Bush DOJ did have hiring bias

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by pettyfog, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    when hiring career attorneys. Two years cited, when conservatives were favored.

    You wont be hearing much about the report, though. Could be embarrassing.
     
    #1
    pettyfog, Jun 25, 2008
  2. FulhamAg

    FulhamAg New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    It was all over the cable news networks last night.
     
    #2
    FulhamAg, Jun 25, 2008
  3. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    shhhhh; 'fog is making a point. Don't disturb him with facts!
     
    #3
    HatterDon, Jun 25, 2008
  4. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    What... that the norm in DOJ was leaning toward Liberals?
     
    #4
    pettyfog, Jun 25, 2008
  5. FFC24

    FFC24 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    This doesn't matter. It isn't like this is the first admin. to do this.
     
    #5
    FFC24, Jun 25, 2008
  6. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    What's interesting is that nobody ever accused the administration of hiring attornies who were conservative. This is what they were expected to do. NOBODY ever said that hiring highly qualified lawyers who were conservatives was a bad thing. This article neatly refutes an argument that was never made. So, yes, it's hard to rebut it by pointing out the original argument -- because there wasn't one.

    Just in case you weren't paying attention, here's the complaints that were made about the Bush Administration's hiring and treatment of lawyers:

    1. An inordinate number of them (a) had little or no legal experience and (b) were hired out of Pat Robertson's pet law school. The concern was NOT that they were conservative, but that they were inexperienced products of a "school" of questionable quality.

    2. Several good Republican attornies were fired because they did NOT use their offices to pursue partisan political goals. Many refused to press litigation based on nothing credible with the ONLY benefit being the embarrassment of the Democratic official that was the target. The leaders of the adminstration and the DOJ didn't have trouble with the "we'll drop the charges after the election," but the good Republican lawyers did -- and for the best of possible reasons, that doing so would delay prosecution of ACTUAL offenders and leave them on the streed longer.

    And 24 is right. Every administration hires lawyers it feels comfortable with on a philosophical/political basis. But ONLY THIS administration has tried to turn federal attornies into a partisan political hack squad, and ONLY THIS administration has fired lawyers for refusing to politicize their offices.

    There is no credible defense for these lapses of integrity, so the administration and their apologists have to pretend that the argument is about something THEY CAN rebut.

    Sad, sad.
     
    #6
    HatterDon, Jun 25, 2008
  7. Bradical

    Bradical Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Well I'm sold. A blog on the National Review that basically has the level of depth of "I haven't read it but a Conservative I know sums it best by saying..." What cursory nonsense.

    When is comes to questions of who is nominating who and for what, from 2001-2009 the examples are aplenty for Bush's buddies (or buddies of his buddies) getting positions which they are grossly unqualified for, and this has happened on a more egregious level than ever before. I'm sure there have been some liberals to get positions in the DOJ in this time -- alot of liberals go to school and are qualified -- that doesn't make it any sort of favoritsm (more like helping w/ appearances). I particularly laughed at his National Review article: "Even Now, Dems Seem Wholly Uninterested in the Outcome of Iraq".... The National Review is for people who want to be lied to.
     
    #7
    Bradical, Jun 25, 2008
  8. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    I think the point that SHOULD be made is: "This is different than a Democratic Administration, HOW!!!!"

    They found a preference is 2 of 6 years examined. There was no examination of the makeup of CURRENT DOJ. There is little examination of motivation relative to activist participation/groups.

    Let's not forget the related failures of FBI/CIA in the nineties because of the political correctness instilled from the top down. This resulted in 'make no waves', and warnings of dangerous people in the flight schools being stuck on mid-level wonk desks.

    I'll be interested in seeing if you guys are as interested in the same sort of Bias in an Obama administration.

    BRad:
    And that is wrong, HOW?

    It's your elected that are doing the lying... if you want I'll quote Pelosi, talking out both sides of her mouth within 48 hours of meeting with the GoI.
    The only thing Dems like Pelosi, Reid, Durbiin and Murtha are interested in is how to make Victory look like defeat.

    - - - - - -- -
    Finally I agree with FFC24 on these forums: Not the first, wont be the last.

    Our conclusions on it is surely different but it's something that's needed for any semblance of balance.
     
    #8
    pettyfog, Jun 26, 2008
  9. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    You said

    I said and you ignored:

    Which Democratic Administration did that again?
     
    #9
    HatterDon, Jun 26, 2008
Similar Threads: Bush hiring
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Bush Lied.. err, not so much! Jun 9, 2008
Miscellaneous Buchanan Bashes Bush May 21, 2008
Miscellaneous Bush declares defeat in roadmap Mar 10, 2008
Miscellaneous Dangerous as Bush! Feb 14, 2008
Miscellaneous A Must-Read for the Bush Deranged... Dec 29, 2007

Share This Page