I looked at the Goodling testimony to Congress (or to whatever). Her exchange with Issa was of note:
Quote:
ISSA:OK.Well, let's talk about Carol Lam, because Mr. Keller mentioned that members had made these complaints.Well, I'm the member.I'm the member who saw somebody who would not enforce stated national policy and brought this to the attention of Attorney General Ashcroft and then the Attorney General Gonzales.And, quite honestly, I spoke to the president directly on my concerns, and I'm not ashamed of it.
But let's go through Carol Lam.Carol Lam was not a Republican, isn't that correct?
GOODLING:I actually don't know.Someone told me she was an Independent but I never checked her voter registration.
ISSA:Right.Well, I have.It's public in California.So let's go through this.She was a career professional assistant U.S. attorney, right?
GOODLING:Yes.
ISSA:So this administration, even though it has the absolute right to make political appointments based on party registration and party loyalty and loyalty to the president appointed a career professional in San Diego.
GOODLING:Yes, actually.We did that in a lot of districts.
GOODLING:And I supported that.In many cases, career professionals have the best backgrounds for the job.
ISSA:OK.
So you were looking for people who had an obligation to deal with a policy for which the American people had chosen.But you looked to career professionals.
Isn't it also true that when people turned in their resignations or left for any reason, you also looked very often to the existing career professionals inside the U.S. attorney's office?
GOODLING:Yes.
ISSA:So here we have an absolute right to make political appointments based on party registration, party loyalty and support of the president.And yet you chose to be non-partisan very often.And yet that's not being heard here today.
GOODLING:I'm afraid I don't have a comment on that.
ISSA:Well, I think my comment will stand on that.
Last but not least, is there any reason that this group of Republicans and Democrats -- there's not an independent sitting here -- should be surprised that the Clinton administration appointed Democrats and disproportionately made lifetime appointments for federal judges by people who were Democrats.I run into them all the time.
Isn't it, in fact, absolutely the right of a president elected by the American people to choose people who will support his policies and that in fact when you did that you were doing what was your right, and when you chose not to, was actually the exception that should be noted here today?
GOODLING:I think presidents of both parties have the right to pick the people to serve them.
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ny_052307.html
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I think I get it now, ace.
|
No you don't get it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
dc_dux, ace "answered" you in a similar way as in my exchange with him, today on your <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=118311">"Bush Says What He Means II" thread</a>..... I'm thinking that he cannot "do" specifics...only sweeping generalizations that require nothing to support them.
|
I start the basis of my views from basic generalities or truisms regarding an issue and go from there. If there is no agreement on the geralities or truisms, in my view there can be no further basis for discussion. For example - world and political leaders use hyperbole to rally support and to motivate their population to act. You don't don't agree with that and therefore think when Bush uses these kinds of statments they are lies. Or, there is a basic level of coruption and cronyism in Washington regarless of who is in the White House. DC, with 20+ years in Washington, thinks there is a correlation with what is uncovered. Given disagreement on those generalities, we will never find agreement on the issue in question.
You don't understand how I construct my views, yet you constantly criticize how I construct my views. I find it interesting how you comment on what you don't understand. Your approach is different, which is o.k. with me. I just find it difficult to follow, and I rarely engage your points. On the few occasions when I have, you avoided the exchange, which is your right, but as is my right, I drew my conclusions.
Most of the topics presented on TFP are interesting. When I initially participate I share my view on the topic. But, when I participate, more times than not, people like you or DC, turn it in to a discussion about me. That is a waste of time. I am not going to change who I am or how I think, my views may change, but I won't. I have no idea what you guys are trying to accomplish, other than to get me to attack back in-kind. At one point DC decided to ignore me, perhaps both of you should, or stay focused on the topic rather than me or my style.