Large Number Of Prosecutor Replacements Went To Bush Insiders
The Washington Post has analyzed the prosecutors the Bush administration has appointed and contends there is an unprecedented pattern of filling them with its own staff members — a development which supports the growing belief that the fired prosecutors were too independent for administration bigwigs:
About one-third of the nearly four dozen U.S. attorney’s jobs that have changed hands since President Bush began his second term have been filled by the White House and the Justice Department with trusted administration insiders.
The people chosen as chief federal prosecutors on a temporary or permanent basis since early 2005 include 10 senior aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, according to an analysis of government records. Several came from the White House or other government agencies. Some lacked experience as prosecutors or had no connection to the districts in which they were sent to work, the records and biographical information show.
And here are the “nut graphs”:
No other administration in contemporary times has had such a clear pattern of filling chief prosecutors’ jobs with its own staff members, said experts on U.S. attorney’s offices. Those experts said the emphasis in appointments traditionally has been on local roots and deference to home-state senators, whose support has been crucial to win confirmation of the nominees.
The pattern from Bush’s second term suggests that the dismissals were half of a two-pronged approach: While getting rid of prosecutors who did not adhere closely to administration priorities, such as rigorous pursuit of immigration violations and GOP allegations of voter fraud, White House and Justice officials have seeded federal prosecutors’ offices with people on whom they can depend to carry out the administration’s agenda.
So while Bush continues to defend Gonzales as “honorable and honest” he is making it clear that he is not going to ask Gonzales to stand down.
But if you look at it another way, why would politicos and pundits expect Bush to ask Gonzales to step down?
Clearly, as this Post piece shows and other reports that are emerging, the modus operandi of the administration has been to seemingly purge the ranks of not just prosecutors but clamp down on other areas of the government where people holding posts did not adhere to a specific, pre-set political agenda. Old “given” expectations about letting lawyers, scientists, do their jobs and report and act on what they uncovered have been systematically “adjusted” to create one of the most intensely political administrations in American history.
The New Republic, in an editorial (registration required), makes a critical point that is often lost:
The Bush administration on a host of fronts is BREAKING THE NORMS of past American governments — which may or may not be illegal but can have lasting damage:
But one can’t help feeling a sense of helplessness in the face of this partisan subversion of process. If a president breaks the law, then he stands to incur the retributive justice laid out in the Constitution–Sam Ervin’s gavel landing hard. Breaking a norm, on the other hand, isn’t a punishable offense–except with shame and name-calling. And denouncing a president as a “norm-breaker” is, let’s face it, not the most devastating retort.Worst of all, once a president destroys an old norm, it isn’t very easy to restore it. The next presidents, even high-minded ones, will have difficulty denying themselves the political advantages accrued by Bush. The history of reform, not to mention the annals of cultural anthropology, is filled with cautionary tales about the near-impossibility of restoring old standards. For example, every time a candidate or political party discovers a new loophole in the campaign finance laws–soft money, 527s–every other candidate quickly embraces the very same reform-skirting device.
If they set aside partisan interests, Bush’s supporters would understand the toll of his presidency. Conservatives, at least those in the Burkean tradition, have eloquently extolled the wisdom embedded in norms and the futility of restoring them after they fall. Nixon’s ghost is surely hearing Bush’s footsteps.
In other words: the administration is taking actions that may fall within their legal right to do so. But these are actions that fundamentally change the way American governments have operated — in effect institutionalizing and protecting the preference towards polarization which held the Bush team attain power.
UPDATE: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seemingly now makes it official: principles can be abandoned — depending on who the President is. Consistency conschmistency?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
36 Responses to “Large Number Of Prosecutor Replacements Went To Bush Insiders”
Well of course. The republican party is not called the “culture of Corruption” for nothing.
One of the reasons George Washington is regarded as one of our nation’s best presidents was because of the precedents he set, for example serving only two terms. Washington was under no legal obligation to do much of what he did; he was a careful, deliberate man who knew that he was setting an example that would last throughout the lifetime of the nacient republic. His interactions with Congress were carried out with that weighty thought in mind.
Fast forward two hundred and twenty years to another president named George. This president doesn’t seem to know (or care) that everything he does also sets a precedent. However, the fundamental difference was that Washington did everything to insure the survival of the nation. Bush does things to insure the survival of his party at the expense of the nation.
We can take comfort that George Bush’s face will not be carved in stone in a mountain in South Dakota. There will be no obelisks erected in his honor in a gleaming capital that bears his name. He will not appear on our one dollar bill, nor will his image grace the flag of a state named in his honor. There will be no universities, no counties, no future great citizens named after him.
The only question is, will Bush be swept into the dustbin of history because of his poor presidency, or will it be because his presidency help sweep America herself into that dustbin?
Worst of all, once a president destroys an old norm, it isn’t very easy to restore it. The next presidents, even high-minded ones, will have difficulty denying themselves the political advantages accrued by Bush.
Worst of all indeed. So bad that one must wonder why (jokes to the contrary aside) so many very smart people would make such an egregious error.
One possibility that occurs to me is that Bush et al. truly believed that their efforts would result in accomplishing their dream of a permanent Republican majority, such being denied only because of the incompetence of all those appointees who were chosen because of their loyalty to Bush, rather than their competence.
If said appointees had been chosen based on loyalty and competence Bush’s gaming of the system might well have continued to fly under the radar, resulting in effective one party rule for who knows how long.
But we’ve been spared that nightmare. And although the result may be continued political polarization, at the very least we are now aware of how the system can be gamed.
I’m considering writing Don Rumsfeld, Michael Brown, and Alberto Gonzales thank-you letters. Without their failures who knows where this country might be headed?
We can take comfort that George Bush’s face will not be carved in stone in a mountain in South Dakota.
Have you ever been to the other side of Mt. Rushmore, the backside is waiting to put the Decider up on the mountain of shame.
This sets a horrible precedent. The argument IMO is not whether the politization of government can be done legally. It is about the implications for the future.
Future administrations, even should they be liberal Democratic ones, will now ponder this approach as a tempting one. Could be they will try to think of new ways to misuse power for the benefit of their party. This can have devastating consequences for our nation.
It’s also guarranteed to establish polarization as a permanent fixture.
to late domajot, or do you think Clinton firing 93 out of 94 when he assumed office was apolitical? (never been done before or since, Bush even kept some and phased the rest) Bad idea, politically stupid, unbelievably bad handling afterwords, but I’m sorry other than that it seems to be overblown unless there is evidence of something. Not just theories and rumor like what I’ve heard so far.
Another “Clinton did more.” defense? Please! Reagan did a Clinton too. What a crock.
nope and it wasn’t “Clinton did more.â€? It was US attorneys have always been a very political job event if people didn’t know it.
Eric,
If you weren’t such a caricature of a mindless drone mouthing talking points you’d almost have the pull to queer a thread.
Sadly, it’s not there.
Eric of course it was political dummy! Bill Clinton did not say IT WAS BECAUSE OF POOR PERFORMANCE affecting these prosecutors careers. That was typical selfish VINDICTIVE neocon tactic used by those small minds in the republican party….against even it’s own! Stunningly Sophomoric behavior for people in control of the office of the President, and you are still stuck on Clinton counter analogies? Are you insane?
Wow able to type insults without making any point about the post or my responces, yep I’m the one with issues.
I am no big fan of our President however Democrat’s have been screaming loud and often about voter fraud and all the President did in this matter was fire 8 attorney’s that were not towing the line on his mandate to check into voter fraud. This is nothing other than a witch hunt designed to embarrass the President in hopes to sway voters in 2008 to vote Democrat. If nothing in November 2006 teaches is that the Democrats nationwide ran against Republican’s corruption, the War in Iraq, and an unpopular President with little in the way of a plan to take the country forward. We shall see if this works for them in 2008. I think that voters in general will see this for what it is. At least I hope so!
Setting this precedent has been this administration’s biggest contributions to the downfall of constitutional checks and balances. The excesses of this administration and its blatant disregard for the co-equal branches will be an infamous move down the road towards tyranny and the death of the democratic ideals that Bush has so eagerly and unsuccessfully attempted to spread around the rest of the world.
To so many, he could be defended if there was no blatant illegality when he weakened habeas corpus, authorized warrantless wiretapping, let the FBI issue thousands of national security letters, and politicized every agency in the federal government. Placing a political crony of Karl Rove’s , whose specialty was oppositional research at the DNC to replace a stellar USA, without the approval of the US Senator of Arkansas destroyed a long-standing tradition that has served both parties well. Nixon’s quote that “if the president does it, its not illegal” should be the motto of this administration.
No.
And No.
The nation is much stronger than any presidency. Don’t kill your idealism because of politics, right or left. And save the dustbin thing for failed ideologies. Lenin’s gone, we’re still here. There’s a reason for that.
White if you want to make a point you might try pulling it out from behind the pile of standard phases (I’m being kind here) and just make your point. In response Bush has said very little it was Gonzo who said that. Second right now it has not been dis-proven of even shown unlikely that that is the case. Third I said it was political and that insult you added after may be more appropriate for the person who got so worked they didn’t bother to read my whole post. Fourth I called it “Bad idea, politically stupid, unbelievably bad handling” so I didn’t use any “Clinton counter analogies” but rather used an example to make my point about how political the office was not make any statement on it being good or bad at all.
Eric- What points? List them out please! Please show us your points! Insult? You insult everybodies intellegence and then you cry “insult”. What do expect, debate over stupidity…or just stupid debate?
Eric I’m sorry, but your run on sentences, lack of punctuation, and, poor grammar make it impossible for me to understand what you are trying to communicate.
Emphatic Yes, and I hope not. Even before the DOJ scandal, there was abundant evidence of the administration’s failures, starting with Katrina, continuing with Abu Ghraib, failed effort in Iraq, poor and overly partisan personnel policies, inability to deal honestly and openly with dissent within and outside of its ranks, disrespect for constitutionally mandated checks and balances, racking up horrendous deficits to be paid by our grandchildren, dismal environmental record, Walter Reed, Abramoff, contracting scandals etc.
The temptations to abuse presidential power will be there for future residents of the WH, thanks to this moron. Congress needs to push back and expand its own role to keep this train wreck in check for the remaining 21 months of its term in office.
Sure they did, and I think they still do.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Sphinx-Character-Thomas-Jefferson/dp/0679764410
O, and stop the ad hominem attacks immediately. Remarks like these: “Eric I’m sorry, but your run on sentences, lack of punctuation, and, poor grammar make it impossible for me to understand what you are trying to communicate” and these “If you weren’t such a caricature of a mindless drone mouthing talking points you’d almost have the pull to queer a thread. Sadly it’s not there” are unacceptable. I will not delete your comments but both of you are warned. We do not like those type of comments and you, Davebo, should know better: you’re a long-time commenter here.
Debate the points one makes, don’t debate the character of the other person.
Debate civil or do not debate at all, at least not here at TMV. I hope I make myself clear.
Eric: studies / reports show that Bush is exaggerating it tremendously. It seems that the way Bush is politicizing this process is unprecedented. You have to be fair about this matter.
Citizen Kang wrote:If said appointees had been chosen based on loyalty and competence Bush’s gaming of the system might well have continued to fly under the radar, resulting in effective one party rule for who knows how long.
Excellent point, and one that we should be ready to guard against, in future administrations. I’m sure both parties will game the system, and with the precedent set, will be able to learn from this administration’s mistakes. If the appointees had been competent, few would have noticed any irregularities, enabling a stranglehold on political power by the GOP.
Read his post “Michael”. I stated fact. However my comments are no worse than your OWN “ad homonym”, (note spelling), attacks on me on earlier threads. Please, I know your are neocon and don’t understand the concept of objectivity, but lets not try to control my legitimate content simply because you cannot debate your way out of a wet paper sack.
White you’re something else. The points I was referring to were the ones you were trying to make. That if you would stop the attacks and rhetoric it would be much more conducive to discussion. Of course I should just stop “insulting” people by disagreeing with what you’ve decided is the only possible belief right?
MvG While Bush or the AG’s office has seemed to “up the stakes” so far we really don’t have enough info for me to be comfortable sating as a fact anything. It would not be surprising to me if it were so. Bush has always been and advocate of a strong executive and to regaining the authority invested in the office of POTUS. Most people don’t realize how much less authority the POTUS has then the office used to. Just think what a hit it took after Nixon. Before that a lot of things commonplace would of been unacceptable. I wont argue pro or con, but the idea that the roles between the branches are iron clad is absurd and so are the complaints about Bush destroying constitution, blah blah blah, ect. There is constant give and take as with Pelosi trying to involve herself with direct negotiations with Syria, maybe just a stunt but clearly the impression she wants and many people here are clearly happy about it. Not a recognized place for the legislative branch and the lawyering to try and show it’s ok is as twisted as anything the Bush Admin has come up with. Thats how it works
WA- Friendly warning-The comment policy at TMV is different from a lot of sites. Personal attacks can result in being banned. MvdG is a lot fairer than a lot of conservatives that come on here reflexively rubber-stamping GOP policies.
Davebo: “queer” is NOT a synonym for “screw-up.”
White: where have I attacked you?
Am I something like a not-too-evil conservative?
Anyway, thanks Kim. And yes, our comment policy is different and we like to keep it like that.
Mvdg and kritter, thanks for the cites, the increasingly authoritarian streak withing the GOP is something that bears continued scrutiny.
And thanks for closing that bold flag.
As for some of the arguments.
The ability/right of presidents to make political appointments is not in question. The point the Post article makes is that to an unprecedented degree Bush’s appointments have been of admin insiders, loyal Bushies if you will, rather than the prosecuters with local interest and ties that have been the norm. The tendancy for this administration to choose it’s appointees according to loyalty is well known and well documented.
As another poster pointed out, the abandonment of such tradition is especially alarming from the GOP which likes to claim the conservative mantle.
One-party rule should be feared as much by Republicans as it is by independents and Democrats.
Am I something like a not-too-evil conservative?
LOL, something like that. I guess its nice that at least you are open-minded, not mouthing the same GOP talking points from Fox News that we get so much of. And I know that sometimes its tempting to call you the comment nanny, but I would never do that because that would be ad hominem:) Seriously, I am glad that this site doesn’t degenerate into partisan brawls like so many others on the net, so thanks.
LOL – no, I am sure you would never do such a thing.
Its gone beyond “rhetoric”. Rhetoric is now fact! I’m not espousing rhetoric for colorful effect, I’m DESCRIBING FACT!
What was rhetoric a year ago, is now FACT!
WA: where did I attack you?
What blog sites need is a virtual Labrador dog, who will just lick/love everybody into mutual love and understanding.
Michael- You attacked me right here:
[Michael van der Galiën Says:
March 31st, 2007 at 12:02 pm
White Agent: your comment gave me a good, healthy laugh. You obviously know so little about conservatism that it is useless to engage in any kind of debate with you.]
Obviously Michael? Which conservatism Michael? Which country, yours or mine? They are different in each country you know. Maybe you think you know more about my country’s conservatism than I do? Really Michael, just think about your statement please. Do I come to Europe and criticize
politics as if I know more than the Europeans do about European issues? Can you spot the Offense in your statement? You don’t cast a vote here buddy and I don’t attempt to manipulate political opinion in Tulip land.
So lets read that definition of “objectivity” again please, because your high ground here is Objectivity and I don’t have to so objective. I am PARTISAN and proud of it. My opinion is my Vote, yours has considerable LESS meaning in my here so again, objectivity IS YOUR credibility, not mine.
I do think there is a difference between European conservatism and our homegrown conservatism. Its not that conservatism itself is inherently divisive or malicious, but we have had some of the more extreme elements of it presiding over a more moderate population with an authoritarian style. We have also had our elections turn into all-out bloodbaths and have had an adminstration that let a think tank come up with a foreign policy that not only was badly implemented , but was highly unpopular with most Americans. The policies have been pursued nevertheless, with an almost messianic sense of purpose. There’s no sense that any rational thought processes have been used for decisions that have had huge impact upon our present and future interests. So, it is sort of apples and oranges.
I also think that the problem of muslim extremism is much more difficult in Europe, where angry youth have not melded into the larger culture, and where even in England have joined in a movement to make Sharia the law of the land. Its very frightening, and would probably make me more of a conservative on that issue at least, although I still see Iraq as a waste of valuable resources for a fool’s errand. (3 guesses as to theidentity of the fool)