Ask 100 People What the Hatch Act Is . . .

Posted by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist in Politics.
Apr 26th, 2007 | 7 responses

. . . and 97 will respond that they don’t have a clue. Of the other three, one will say that it’s a song-and-dance routine by a Republican senator from Utah. One will say that it’s a law against taking a minor across that lines for the purpose of . . . you know what. And one will draw a gun on you and tell you to back off, mothereffer.

But the Hatch Act may be about to have its star turn.

Click here to find out why. And here to read about the act itself and its history.

7 Responses to “Ask 100 People What the Hatch Act Is . . .”

1. Holly in Cincinnati says:

   April 26, 2007 at 3:05 am

   In Indianapolis, it’s THIS:
   http://blogs.indystar.com/falconblog/
2. yonason says:

   April 26, 2007 at 3:41 am

   I tried posting this where it goes,
   http://themoderatevoice.com/science/environment/12345/climate-change-australia-faces-epic-drought/
   But couldn’t for some reason. But I think it is important for people to know.

   White Agent Says: April 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 am
   yonason- Uh…the dummy you linked too is NOT an atmospheric scientist. He is a high school economics teacher!

   Uh, yourself, W.A.

   1. He isn’t a climatologist, but he IS a scientist (unlike Al Gore who is nothing but a con artist), and in his blog he has multiple references to expert climatologists who say whatever global warming is occuring is normal and humans are not the cause.

   2. He is NOT “a high school economics teacher” but a highly respected retired university professor with over 250 academic publications.
   http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/main.html

   If you don’t like your oponent’s references but can’t find anything legitimate to criticise, no problem, just make something up.
3. Shaun Mullen says:

   April 26, 2007 at 4:16 am

   Cool!
4. White Agent says:

   April 26, 2007 at 4:32 am

   More republican corruption? Some hard worker needs to list this out. Its far and away to much to keep up with! Its like they don’t give a damn about law, they will just do what they want!
5. Off Colfax says:

   April 26, 2007 at 4:46 am

   I think I’m going to need more popcorn.
6. mikkel says:

   April 26, 2007 at 7:07 am

   I think this is the funniest part about the scandal:

   Two of the fired U.S. attorneys, Dan Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona, were pressured by a top Justice Department official last fall to commit resources to adult obscenity cases, even though both of their offices faced serious shortages of manpower. Each of them warned top officials that pursuing the obscenity cases would force them to pull prosecutors away from other significant criminal investigations. In Nevada, ongoing cases included gang violence and racketeering, corporate healthcare fraud, and the prosecution of a Republican official on corruption charges. In Arizona, they included multiple investigations of child exploitation, including “traveler” cases in which pedophiles arrive from elsewhere to meet children they’ve targeted online.
7. kritter says:

   April 26, 2007 at 7:58 am

   Wow, mikkel- how incompetent can you get? Unless the point was to pull prosecutors off the Republican official being prosecuted for corruption in the first place.

   In WaPo today:

   “Renzi Aide Called US Attorney to Ask About Probe
   The top aide to Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz) called the
   office of Arizona’s U.S. Attorney about six weeks be-
   fore the prosecutor was fired, inquiring about a federal
   probe into the congressman’s role in a land deal that
   benefitted a former business partner and political patron.

   . . .The incident means that Charlton was the third of eight
   U.S. attorneys forced to resign last year who had reported
   to Justice officials that Republican members of Congress or
   their staffs made inappropriate overtures to their offices
   about politically sensitive investigations they were super-
   vising.”

   Any of the site’s resident neocons want to restate that this is just another nonissue- a witchhunt by the desperate-to-pin-something-on-Bush Democrats? Or that they serve at the pleasure of the president, lol?