

Re:slashdotliberalwinning

[faloi]

Might be hard to believe, but a lot of conservatives aren't happy with the way things have been going throughout this administration. If anything could prove that Republican != Conservative, it's certainly been the Bush White House. I think the more things get shaken up, the more both conservatives and liberals win.

Re:slashdotliberalwinning

[rootofevil]

nobody wins until the balance of power is restored to the people, where it belongs.

Reminds me to donate -

[mattkime]

From the article: "Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to the position"

Events like this remind me to donate to the ACLU.

Not likely

[WindBourne]

For starters, W. will try to put one person forward, the dems will nix them, and W. will appoint in the middle of the next vacation of congress. This person will simply replace gonzales and will ensure that no real investigation occurs until the end of W. time. The dems need to go after after W. AND obtained convictions, then it would make future presidents about doing such actions. But congress, and the dems in particular, have shown that they will allow it to drop. Nixon and reagan were allowed free walks due to the succeeding presidents being republicans. But the next president will almost certainly be a dem. If so, they need to not pardon and allow justice to prevail. Otherwise, we will see that each republican will continue to screw US at will.

Re:Not likely

[ucblockhead]

If the Democrats think they'll get the White House next, they don't have much incentive to limit the power of the White House.

Re:Not likely

[EveryNickIsTaken]

See, this is the kind of attitude that perpetuates stupidity in America. For every ethics violation and illegal act done by Republicans, Democrats have matched them. This is exactly why we need a viable third party that can field actual candidates. And people like you are the reason that Hillary will get the nomination and the Repubs will turn out in droves and win the white house again.

Re:Not likely

[Rabbit Time!]

August Pollack has come up with 'The Hillary Rule,' which I think is kind of awesome.

This is very simple: as a conservative, you are only allowed to defend things like this if you can say- in the same breath- that you have no problem with President Hillary Clinton having the exact same level of power

Sort of brings home the point that we have limits on power because the person wielding that power is not always on your side of the issues.

Re:Not likely

[Leftist Troll]

It's more than just visions of the next term, both parties are dedicated to maintaining a strong Federal government led by a powerful executive. They occasionally bicker about the details, but their fundamental belief in executive power is shared.

Re:Not likely

[ConceptJunkie]

It's a very good point, and one which I've always taken into account. On the other hand, I'm terrified of Hillary Clinton having the power of the local Dogcatcher, leave alone anything above and beyond what the President currently enjoys.

Re:Not likely

[pluther]

Until then I am not voting, and encourage everyone within earshot not to vote. Maybe when voter turnout gets to be less than 20% they will start to notice.

So, in other words, the message you're sending them is "Unless you do what I want, I'll just ignore you and let you do whatever you want".

Yeah, good plan. To express your disapproval of government power-grabbing, you're going to help them grab more.

Re:Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure you know what crimes were committed under Reagan. Selling weapons to terrorists and funneling the profits to other terrorists in clear and knowing violation of the law. As far as saying Reagan didn't know, e-mail backups found after everyone was pardoned shows he did.

You can't commit perjury during a frivolous lawsuit and do you honestly think who the president messes around with is so important? Replacing the U.S. attorneys at the beginning of your term is standard practice. Removed the ones who don't follow your political agenda to the letter and to replace them without consent of congress is very different. But you know all this.

You're just playing dumb to try to confuse the point. It's not like Clinton killed anyone. Oh, you think he killed Vince Foster. What a moron.

Re:Not likely

[raehl]

Maybe when voter turnout gets to be less than 20% they will start to notice.

Oh, they'll notice alright. They'll just campaign to only the 20% of people who vote.

Re:Not likely

[darjen]

Voting is what got us into this mess. Do you really think voting is what will get us out? Or that voting will stop politicians from being corrupt? The whole system is rotten to the core. The only thing that will change it is outright collapse or violence. Don't believe for a second that your vote matters or makes a difference. It only serves whoever gains power and uses it at your expense. And believe me, whoever you vote for will indeed use it at your expense... in one way or another.

Re:Not likely

[sadler121]

Who held Congress for nearly all of the time Clinton was it office? The 90's were so great because no one party held control over any one branch of government. The Dems had the Executive, the Repubs had the Legislature and the Judaical was held by moderates.

Of course this was how the founding fathers envisioned that the government would work, three equal branches of government would check each other. Instead, in the early part of the 21st century, the three branches of government shifted dramatically to the right and began to collude with each other, instead of checking each other. The result is the fascist government we have had these last (almost) 8 years.

Re:Not likely

[jridley]

Great plan. Throw away the only power you have over them.
"Stop doing what you're doing, or I'll ignore you even harder and make it even easier for you to keep doing what you're doing, and to make more money and power for you and your friends."

I bet they're terrified of your apathy-foo.

Re:Not likely

[hercubus]

this isn't us versus them. _we_ are the problem

we the American people hired incompetents to run our business. or we abdicated, left the hiring up to the lamers who'll actually stand in line to vote - those dumbfucks don't have anything else better to do??

we the people used to be in charge but we slacked off. and now who's in charge? assholes. but who hired them? who _let_ them?

if the American people are ever going to be in charge of their own lives again then we have to wake up, take responsiblity, quit crying like pussies that "someone stole my country" and fucking take it back

fucking vote! even if it's for Ralph Nader. fucking vote. campaign. volunteer. shoot your mouth off. act like you give a shit! be loud. be proud. be a real patriot. and realize you might have to sacrifice something. do it anyway

Re:Not likely

[Aceticon]

But even splitting up the electoral votes by Congressional district or as a percentage has some merit. For example, California has more Republican voters than any other state in the union...but they happen to be outnumbered (significantly) by Democratic voters. So those 55 electoral votes go (D) every time, even though ideologically, the split is closer to 32/23 Same thing with Texas on the reverse side. Lots of Democrats, but those 34 electoral votes go (R) every time.

The problem is the use of electoral districts, compounded by gerrymandering. If Proportional Voting was used, then from your example above 32 of California's seats would go for the Democrats and 23 for the Republicans (and a similar adjustment would take place in Texas). Even beter, Proportional Voting means that smaller parties actually have a chance to elect one or more representatives.

The truth is, as long as not every vote is equal and some are more equal than others, the US is not a true democracy.

Re:Not likely

[Scudsucker]

he 90's were so great because no one party held control over any one branch of government.

The 90's were great because Clinton stood up the Republicans on bs like the bankruptcy bill and slashing the budget to give tax cuts to the rich. The main issue that the Republican's stood up to Clinton and won was defeating universal health care, which has cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for crappy care. Thanks, GOP! Once they had the White House and Congress all bets were off.

It's also worth mentioning that Clinton was a conservative president: pro death penalty, pro law enfocement, NAFTA, deregulation, COPA, Defense of Marriage Act, etc. He only looks liberal next to today's fascist republicans. To get real political balance you would need to appoint Castro and Chavez and a few family members to the Supreme Court.

Re:Not likely

[ArcherB]

I hate to venture OT like this, but this requires a correction.

He also would have won the electoral vote in 2000 if there had been a statewide recount of Florida's votes.

You mean like this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, or how many left-wing websites you quote, Al Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 and failed. Granted, if you change enough rules, Gore could have pulled it out, but that would not really be fair, would it? You can't change the rules AFTER the election to favor one side over another. Fortunately, the US Supreme Court decided that it wouldn't be legal, either.

With the electoral college, the only votes that are fought for are those in battleground states. The rest of the country is lucky to settle for a visit from the VP nominee.
And without the electoral college, the only votes that would be fought for are those in big cities. The rest of the country would be lucky to get a campaign stop from a candidate traveling between cities.

Re:Not likely

[schneidafunk]

I find it comical to call it military action and not a war. Technically, we are not at war with Iraq but at war with terrorism. In the same manner you can easily say Clinton was at war with drugs. So yes WAS war during Clinton's presidency. In addition, what is defined as 'military action' in America is easily identified as 'war' in other parts of the world.

Re:Not likely

[Actual Reality]

If you think Hillary Clinton won't abuse any power, then you have forgotten the flurry of Executive Orders that her husband issued during the last 90 days of his presidency. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/c-execorder s.html Bill Clinton abused the use of Executive more than any other president. One of his staff members was quoted as saying "Stroke of the pen... Law of the land. Kinda cool". Well it is not very cool for any politician to bypass the normal legislative process.

As for Gonzales, he is merely a vehicle by which the democrats have sought to destroy President Bush. US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the current President. He decided that he didn't want them working as US Attorneys so they had to go. Should have been end of story, but democrats are too driven in their hatred of Presidnet Bush. President Bush is not perfect, but he is not nearly what the media portrays him to be. We can only thank God that it was he and not Al Gore who appointed the recent Supreme Court Justices. A liberal stacked court would have easily cranked out more new laws than congress... all with no recourse from the people.

~AR

Re:Not likely

[ImaLamer]

Hey, don't blame me, I don't vote. It's you assholes who keep electing them.

Re:Not likely

[Rabbit Time!]

If you think Hillary Clinton won't abuse any power...

You seem to have missed the point of the quote. It's not that I don't think Hillary will abuse power, or even that I'm a supporter of hers (don't much like her, really). Its a way to illustrate how liberals feel about Bush and why this shit scares us. The idea is to take the person scariest to Bush supporters (usually Hillary Clinton) and flip it around on them, so they get why its important to keep safeguards in place. Often, Bush supporters spend their time defending Bush specifically wielding this power ("democrats are too driven in their hatred of Presidnet Bush. President Bush is not perfect, but he is not nearly what the media portrays him to be."). This is, again, not the problem: I don't trust Bush with that kind of power, you don't trust Clinton (or probably Obama or Edwards or whatever other Democrat). Likely we will both see times when people we don't trust or agree with are in power. Therefore, we should both be fighting tooth and nail to keep the limits on executive power in place. They're already pretty sweeping...they don't need to be expanded.

Re:Not likely

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's quite true there wasn't a conflict like Iraq, and we didn't lose over three thousand US troops in combat. But thousands died, just most of them weren't Americans.

Which is the correct way to run a war.

Re:Not likely

[jez9999]

The end result would the reduction of almost all of the interior states to irrelevance, both during the campaign and also the election.

Tragic. They'll have to feel how 47/48 non-swing states feel right now.

Re:Not likely

[darjen]

So... the moral of your story is that a total dickwad who killed and neglected children at a university hospital can still purchase enough votes to win public office. And that the only person who could really challenge him owned a distasteful public access show. This is exactly what is so wrong with our democracy.

Re:Not likely

[dbIII]

The result is the fascist government we have had

No, you have a monarchy currently. The fixed term and the elected leader limit it but currently there is less limits on the executive branch than most kings since John have had.

Re:Not likely

[Paradigm_Complex]

Sorry, but I think that after watching some of the hypocrisy of the past seven years, many Americans now know the difference between substantive policy and "talking things." Many perhaps, but I'm not so confident it's anywhere near the majority. Most Americans should have learned the difference after the first four years of hypocrisy...

Hmph.

[SatanicPuppy]

Lot of liberals aren't happy with it either, and the difference is, they didn't vote it in in the first place. If you voted for the republicans in any of the last 3 elections, you've got to accept responsibility for your choice.

Don't get me wrong; I don't blame the conservatives. They always vote the same way (well, some vote libertarian). Same with the libs when it's their party who is screwing stuff up; gotta ride that sinking ship right to the bottom. The thing that pisses me off is the damn fickle swing vote. You'd think, since they're not really wedded to an ideology, they'd be better than the right or the left, but really, they're just a bunch of jokers who vote based on whether a candidate has "Presidential Hair" and other such simplistic crap.

We may blame all the problems on the government, but it's the responsibility of the people to demand good government, and to put good people in power.

Chertoff to replace him

[Anonymous Coward]

the head of DHS, easily the most screwed up gov't agency in all it's sectors--not just fema--, is replacing him. This is a man willing to piss on your hat and tell you to your face it's raining if the president tells him to. SO were getting another stooge not an independent jurist as attourney general. It's Bush's insurance policy against prosecution.

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo.

[nomadic]

don't remember the Democrats OR the republicans bitching when Clinton fired all the Republican district att's

Actually, I do remember the Republicans complaining when Clinton did it.

It was normal, and is expected by both parties.

Midterm, targetted firings are unprecedented, though.

Re:Better late than never

[OS24Ever]

He's just one disaster in a string of disasters. It's not going to get any better either because basically what people have elected into office is a huge disaster.

Until there are term limits on every office, real congressional districts instead of roarshark tests, and a voting populace with a brain you're not going to see much different.

We've done too good of a job polarizing the two parties. everything they do is boiled down to one issue for that voting block and that is what makes the call. If you're against abortion, you'll vote republican no matter what because the Denmocrats want to open Joe's Abortion Clinic - you rape em we scrape em - on every corner.

If you're gay, well, you're fucked because neither party will support you 100%. However the democrats will at least wave your direction when you walk by but then turn around and tell the other folks you're just being nice to them because you feel sorry for them.

If you like guns, you'll vote republican because no matter what they say the Democrats will take away your gun the first chance they get, don't know how to hunt, or many other problems.

It doesn't matter that the candidate is a closeted gay, child molester, or anything else long as he votes for / against whatever one issue you let decide.

And I don't think this is a new phenomenon, they've just gotten better at it. No one wants to compromise anymore. It's my way or the highway seems to be the prevailing wind. You see that attitude everywhere from open source vs. closed source to civil unions vs. marriages. We wouldn't know what to do with someone who actually tried to work for a solution instead of standing up top going my way or the highway. The one campaign statement that to this day that infuriates me to know end is that over and over Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider. Post 9/11 he is the perfect example of a divisive president. The entire world was ready to invade Afghanistan and destroy anything that looked at you crosseyed after 9/11 and then next thing you know forget Afghanistan and the real issue, let's go to Iraq.

I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was some feel good hippie that just got in the way, he killed a good chunk of people and is up there with some of the bigger bad guys in the past. However the path we took really screwed us, but we can't bail out now or our leaving will kill more people than Saddam did in the first place. It's a culture battle at this point and we're too stupid to realize that. Democracy isn't for everyone, and you can't force it on them any more than you can anything else.

I've gotten to the point where I don't know what we can do. the Democratic party currently isn't offering anything worth looking at as far as the 'front runner' is. By the time my state's primary comes around the decision will already be made for me as to who the candidate is because of our fucked up system of nomination. I truly believe that the primary should be one day, nationwide, in February before the election. It's an IRV ballot where you rank your choices, winner take all. the fact that I believe it is after 'super tuesday' nothing can change the outcome.

It's not like IA, NH, and SC are really representative of the US Population either. Iowa gives whitebread a new meaning, as does NH. SC starts to represent the mix of ethnicity that makes this nation so great, but the real melting pot states aren't until later and receive less focus than any other state.

My $0.02 of ranting.

Ablative Armor

[Phoenix666]

That's what Karl Rove and Gonzales are trying to be for Bush and Cheney. I wish to god there was someone in the Democratic party with the balls to bring Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and all the gang to justice. Letting these guys resign and skate away to enjoy the spoils of their crimes is just as deadly to our democracy as the crimes themselves, because our system of checks & balances and faith in the rule of law remain compromised. Impeach, try, and convict. That's the only way to begin to untangle the disaster they've visited on us and the world.

To those who call themselves Republicans and resist this idea, just imagine Hillary Clinton as president with all the powers Bush and Cheney have arrogated to themselves. It should give you screaming nightmares, because it sure does me.

Re:his replacement will be so much better

[dc29A]

not to worry, the congress can give the dick-in-the-bush a hard time about their nominees, drag things out just to send a message You mean the same congress that gave Bush the green light without any fight to spy on americans? The same congress that backed down from an Iraq pullout clause on the budget? The same congress that does nothing?

Re:slashdotliberalwinning

[Captain Splendid]

Except of course the conservatives were quite happy to claim Bush and his admin as one of their own when things were going better.

Re:Tough Position

[necro81]

He did serve "At the Pleasure of the President," and show his loyalty to him. But, I will contend forcefully that his loyalty has been sorely misplaced. Loyalty is a virtue; misplaced loyalty is folly. Dammit, he didn't swear an oath of office to the President; his job is to be loyal to the people and the Constitution. If the President's wishes contradict what is in the interests of the people and skirt the Constitution, there should be no ambiguity in the Attorney General's mind as to which should take precedence.

Re:Tough Position

[lawpoop]

I think loyalty is a virtue that belongs to the past, like allegiance to the King. I read your post, and I think I understand where you're coming from, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that loyalty is something that belongs to another era. We live under the rule of law, and our first allegiance should be to the law. Loyalty is a moral that is great in a society where it's my tribe against your tribe, or my King against your King, but it really goes contrary to the rule of law. Cases in point: Alberto Gonzales, the mafia, or any corrupt politician or criminal syndicate.

Of course the whole loyalty thing works out when people are loyal to an honest person. I think the problem is that the Noble Kings of Yore probably weren't as noble or just as the stories claim they were, and they were probably many more unscrupulous rulers and other characters in the court. Loyalty simply doesn't belong in a society that claims to abide by the rule of law, or provide equal opportunity for all. If your child, parent, or sibling does something wrong, you've got to turn them in.

Loyalty more important than competence

[humankind]

Gonzales is yet another example how the Bush administration values loyalty over competence. In virtually every executive-appointed office, Bush has installed people who are not qualified to do the job, but are unconditionally loyal to him and his party.

While this may have always been true, it's never been more true now and this exemplifies the weakness of the American system of government. You elect a president, and then he puts incompetent cronies in positions of huge responsibility in important areas of the government. We've also seen that Bush has no reservations against using loopholes like congressional recess appointments to get around the checks and balances in Congress.

In other countries like Switzerland, heads of each major area of government, from transportation to defense, are independently, democratically elected. The next time an American starts talking about "democracy", remind them that they need to look elsewhere, far outside of their own country, to find a more true example of the democracy.

Re:Loyalty more important than competence

[dpilot]

>installed people who are not qualified to do the job

What's really fun/annoying about this is the win/win nature of it for the ones who did it.

They've got their cronies in all of these positions and are tilting the agencies agendas in "loyalist directions" besides. Clearly a WIN.

On the other hand, if those agencies are called upon to fulfill their primary missions, as understood by the rest of the nation...

Those filling the positions are not fully competent to do so, and the agency falls down on its job. How is this a WIN? Simple, the folks selecting the appointees also like to say that they're in favor of smaller government, and that anything that can be privatized, should be. If the agency fails in it's job, it's clear evidence that government is incapable, therefore it should be privatized. Of course you're supposed to ignore the fact that their appointees caused the failure in the first place. It becomes a WIN.

What's truly sad here is the decimation of institutional memory. Some of that may be bad, but not all, and at the very least if the institutional memory is gone, you can't learn from it to improve. The top tier has always been political, but what's happened this time is that the second and third tiers have resigned because they couldn't stomach what the top tier was doing. There's the real problem, the core agency competence has left.

Re:i didn't think much of ag ag

[Dr. Manhattan]

What, the whole "Screw the Geneva Convention, let's torture people" (PDF file) thing wasn't enough?

Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week.

[Carewolf]

Leno, Conan, Letterman, Ferguson

They are all mere comedians. Find it ironic or not; The Daily Show is the single most factual source of political news and comentary in the US.

Re:Better late than never

[wonkavader]

"What kind of Congress would waste months of time and disillusion millions of Americans by impeaching a President when they know they will never be able to get a conviction in the Senate..... oh wait, n/m...."

I know you're going for a laugh, but it has to be said: "A congress which watched the constitution with even half as much attention as it watched it's ass."

Re:The Daily Show and The Colbert Report

[Carewolf]

Remember kids, correlation does not imply causation

And repeating that sentence over and over doesn't mean there is no causation. Correlations are important, because they do imply something significant every now and then.

In this case the correlation is mostly comical though. So laugh.

Re:How is this News for Nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Code is Law.

Or do you live on a planet where 80% of the world's telecommunications links do not run through the United States of America, where those 80% are not illegally wiretapped, where strong encryption wasn't suppressed under a fifty-year-old munitions law, where the most popular vendor of operating systems software did not secretly include an escrowed backdoor to their encryption engine, where merely fixing broken technology doesn't earn you an indictment and/or a designation as a terrorist, where the US government doesn't kidnap innocent people off the streets of foreign countries, torture them for months, and dump them in countries that will torture and kill them?

Nerds are still People.

Oh noooo... corruption to incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

After Ashcroft left, I thought that is was not possible to pick someone worse.
I was very wrong.

Chertoff, the dangerously incompetent man who was defensive of at his lack of understanding during the chaotic handling of Hurricane Katrina.

I saw him on TV a while ago, and wondered why he still was still in the government. And now attorney general.

Incompetence is rewarded, if you show loyalty to the club.

Bush wishes to nullify the position of Attorney General, to give himself more direct control.

it took you this long?

[misanthrope101]

Before he even took office he was discrediting the Geneva Conventions as "quaint and outdated." He was instrumental in making torture official US policy...oh scratch that, sorry, he was instrumental in necessitating our redefinition of torture so what we were doing wasn't torture anymore. Anyone who was behind him until the Ashcroft/bedside story has been asleep for a few years.

It's easy to be suspicious when the wind if finally blowing that direction--where were you when this crap started? I knew about Abu Ghraib before I knew about Abu Ghraib, because I've read about the Zimbardo prison experiment. This has been ugly since day one, and I'm not too sympathetic to anyone who gave Gonzalez et al the benefit of the doubt for this many years when they gutted habeus corpus, normalized torture, built secret prisons, etc.

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo.

[Nimey]

They were fired because they wouldn't abuse their offices for the President's political gain.

You make me sick.

Obligatory Douglas Adams

[SatanicPuppy]

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

--Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Re:Obligatory Douglas Adams

[Paulrothrock]

Sadly, this is very true. If I, for example, really voted my conscience, I'd have to vote Green. Now, that's one less vote for the Democrats, which weakens them. If enough people on the far left vote Green or Socialist or something, it significantly weakens the position of the left-of-center party so that the right-of-center party wins the election. And since they're opposed to positions that I'm in favor of, I'm usually voting against the Republicans rather than for anyone.

The only way you'll ever have a system where people can vote their hopes instead of their fears is if we get rid of this ridiculous notion of winner-takes-all elections.

Re:Why would he keep his word?

[Nimey]

Why indeed would Shrub keep his word on that? He's got an unparalleled record for self-serving moves.

And you know that if he did break the agreement, you'd see Faux News and the other talking heads rush to his defense, screaming about obstructionist Democrats who won't give his people an "up or down vote" which they "deserve".

Re:The people's office....

[dpilot]

It's really scary when a comedian is one of the best journalists we have to offer.

Back in my I Myth-ed the special they did for Walter Cronkite's 90th birthday. This weekend my wife and I finally got around to watching it.

-----------------------

Imagine Walter Cronkite as a guest on The Daily Show!

-----------------------

Strategic Resignation

[glassware]

Congress has only barely worked up the will to investigate these misdeeds, and I am saddened to realize that Alberto Gonzales' resignation will completely end somehow push everyone to "move on." If ever there was an administration that deserved to be hounded until the end of its days, it would be this one - but they are practicing strategic resignations. Every time there is a lull in an investigation, the official under fire resigns, to be replaced by an equally inept and loyal official who simply isn't under investigation yet. The fact that the obvious target of hatred is gone saps the will of the investigators, and everyone involved gets away with no jail time and no penalties.

An old sentiment

[MythoBeast]

Federalists passed something called the "Alien and Sedition Act" in 1798 which allowed prosecution of anyone who said bad things about the current government. This particular governmental power was hastily repealed in 1802 when it became likely that Thomas Jefferson (a staunch opponent of the act and those who passed it) would win the next presidency.

Politics is like football. We've been at it so long that we forget that fitness was the original purpose of the game, and just care about winning.

Re:Why would he keep his word?

[Nimey]

I'm not particularly worried about what political talking-heads say, but you know they will and, more importantly, you know that there are people who vote who believe them.

WRT losers: damn right. I'm almost more disgusted with the Congressional Dems who don't have the spine to stand up to Bush's abuses than I am with The Decider himself.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot even imagine how you could look at the DMCA and patriot act and compare that to Waco, and Elian Gongalez (a boy who shouldn't have been here in the first place)

Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week.

[Ieshan]

That's because knowing the real news is a prerequisite to finding The Daily Show humorous.

Satire isn't in itself informative, but the people who read it are informed because the content of the media is directed towards the informed.

Two Words:

[maillemaker]

Cop Out.

Oh give me a break please

[snowwrestler]

The people have as much power as they have ever had. In fact they have more power than they had in the early days, because the electoral college has been reduced to a rubber stamp based on the popular vote in each state...at least now your vote is being overridden by your fellow citizens and not some rich elector.

Except that the people have to exercise that power for it to make any difference. The #1 thing that takes power away from the people is this depressive meme that what they do doesn't matter anyway. So yeah, if you're sitting around bitching about how you don't have power, instead of voting and writing letters and making phone calls and attending town hall meetings--you're right you don't have power. I'd submit that that's your own fault though.

I think the money aspect is usually overplayed. Money matters, but it's not the only thing. For example--which side of the "drill in ANWR debate" has more money? But they've lost like 20-some votes now, most of which were even under Republican rule. In the end it always comes back to votes. Money can help with those, but it can't actually buy them. No amount of money was going to get Mark Foley back into office.

And to continue my rant just a little longer, it seems like the power of the president is always overplayed in these discussions. Congress is directly elected by the people (even Senators now--another example of increasing power to the people), and is directly accountable to them in a very local way. A lot of the problems of the past 6 years could have been avoided or at least mitigated had Congress been in greater opposition to the President.

So maybe you say: well there's always only two candidates, and I don't agree with either. Well first of all I'd say you're probably not paying attention, since most elections go through a primary process that involves many more candidates than 2. So there's your first chance to affect an election.

I'd also say that there's another way to look at elections--as a beginning not an end. The goal is not to get someone who will "represent you" perfectly, the goal is just to get the person elected who is most likely to be sympathetic to your position on your pet issues. The key is what happens after the election, when the rep. has to start making actual decisions and votes--that's when citizen activity matters most. This is how all the trade associations and interest groups and lobbyists view elections BTW.

You're never going to get someone who agrees with you on more than a couple issues. If we imagine some simple world of only 6 for/against policy positions, that's still 64 possible combinations of beliefs. Whether there are 2 or 4 candidates to choose from does not significantly change the odds that you'll get someone you agree with 100%. And the real world is way more complicated than that.

Finally, losing is not necessarily proof that the system is broken, it's probably just proof that more people disagree with you than agree with you. So what next? It's possible to change minds but it takes time. It took decades of continuous work for the Republicans to get Congress, but they did it. They fucked it up in record time, but the point is that they wanted it, they worked for it, and they got it.

tricks are not new

[celle]

When Ronald Reagan was in, all they did was replace the attorney general every time some republican cronie was up for investigation to keep delaying the prosecution of said cronie. That's in addition to appointing idiots to the post anyway. In the end everyone got away scott free with the effect of creating a group of individuals that have contributed to the current system that is even more corrupt than before. Give it up, the constitution has been subverted. Democrats, get some balls or disband. By the way, impeachment for treason is not a radical act, executing the entire administration in the middle of 1600 Ave for treason is a radical act.

Re:It's not ironic.

[RealGrouchy]

The reason the Daily Show is such a reliable source of news is that it makes no claims to authority.

Since their MO is to scrutinize the media, they must hold up to an equal level of scrutiny from their viewers.

Instead of shoving their opinions down the viewers' throats without supporting evidence, they provide the raw materials--such as video clips of a politician contradicting himself--and have the viewers draw their own conclusions.

- RG>