I generally try and stay away from general politics – things that don’t touch issues of compassion, poverty, and faith. It is both because general politics is increasingly uninteresting to me and because if I were to start talking about everything in politics I wouldn’t ever shut up and no one really needs to hear my thoughts on such things. However, I wanted to say two things about the firings of those US Attorneys.
First – Everything about this story sounds and feels consistent with the White House I knew from 2001-2003 – a near-imperial institution that prided itself on controlling the function of, and squelching the feedback of, every single cabinet secretary and every single federal agency. Rare was the day when eyes weren’t being rolled at one secretary or another about “not being in line with the program.” So this revelation about the politiclly-motivated firings of the US attorneys should come as no real surprise. As I wrote about in Tempting Faith, imperial politics controlled everything the White House did from the workings of the faith-based initiative to the seduction of Christian voters.
Some are trying to isolate Attorney General Gonzalez from the scandal – suggesting, as damage control, that he had nothing to do with it, that he knew nothing of it, that it was occurring behind his back. All such efforts are several belly laughs beyond laughable.
Now to my second point. This White House is hardly the first White House to fire US attorneys for questionable reasons. Look back to 1993, for instance. In March of that year President Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys at the same time. It was an unprecedented move and inarguably a political one.
The White House is a political institution. It is run not only by the nation’s chief executive but also by the head of a political party. That shockingly political things occur there shouldn’t really shock anyone. What would shock the American people, however, is direct and blunt honesty about a scandal. How nice it would be if that occurred here…that is the kind of “shock politics” we really need.
posted March 14, 2007 at 3:22 pm
David,USA’s serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be fired for cause or no cause at will. So, much of this issue is a non-issue.What does stick is that the Administration said it was for performance reasons, needlessly slandering the USA’s, when they didn’t need to give a reason at all. It was going to come out that it was for political purposes, but if they had simply said they wanted to make changes, this wouldn’t have blown up.
posted March 14, 2007 at 5:52 pm
How would a “Christian” President run the White House? Many people in high places in the present administration publically “profess” their faith in Christ. Sadly, I do not see much difference in their performances or ethics than the previous administrations. When Christians perform no better than the “secular humanists” they decry, it gives cause to the charge of hypocracy by non-Christians. It also reflects a failure in their calling to follow Christ. We are called to be “salt and light” to the world. When I read about some of the recent news events concerning the present the White House, I am ashamed and saddened, and prefer they would hide their brand of Christianity “under a bushel.”
posted March 15, 2007 at 3:16 pm
If the current administration is not acting like Christians should act, then we can finally come to a point where we can be honest that the Democrats are not Christians at all. “Judge not, ‘OR,’ in the way you judge, you will be judged.” I think that is a fair teaching. Taxing the family into poverty, debauching the poor the poor into hedonism, killing inconvenient children of lascivious licentious acts (or, for just any reason . . .)before they can be born, forcing homosexuality on the populace, turing America into a godless communist country, et al. That desribes the actions and goals of Democrats. Whether in the White House or not. Nancy Pelosi. Just observe her constitiuency. Ted Kennedy too. Now, why is that a Christian should support a Democrat?At least the current administration is not working to outlaw Christianity the way the power brokers in the Democrat party are. Are we not taught, to NOT yoke ourselves with unbelievers? And . . . how do we ascertain who is an unbeliever?Go over the list of what Democrats desire, and, implement on the world.
posted March 15, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Donny, welcome to the world of moral relativism! When you make yourself right (or less wrong) but saying someone else is more wrong, you have become a moral relativist! You may now reregister as a Democrat!
posted March 15, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Joe Lieberman has never been a Republican. And certainly does NOT have any Christian values. the religion of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin (catholic school grad), and Franco, and of several sexual predators is quite plitically discredited. And its not like Cheney, Rove, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Miers, Frist, Hastert, Brownback, Romney, Rice et al did any anything in the fight against communism except avoid service and risk.
posted March 15, 2007 at 6:19 pm
it’s my understanding that the Clinton comparison is a bit unfair, as most administrations largely clean house with regards to US attorneys at the beginning of their terms, especially when parties change hands. I believe that GW Bush did the same at the beginning of his term in 2001. It’s this midstream business that is somewhat unusual, but I am no expert by any means.
posted March 15, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Bill,You had me almost 100%, but I have to give credit to Rice for her anti-Soviet work. It may not have been direct (like some of us who were in uniform and could read Soviet insignia by sight), but it was a lot more than the other names you mentioned.
posted March 15, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I was a bit surprised to find such a one-sided indictment of all Democrats on David’s blog (“Democrats aren’t Christians at all”)– what a broad brush you paint with. I happen to be an Independent, who likes David’s fairness in addressing religious and political problems. I respectfully suggest that you follow his leading. It appears to me that you are perhaps too influenced by Fox News, Sean, Rush, Newsmax, etc. Your type of comment sounds more like the vitriol on TownHall.com than the reasoned conversations found on this blog.
posted March 16, 2007 at 4:53 am
Marlene, welcome to the world of Donny where all non-conservatives and non-Republicans and anyone who disagrees with him are EVIL. One can only imagine what it’s like to walk around with all that hate. Matt, what turned this non-issue into an issue was that the administration lied about these firings, making it look like there is something to hide. Had they just said these people were not good Republicans, it would have been a one day story.
posted March 17, 2007 at 1:03 am
When the Republican’s only defense is that they are no worse than the Clinton’s, you know they are finally admitting to themselves just how morally, intellectually and ideologically bankrupt they have become. For every Republican that utters this comparison there are 1000 voters who decide to leave the party. Keep talking, Donny. Keep talking.
posted March 17, 2007 at 2:12 pm
So, if Clinton is the standard of “not just what is legal, but what is right” as Bush said his standard was — then what exactly goes on between him and his White House interns?