ace...I share the articles/reports etc. that shape my opinions, suspicions, conclusions. I'll confide that I try hard to confine my posted "items" to the things that I can defend because I believe that they have a high probability of being accurate and reasonable, consistent with related items I'm posting, or I point out how they differ.
My impression of what you share here are mostly IBD.com editorials, and on occasion, news articles, along with what "you know"...unaccompanied by your information sources.
The following articles describe the research of the Boston Globe, based on what it learned from FOIA requested documents obtained from the DOJ, the testimony of DOJ officials, interviews with knowledgeable sources in or working with the DOJ, and from DOJ "document dumps" resulting from demands congressional investigative oversight committees.
The contents of these articles, and the e-mail photo at the bottom, tell what has changed in this presidential administration ace....supporting the accuracy of my conclusion that "this time", it is different.
Over on the "Al Gore/Diane Sawyer" thread, on wednesday (May 23) <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2250729&postcount=27">I posted enough</a>, I think, to foster a reasonable (and strong) suspicion, that ace....as far as the Bush administration directed prosecutions of <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2249878&postcount=4">baseless election fraud charges</a>, and the campaign of officially planned and executed vote suppression</a> that it supported, this time....as far as the planning and appointments of this executive branch and it's DOJ, this time....<b>it's criminal....compared to the conduct of past presidential administrations, and compared to what adherence to ethics and to the law require:</b>
The following is a seperate but related problem; the disqualification of politcally appointed US Attorneys (non-civil service positions) of anyone currently serving or anyone to be considered for appointment...who was not obviously a <b>"loyal Bushie"</b>...loyal and partisan beyond the constraints of ethics or of legality...perjury and Hatch Act violations, along with election fraud, and misuse of office to conspire to commit election fraud, and obstruction of justice...quickly come to mind as blatant and obvious examples of exhibiting <b>"loyalty to Bush":</b>
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/13/washington/0414-nat-webATTORNEYS.gif">
I suppose if I was in Karl Rove's position...chief political strategist for a party that "offers" a platform, an ideology, and an agenda that is in the best interests of only a small number of voters who bother to inform themselves of it's history, performance, principles, and the commitment of it's elected officials and party administrators to following and supporting and enforcing the requirements of the constitution and of the criminal and civil statutes, I'd have few options, save the following....to influence election outcomes, either: