WASHINGTON (June 24) – Ivy Leaguers and other top law students were rejected for plum Justice Department jobs two years ago because of their liberal leanings or objections to Bush administration politics, a government report concluded Tuesday.
The only thing I find surprising is how unsurprised I am.
PAD
• 
After watching Bill Clinton and George Bush run as “agents of change”, in an environment where few in America knew much about either of them in advance, that’s the last reason to vote for Obama.
Obama’s rhetoric is the same as GWB: be a uniter, not a divider; work across party lines; restore honor to the US; etc. What concerns me is that we have made it impossible for anyone with any track record to really step forward and lead. They get trampled simply for having the usual inconsistencies most politicians have in their past. Obama’s floor record is also a bit different from his rhetoric. Few bipartisan initiatives, mostly party line/liberal votes, etc. So, what’s real? The rhetoric or the record? I don’t have a lot of faith in either at the moment. The last two president’s have shown that rhetoric with a short record can lead to problems over time.
McCain is a more known quantity. His core issue as a moderate for years – campaign finance reform – has been proven to be a failure. He also tried to work the “sensible middle” in illegal immigration, but got pounded by the right when he landed on the more liberal side (read – deal with those here before securing the border) first. He seems to enjoy working against the establishment in both parties, which makes for a rocky ride when in office
Frankly, I’m not thrilled with EITHER choice this year. I suppose it’s better than Barr, though. 😉
Bill Mulligan: “With McCain, you have the problem of a guy who not only takes the opposite position but is actually willing to fight for it.”
Not really. Maybe he did once, but he doesn’t seem to do that anymore. He’s done almost complete 180s on stands that he had as little as a year ago in order to make this run for office work. Granted, a lot of politicians give lip service to ideas and platforms that they don’t fully back when running for president, but McCain getting himself tongue tied and crossed eyed in interviews of late where even he can’t seem to remember what he said about a position the week before.
I wish he wasn’t doing it to this extreme. I wish he wasn’t having so many moments lately where he looks like Grandpa Simpson while giving an interview. It might make it easier for me to pull a lever for someone in November. As it stands now, the choice is looking a lot like having to choose between Grandpa Simpson or an empty suit.
Hëll, I can’t even fall back on my favorite strategy of voting for the guy whose party is in the minority to set up a balancing act in the system since you really have no idea which McCain you’ll have in office, there really isn’t enough history to Obama to know what he’ll actually do or how (outside of saying that he’s for change every third sentence) and the Democratic controlled congress has morphed into The Get Along Gang. Yeah, they complain a lot and they’re holding meaningless hearings every third Wednesday, but they’ve been caving to Bush a hëll of a lot more than they’ve been doing what they claimed they would do two years ago. We could get a moderate McCain that will let himself get steered too far to the left or we could get the McCain that’s running and watch the Dems roll over and play dead for another four years while claiming that they could do something if only we would vote in a Democrat as president.
I still think that voting in Obama would fix some issues with how poorly things are being handled in regards to foreign affairs and the messes that Bush and Cheney created by trying to create a king-in-office power base for themselves, but how far to the extreme left would Obama and a Democrat controlled congress go after that?
Nope. Not really looking forward to November this years.
This is nothing new… every administration does this. Anyone who has followed politics for more than 10 mins knows this.
Jerry, looking at how unenthusiastic many of the conservative websites are over McCain (to say the least) indicates that he hasn’t tatally abandoned his willingness to take unpopular stands. he could win many over by taking a hardline stance on illegal immigration but he won’t. His willingness to accept the man-made global warming hypothesis drives folks like Limbaugh crazy(er). And none of them like the finance reform stuff.
Some even reason that it’s better to get Obama since McCain will end up doing much the same, only with more competance and the illusion of bipartisanship that will give it greater legitimacy.
I don’t agree with most of this but when McCain loses, as he almost surely will, it will be in large part because he hasn’t got the support of his base.
Anthony: “This is nothing new… every administration does this. Anyone who has followed politics for more than 10 mins knows this.”
Are you talking about the stuff with the Department of Justice? If so, you’re dead wrong. What was done is actually against the law. Lawyers who have worked for the DoJ in the past have said that, no, past administrations have *not* done this. Lawyers in the DoJ have traditionally been “insulated from politics.”
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=173526&title=david-iglesias
If you want to claim that “every administration does this” and “anyone who has followed politics for more than 10 mins knows this,” then I challenge you to show examples of it happening in past administrations.
It’s a wonder anybody reads what some have to say.
Has anybody read Unlimited Access by Gary Aldrich?
read it then come back and tell me no other administration has done this before.
But Pat, Gary Aldrich’s book was a long rant on how the Clinton Administration was filled with sex, drugs, and corruption, and it seems written from a gossiping conservative viewpoint to boot (so Hillary prefers gays and lesbians in her staff, so what?).
I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t care how many drugs and sex these guys are doing (as long as they do their job, it’s their business), and I don’t even care much about corruption. I’ll say one more time, what sets Bush apart isn’t the corruption, it’s the authoritarian, “Big Brother” mindset, that seems to be the very opposite of what Gary Aldrich is saying.
He badmouths the Clintos for being too “morally relativist”, and I’m saying it would do Bush a lot good if he were more morally relativist himself. What scares me about Bush is his certainty, that makes him so certain that he is right that he’ll trample everything in his path.
Bill,
I think it’s a bit premature to say McCain will “surely” lose. Even with the lack of favorable news being reported for Bush and the Republicans, it is still neck-and-neck. If he can channel the man who gave an electrifying speech at the Rep. Conv. 4 years ago instead of the one who gave the awful speech a few weeks ago, and if Obama keeps making mistakes, flip-flopping and looking and sounding not only unprepared but like just another politician, McCain can definitely pull it off.
Also, keep in mind Obama wil be expected to run circles around Mccain during the debates. If McCain just holds his own, he likely will be looked at as the “winner” and help change the dynamic of the race.
Jerome–I just don’t think it will matter. Obama has the money–by far. He has the support of the press–by far. He has some trouble with the hardcore Hillary/Bill fans but they will come around and he won’t have to kiss Bill’s ášš to do it. And if the last few weeks are any indication, he can change his positions without any real consequences. His followers will support him no matter what. I expect his position on troops in Iraq will end up being almost indistinguishable from McCain’s and they won’t bat an eyelash.
It would take a mistake of unprecedented proportions to sink him. I suppose there is a slim chance that McCain will catch fire and Obama will play it too safe and/or allow too many of his supporters to engage in tactics that reflect badly on him but that seems like the longest of long shots. But a month is a lifetime in politics so anything is still possible.
Rene,
I seem to recall Aldrich was much more concerned about the lack security that the Clintons, with their complete lack of respect for the oval office and his inability to properly protect the President.
He was more concerned, at least thats what I got from the book, about where the sex was taking place then who was having the sex.
though I agree with you that he probably has a bias towards gays but I wouldnt let that disqualify the rest of the book.
But, Rene you wouldnt be concerned with drugs and corruption going on in the White House?
Pat,
I expect the very worst from politicians. I don’t exactly like it, but I expect every one of them to have their fair share of personal scandals and to be corrupt.
But what many here are saying is that what sets the Bush administration apart from all others is stuff like Guantanamo, illegal wiretaps, and thought control policies in the DoJ. At least to me, this sort of “slide into dictatorship” stuff is much more scary than, say, Bush’s shady money-making dealings with Halliburton or Bush’s possible abuse of alcohol or his use of cocaine when he was younger.
Drugs, and kinky sex, and dirty money, those are sort of regretable. But authoritarian gestures by the President are much more damaging to a democracy in the long-term, in my oppinion.
Sex in the White House. I can see how that might be a security issue. I don’t think it’s a major one, but I can see an issue.
Changing government hiring practices to get only people in your party in the DoJ? Instructing those lawyers to go after the opposing party way more often than your own party? That’s a gigantic problem and a federal crime.
There’s no comparison between the two.
Jason M. Bryant says: Changing government hiring practices to get only people in your party in the DoJ? Instructing those lawyers to go after the opposing party way more often than your own party? That’s a gigantic problem and a federal crime.
Jason, thats why I brought up the book. The Clintons did exactly that during Bills 2 terms.
It was pretty much the reason behind the Travelgate scandal.
Hey, I’m no fan of Bill Clinton. I never voted for him. If someone wants to say that Travelgate and other stuff done by the Clintons was just as widespread as what Bush has done, I’m happy to discuss that.
However, the claim was that every administration has done this. It takes a hëll of a lot more to back that up than just talking about a few Clinton scandals. Even saying that the scale of what Bill Clinton did is on the level of what Bush did is going to take quite a lot more evidence than that.
I voted for Bush in 2000. Now, there’s no way in hëll I’m going to brush off what he’s done as “every administration does this.”
But while it’s fair to point out the failings of Bill Clinton when people act like Bush invented political perfidy, it’s still a poor excuse indeed. Just as those who respond to any criticism of Obama by trying to find something bad in McCain’s record, the old “but the other guy did it too” looks pretty weak. Especially when the other guy is Bill Clinton. C’mon, let’s set our standards a bit higher.
Hopefully, people will look back on the Clinton/Bush 16 years as evidence that the permanent campaign style of government doesn’t really work out in the long run. Sooner or later it catches up to you.
One thing I like about McCain is that I don’t think he will be immediately running for re-election upon taking office. In fact, were I him, I’d say outright that I’m going for 1 term, just to get things back on track. With Obama, I see another positive factor; someone who isn’t going to be looking for some kind of legacy project. Just being elected makes him historic. As long as he avoids any huge mistakes and brings a touch of style to the office, he’ll have his spot.
In that sense, he may well run a more conservative, more predictable presidency than McCain might.
It’s nowhere near the same, Pat. Travelgate (if you believe the accusations) was something involving the Clintons trying to get juicy government contracts for their friends.
It’s the old money-making thing that we all come to expect from any politician. Now, this Department of Justice thing has a completely different motivation. It’s not about money, but about instituting ideological control over all branches of government.
The first is crooked politics as usual trying to line the pockets of your buddies. The later is the much more scary road to 1984. Don’t you agree that an amoral thief (if you believe the accusations) is a lot less scary than a would-be tyrant?
Rene saID: 00The first is crooked politics as usual trying to line the pockets of your buddies. The later is the much more scary road to 1984. Don’t you agree that an amoral thief (if you believe the accusations) is a lot less scary than a would-be tyrant?
If I believed we had a would-be tyrant I guess I would agree. I know, shoot me now, But I just dont see the Orwellian connection. You guys do and I can understand why you would think the way you do. I dont think we are ever going to agree on that.
I also agree that finger pointing doesnt work either and PAD has called me out on it before but you also cannot forget the past. I think when it came to the Clintons, the standards were lowered to a level not seen since. Again, My opinion.
There may not be an election this year. Bushco has set up rules that enables them to take control of the country in ‘case of emergency’.
If there is an election, Obama will win the popular vote by at least 6% (53-47) and the electoral vote by at least 20% (60-40).
Bush maneuvering to put only guys of his own ideology into the Department of Justice? Strikes me as Orwellian as hëll, that One Party/One Thought thing.
I’m a lot more worried about Bush endangering the governmental system of checks and balances in the world’s most powerful country than by Clinton’s run-of-the-mill schemes to get money to his buddies.
Even if you believe the worst they say about Clinton, he would be just a guy that diverted some money and had bløwjøbš in the White House. That is petty stuff compared to someone who got the US in an useless war with a huge financial cost and made dangerous progress in dilapidating civil liberties.
Rene, you are so guarded with your feelings. Bush will be gone in 200 some odd days and you can rejoice.:)
There may not be an election this year. Bushco has set up rules that enables them to take control of the country in ‘case of emergency’.
Alan…I like you, dude, but this is exactly the goofy stuff that the extreme right was saying about Clinton right before he peacefully gave up power (or was he so busy pardoning criminals that he missed the signal for the coup?)
(Bush may have the same distraction)
It might be Obama…it might be McCain…hëll, it might even possibly be Hillary if her greatest fear (snort!) were to come true and something terrible were to befall the Obama candidacy…but one can rest assured that Bush will vacate the White House on schedule. Anything else is Larry Johnson/Black Helicopter/tinfoil hat stuff.
You think clearer if you spray paint your tinfoil hat with flat black enamel.
Well, at least that way the helicopters can’t find you at night.
Bill,
I see your point. But although money matters, the message matters more. if it were just money that mattered, we would be talking about the policies of President Forbes.
If we have a true national debate, I feel McCain is on the right side of most of the issues. But he has to convince people of that. That’s what campaigning is all about. If he succeeds in doing so, he deserves to win. if he doesn’t he deserves to lose. And while many in the media seem to feel it is their sacred mission to help Obama get elected, well, other Republicans – and frankly, some Democrats – have had to overcome a biased media. McCain has to do the same thing. I am not as confident as I would like to be about him doing that. But I am confident nonetheless.
Sometimes the bias in the media can work against the favored candidate–if they make the mistake of believing their own press and getting overconfident. Or thinking they can avoid certain issues because the mainstream media isn’t bothering to cover them (while it spreads like wildfire through the internet).
Obama’s biggest problem (besides the antics of his most whacked out followers) would be if he were foolish enough to take the media adulation for more value than it is. assuming no major problems crop up, it’s a plus. But if a scandel or some other bump in the road comes along (and they often do) he’s better not rely on them to pull his chestnuts out of the fire.
One other point in Obama’s favor–it looks like he has an excellent ground operation. Ultimately it’s all about getting out the vote and what i’ve seen indicates he will do that. this is a guy who sees in the long term.
That’s because you accept the doublethink. For you, an arbitrary invasion isn’t hostile, the privilege to deny you review evidence against you isn’t discretionary, and hostility to elitism is compatible with an unjustified insistence to lead.
Like Hillary did.
I think Hillary caused many needless problems for herself by holding the media in such obvious contempt. They took it when they thought they had to but when she showed weakness they turned on her big time. There have been some grumbles in the press that Obama has lately been holding them off at arm’s length. I doubt he would repeat her mistake but I suppose it’s possible and if he did he would find out how quickly a flavor of the month can be replaced. Just ask Howard Dean. The media loves to tear down what it creates, like a kid with a sandcastle.
Perhaps Obama is taking time to recharge his batteries. It was a long primary campaign. The media don’t need to know when he craps or what kind of toilet paper he uses.
Then he’s in for a bad time:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/01/journalists-to-record-obamas-every-step/
I know I’m relieved to know that his barber claims “He comes in every week or two. If I let him go too long, it gets kind of bushy.”
Kent Brockman: “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: democracy just doesn’t work.”
Dude, you’re treating the Washington Times as legitimate news? They’re owned by the Moonies, and they report with the goofiness that implies. Why don’t you check in on how the Scientologists are scoring the campaign?
I see nothing in the article that would make me question its legitimacy…the idea that reporters are following Obama closely hardly surprises.
And it looks like you’ll have to acccept that, controlled by Moonies though they are, the Washington Times got the story right;
h**p://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/06/obama_campaign_allows_protecti.html
Obama campaign allows “protective pool” coverage.
WASHINGTON–After requests from major news outlets and wire services, the Obama campaign has agreed to allow coverage for all movements of presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Hat tip to my colleagues who have led this fight for access. This small pool at all events, called a “protective pool,” is similar to one that that follows the president no matter where he goes. Here is the first protective pool report from the New York Times Jeff Zeleny about Obama’s visit to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center here.
You can read the breathless accounts of the haircut here: h**p://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/06/obamas_sunday_in_chicago_hairc.html#more
or
h**p://thepage.time.com/obama-pool-report-for-sunday-june-29/
Looks like the Washington Times isn’t alone in its scoop. No word yet on the toilet paper.
I see nothing in the article that would make me question its legitimacy…the idea that reporters are following Obama closely hardly surprises.
And it looks like you’ll have to acccept that, controlled by Moonies though they are, the Washington Times got the story right;
blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/06/obama_campaign_allows_protecti.html
Obama campaign allows “protective pool” coverage.
WASHINGTON–After requests from major news outlets and wire services, the Obama campaign has agreed to allow coverage for all movements of presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Hat tip to my colleagues who have led this fight for access. This small pool at all events, called a “protective pool,” is similar to one that that follows the president no matter where he goes. Here is the first protective pool report from the New York Times Jeff Zeleny about Obama’s visit to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center here.
You can read the breathless accounts of the haircut here: blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/06/obamas_sunday_in_chicago_hairc.html#more
or
thepage.time.com/obama-pool-report-for-sunday-june-29/
Looks like the Washington Times isn’t alone in its scoop. No word yet on the toilet paper.
You backed up a Washington Times article with blog entries. It doesn’t seem to be anything a dignified editor is validating as news.
What would you know about dignity?
Anyone who has ever tried to build organizational culture knows that it is essential to get like fundementally like minded people together if you want to get anything done. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Justice Dept.’s hiring practices.
Mr. Holbrook, this isn’t a social club we’re talking about, nor a political organization – this is the Department of Justice. The “fundamental like-mindedness” one needs there is a concern for justice, not political affiliation. When choosing the lawyers for this country, the primary qualification should be, “Are they good lawyers? Do they know the law?”, not “Who did they vote for in the last election? Which party do they belong to?”
Quite honestly, it should be no one’s fracking business who the lawyers voted for, or if they even voted at all (although I would regard the last as personally dismaying, it’s their own dámņ business). The fact that our nation’s Justice Department is being staffed by people whose primary loyalty is not to the majesty of the Law, but to the presumptuous His Majesty George Bush II, is somewhat frightening. (This is, after all the government department called upon, under the latest edition of the PATRIOT USA Act, to decide if a given situation is a national emergency, which triggers the Presidential ability to suspend all civilian government and run the country under martial law…)
You indulge in the arrogance and cowardice you take credit for challenging. I have no reservation against calling you on the sniveling and hypocrisy you exhibit publicly.
Awww, somebody needs a hug.
John Holbrook,
See, the problem with that line of thought is ripped apart by the reality of what kind of wackjobs you get with it. Last July, during the early congressional hearings on some of these matters, one of the “like minded people” giving testimony let slip a whopper. Sara Taylor, while defending her actions as well as those of other people she worked with and trying to duck answering questions, told the assembled members, “I took an oath to the president, and I take that oath very seriously.”
She was immediately cut off by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and rather bluntly asked if she meant that she took an oath to the Constitution rather than the President. She just got a blank look on her face for a few seconds as if the idea of working in the Attorney General’s office or the DoJ and putting the Constitution, the law of the land or truth above “loyalty” to a politically “like minded” President and his cronies was some alien concept.
Creating a DoJ that was in part being designed as an instrument to bludgeon the other political party during the election cycle isn’t something that America really wants or needs. Having Karl Rove, a dirty playing political hack and harsh partisan, having input in some hiring and firing practices is less something you associate with the enforcement of the law of the land and more something you associate with the creation of a partisan power structure with a high office being corrupted into meaninglessness.
You don’t hire or fire in the DoJ’s every employee level based on who someone voted for or if they were a member of a “liberal” leaning group in high school or college over whether or not they’re qualified just to get “like minded” individuals. If you do that, you get people who give testimony on the law of the land and why they did or did not do certain things that, just as we did get last year, was unsurprisingly completely inaccurate on general protocol and wrong about the letter of the law.
The highest legal office and arm of the government is not and was never meant to be about hiring “like minded people” who will swear their allegiances to the leader of their political party rather than to the Constitution and to the enforcement and execution of the laws of this country. The fact that so many people on both sides of the political isle can’t seem to grasp that little fact amazes me to no end.
Thank you for demonstrating you can’t invalidate my observation, by acknowledging my post without demonstrating how it’s untrue.
Alan, I take no pleasure witnessing you struggle with your need — and your inability — to invalidate the public record I’ve assembled of you indulging in the arrogance and cowardice you take credit for challenging. I can only hope the bottom you need to hit to knock your neediness out of your field of vision is imminent, to expedite your healing.
John Holbrook, in my firefox display your web pages have text-colors ranging from white to black on something like a #336633 background. If you’re going to have the background that dark, you should stick to white, light gray, and tinted text-colors. You should also tint your link colors or make them all white. You should only reserve bright text colors for white and tinted backgrounds. But, otherwise, power to the like-minded people.
John, I can’t believe that the thought of governmental law organizations run all by like-minded people isn’t scary as hëll to you.
Ask yourself what would you think if some radical liberal politician staffed the DoJ full of socialists.
Or maybe therapy.
To fulfill what, and whose, need?