Thursday, March 22, 2007

This Texan likes this New Yorker

Why was nothing said when Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office? I realize 43 (GW Bush) is kinda hard to defend these days, as his presidency has been, well, dubious, shall we say, but these subpoenas are a waste of time. Why does he catch so much flack for not listening to his subordinates (i.e. the generals on the ground in Iraq), when his job title includes commander in chief of the armed forces? It's justified when we question the ports deal, or him ignoring immigration, or his many media slip ups. I've said this many times: If I had been given a better Democratic alternative, I would have voted for the guy in '04. It doesn't really matter anyway, cuz dude (43) will be gone in '08 anyway. I'd like to take this opportunity to throw my support behind Rudy in 2008. It has nothing to do with his Italian heritage, it has everything to do with his well reasoned approach to governing. He doesn't overthink things like liberals do, nor does he over simplify thing as some right wingers do. I'm not saying that there is a middle ground on every issue, only that some issues are simple (defense, immigration) and some are more complicated (abortion and gay marriage for example). A cat like Rudy would give every issue its proper due.

5 comments:

X said...

You're a Texan?!!!???!!!??

Mama en Fuego said...

yeah, but I gotta problem with a guy who fucks around on his wife and then announces his divorce in a press conference before he even tells her. If that's not a perfect example of bad diplomacy, I don't know what is....

The Rev said...

"Why was nothing said when Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office?"

I'll tell you exactly why this is an issue, Crass.

Presidents often fire the US attorneys when they first take office. Usually when a change of power happens, the new president changes everything and brings in his people. It's expected.

But in this case, the firings happened in a midterm. The firings never happen midterm.

From Yahoo news... "While the White House and Justice Department have the right to appoint and remove all 93 US attorneys -- who investigate and prosecute court cases for the government -- replacements are usually only carried out at the beginning of a president's administration."

George W Bush is dirty. I do agree though that the Dems didn't have the right candidate in 04. Kerry lost that election more than Bush won it.

Giuliani, I like some things about him. But he's got issues too. If you want to dog Clinton about getting a blowjob, then you gotta dog Rudy about the way he treated his affair. It's only fair.

Los said...

You can probably defend or bury any president or candidate ... they all have their skeletons. Plus, everybody has a different idea on how to run a country. I just really hate the special interest groups that have far too big of a say.

Crassius Maximus said...

X - Yes. By way of Krypton
DB - Yes It's bad judgement to be sure.
Smoke -If you have the right, you have the right, regardless of timing. Don't give the Pres. the power then flip out when he uses it. I don't care about BClinton getting sucked off so much as him looking into the camera and lying about it.
los - My point exactly, sir.