Brown, Myers... Deutsch? Another unqualified Bush appointee resigns - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sailor · 02-08-2006, 08:53 AM

I don't know who here has heard about this, but it recently came to light that a certain Mr. George Deutsch, a 24 year old political appointee working in NASA's PR department has been pushing the Bush administration's pro-creationist view into NASA. George Deutsch was appointed to the job for his loyal help on the 2004 Bush campaign.

From the New York Times:

Quote:

They called or e-mailed The Times and sent documents showing that news releases were delayed or altered to mesh with Bush administration policies.

In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.

There's more. He has apparently outright said that his job is to make the Bush administration look good. From The New York Times:

Quote:

In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.

But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal."

Anyways, yesterday, after a good bit of public outcry against George Deutsch and his attempts to put a political spin on science, and the discovery that he had falsified his resume, stating that he had graduated from Texas A&M when he had in fact not done so, he was forced to resign:

Again, from The New York Times:

Quote:

Mr. Deutsch's educational record was first challenged on Monday by Nick Anthis, who graduated from Texas A&M last year with a biochemistry degree and has been writing a Web log on science policy, scientificactivist.blogspot.com.

After Mr. Anthis read about the problems at NASA, he said in an interview: "It seemed like political figures had really overstepped the line. I was just going to write some commentary on this when somebody tipped me off that George Deutsch might not have graduated."

He posted a blog entry asserting this after he checked with the university's association of former students. He reported that the association said Mr. Deutsch received no degree.

A copy of Mr. Deutsch's résumé was provided to The Times by someone working in NASA headquarters who, along with many other NASA employees, said Mr. Deutsch played a small but significant role in an intensifying effort at the agency to exert political control over the flow of information to the public.

Such complaints came to the fore starting in late January, when James E. Hansen, the climate scientist, and several midlevel public affairs officers told The Times that political appointees, including Mr. Deutsch, were pressing to limit Dr. Hansen's speaking and interviews on the threats posed by global warming.

Consider it a victory for the scientific community... But the concerning thing is another Bush appointee resigning after another scandal involving another falsified resume. First FEMA's Brown, then Harriet Myers (admittedly not a scandal nor a falsified resume, but another case of an unqualified political appointee), and now this guy... Is it just me, or does there seem to be a huge rash of totally unqualified and dubiously appointed political appointees coming out of the Bush administration? I don't think for a second that the Democrats or anyone else don't also use political appointees, but it seems that there's an incredible number of them coming out of the Bush administration, causing problem after problem. I don't care who you are or what party you come from, but that's unacceptable. Not only is the administration seemingly rampantly appointing wholly unqualified people into important posts, but he's trying to put a spin on science as well. Not acceptable.

To paraphrase Ratbastid, it seems like the wheels are falling off the Bush train.

ratbastid · 02-08-2006, 09:16 AM

Woo hoo, I've been paraphrased!

On this particular issue, It's almost impossible to be partisan. Fact is, Clinton was as big a buddy-appointer as Bush. It's just that his appointees never got caught being utterly incompetent. They may well have been incompetent, mind you, but they didn't get busted like this.

For some reason Bush's people can't even play competent competently. Maybe they're too cocky to care?

aceventura3 · 02-08-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.

When did they prove the "Big Bang" actually happened? If it hasn't been proved, isn't it a theory? If it is a theory, why is it wrong to state it is a theory? If it is not wrong to state it as a theory, why is this news worthy?

The wheels are falling off of something. Not the Bush admin. but perhaps reason and logic.

sailor · 02-08-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Woo hoo, I've been paraphrased!

On this particular issue, It's almost impossible to be partisan. Fact is, Clinton was as big a buddy-appointer as Bush. It's just that his appointees never got caught being utterly incompetent. They may well have been incompetent, mind you, but they didn't get busted like this.

For some reason Bush's people can't even play competent competently. Maybe they're too cocky to care?

Yeah, I know that both sides are just as guilty. The point of my post was that appointeeism (is that a word?) isnt acceptable, from any party.

Quote:

When did they prove the "Big Bang" actually happened? If it hasn't been proved, isn't it a theory? If it is a theory, why is it wrong to state it is a theory? If it is not wrong to state it as a theory, why is this news worthy?

The wheels are falling off of something. Not the Bush admin. but perhaps reason and logic.

The blatant politicizing of it and saying it's to make the Bush administration look good is what's wrong with it. Falls into the same camp as intelligent design. It's pushing an agenda.

aceventura3 · 02-08-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailor

The blatant politicizing of it and saying it's to make the Bush administration look good is what's wrong with it. Falls into the same camp as intelligent design. It's pushing an agenda.

What???

I don't understand. Is it a theory or not?

pan6467 · 02-08-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What???

I don't understand. Is it a theory or not?

Depends on how it is used.

If I come out and say our topic today is the Big Bang Theory, and we talk about it, it seems kind of redundant and sounds stupid if every time I mention Big Bang I have to add "theory", as such was ordered.

I have already established in the beginning it is theory and thus I would feel I wouldn't need to keep pointing it out. I believe people are intelligent enough to realize it is only theory, without my having to make that point every time I say "Big Bang".......(oops) theory.

ratbastid · 02-08-2006, 10:41 AM

Let's not get sucked into the rhetorical game of picking one unassailable point and using that to justify myriad insanities.

Yes, the Big Bang is a theory. A well-supported theory, the most scientifically plausible theory, but a theory. Going to excessive lengths to point out that it's a theory smacks of creationism, which has no basis in science.

None of this changes the fact that a political appointee's job should NOT be "to make the president look good".

aceventura3 · 02-08-2006, 01:56 PM

I think I understand. Kinda like when they say budget cuts, when they really mean cuts in the rate of growth. Because you shouldn't have to say cuts in the rate of growth when you can say budget cuts, everyone knows what it means... accept...when someone is talking about a real budget cut.

Oops, there goes another wheel.

Oh, my...there I go again...getting sucked into a rhetorical game of picking on an unassailiable point and using that to justify myriad insanitiies. Do they have a patch or something for that?

aceventura3 · 02-08-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

... a political appointee's job should NOT be "to make the president look good".

Political appointees serve "at the pleasure of the President." Isn't that different from a career civil service employee or a career government employee?

If a political apointee doesn't have the Presidents "back" who does?

If you where President you would appoint people who had no loyalty to you, your agenda, or people who would make you look bad?

I feel another wheel coming off, can you save it?

Elphaba · 02-08-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

If you where President you would appoint people who had no loyalty to you, your agenda, or people who would make you look bad?

Ace, I think that several of the Bush administration's appointments have, in fact, made our president "look bad." If politically motivated appointments are the norm for either party, shouldn't those individuals be required to have some competence in the position for which they have been appointed? I doubt this young man rose to the importance of congressional oversight in the appointment, but I think at minimum his resume should have been verified long before he was given the position.

Daniel_ · 02-08-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What???

I don't understand. Is it a theory or not?

The word theory is totally misused in the media and by most non-scientists.

A THEORY is an explanation based on evidence or experiment, it can be tested experimentally.

An HYPOTHESIS is a proposed explanation that has not yet been "proved" or tested.

Most people that say "theory" actually mean "hypothesis".

aceventura3 · 02-08-2006, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Ace, I think that several of the Bush administration's appointments have, in fact, made our president "look bad." If politically motivated appointments are the norm for either party, shouldn't those individuals be required to have some competence in the position for which they have been appointed? I doubt this young man rose to the importance of congressional oversight in the appointment, but I think at minimum his resume should have been verified long before he was given the position.

I agree.

I also understand that with power comes privilage. If I am in a position of power, certainly the people I trust the most may not be the best qualified for appointments, but I trust them. In a perfect situation the people I trust the most are also highly qualified. Sometimes they won't be, sometimes they will make mistakes. It happens regardless of party. I don't understand why people seem surprised by this.

I also understand that being in the right spot at the right time does wonders for your career. If you are young with no experience and you can get a good appointment or ride on someone's coat-tails and not screw-up, you can leap frog over others with more experience and knowledge. This happens also regardless of party. Also happens in the business world. Even if we don't like it, that the way the world is. Bush did not make these rules, so why do we pretend it is a bigger problem than it is?

Elphaba · 02-08-2006, 05:37 PM

Ace, you have provided excellent thoughts to consider. Returning to Sailor's OP, I sincerely doubt that Bush has been well served by several political appointments that were made or recommended by his administrative staff. The exception is Bush's recommendation of Miers. I give Bush full benefit for that fubar.

Wouldn't we all love to follow Michael Brown's selection to FEMA all the way back to it's source? Congress failed in doing their job of oversight in the confirmation hearing as well.

Simply claiming that it is business as usual lacks taking any responsibility for the problem. I have posted elsewhere that I believe political cronyism can be curtailed to some extent and without great difficulty via existing governmental structures.

Elphaba · 02-09-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Wouldn't we all love to follow Michael Brown's selection to FEMA all the way back to it's source? Congress failed in doing their job of oversight in the confirmation hearing as well.

Sometimes wishes come true. Is it possible that RealNews might be the return of investigative journalism? The text is far too long to post here, but for those that are interested...

Truth Out

kutulu · 02-10-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

The word theory is totally misused in the media and by most non-scientists.

A THEORY is an explanation based on evidence or experiment, it can be tested experimentally.

An HYPOTHESIS is a proposed explanation that has not yet been "proved" or tested.

Most people that say "theory" actually mean "hypothesis".

Thank you for pointing that out. I wouldn't have been as nice. I'm sick of people misrepresenting the word 'theory' and it's only possible because the average American these days seems to have the general science knowledge of a toaster. At least we didn't get the standard 'it's not the Big Bang Law' crap tossed in there.

Don't they teach the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and a law on like the first day of 7th grade science? People who don't know what a theory is and what it's implications are have no business talking about scientific issues. It's like some moron who wants to talk politics but can't tell you the difference between the House and the Senate.

aceventura3 · 02-10-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Thank you for pointing that out. I wouldn't have been as nice. I'm sick of people misrepresenting the word 'theory' and it's only possible because the average American these days seems to have the general science knowledge of a toaster. At least we didn't get the standard 'it's not the Big Bang Law' crap tossed in there.

Don't they teach the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and a law on like the first day of 7th grade science? People who don't know what a theory is and what it's implications are have no business talking about scientific issues. It's like some moron who wants to talk politics but can't tell you the difference between the House and the Senate.

From your friendly neighborhood sceintific moron:

Who is responsible for coining the phrase "Big Bang Theory"? Wasn't me, I think it one of those highly educated scientific folks.

Can a hypothesis be a theory?
Can a hypothesis become a theory? If so, does it take a bite from a radioactive spider?
Can a theory be a hypothesis?
What come first the theory or hypothesis? Who gets to fertilize it?
Can theory be formed from emperical evidence, rather than experimental evidence?
Whats the difference between a guess from a Phd. and a guess from a janitor? A janitors work is published on bathroom walls, a Phd's is best used in bathroom stalls.

kutulu · 02-10-2006, 03:35 PM

Thanks for trolling.

Willravel · 02-10-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Thanks for trolling.

Agreed, what a useless and inane waste of the board.

aceventura3 · 02-10-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Thanks for trolling.

You call someone a moron and expect they won't respond?

You imply a level of knowledge regarding the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, but when challenged you say I trolling?

I wonder what you will say next. I am sure you will have some creative names to call me. Sorry, but I don't get easily offended.

rofgilead · 02-11-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

From your friendly neighborhood sceintific moron:

Who is responsible for coining the phrase "Big Bang Theory"? Wasn't me, I think it one of those highly educated scientific folks.

Can a hypothesis be a theory?
Can a hypothesis become a theory? If so, does it take a bite from a radioactive spider?
Can a theory be a hypothesis?
What come first the theory or hypothesis? Who gets to fertilize it?
Can theory be formed from emperical evidence, rather than experimental evidence?
Whats the difference between a guess from a Phd. and a guess from a janitor? A janitors work is published on bathroom walls, a Phd's is best used in bathroom stalls.

Ok. Anyways..

The word "theory" is applicable to all ideas that are testable by experimentation. They never become more than theories, just become well supported or unsupported theories. The Big Bang is a well supported theory.

~~~ ENTERING INTO THE COMMON LANGUAGE MODE ~~~
Enter into the common speak mode though, and "theory" becomes some sort of idea that someone just kinda had, ya know? As compares to a fact, which is proven idea..
So, if something is just, like, a theory, well I guess it doesn't mean much... huh.
~~~ LEAVING NOW ~~~

So, when people start adding the word "theory" to stuff blatantly, it is usually an attempt to undermine a scientifically supported idea by using a word that while is technically correct to use, the majority of people have an incorrect understanding of. When people say "evolution is theory, not a fact" they are trying to undermine it thusly.

That is what the Bush appointee was doing, among other things such as censoring members of NASA from making public statements about global warming (theory).

Blah. Good riddance to him!
Someone should really make a webpage combining all the different stories of bush appointees turning out to be screw ups, combining all the different statements made by bush that ended up being false (all the iraq WMDs, the various lines in State of the Union Addresses), combining the picture of how our economy has been doing, etc, etc. Placing all the different pieces together into one unified story of ineptness and deceit would be really a service to this country.

aceventura3 · 02-12-2006, 07:23 PM

I don't doubt that there were other people more qualified than Deutsch for the appointment. However, if we want to criticize the guy and the Bush administration we should do it for the right reasons. Otherwise, critics loose credibility or prove the lack of credibility to begin with. The Big Bang Theory is in fact a theory. NPR is "liberal". And, political appointees are supposed to make their boss look good.

Poppinjay · 02-13-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't doubt that there were other people more qualified than Deutsch for the appointment. However, if we want to criticize the guy and the Bush administration we should do it for the right reasons. Otherwise, critics loose credibility or prove the lack of credibility to begin with. The Big Bang Theory is in fact a theory. NPR is "liberal". And, political appointees are supposed to make their boss look good.

Which Deutsch did not. He made his boss look bad. Michael Brown is busy right now making Bush look very bad. That's the price you pay when you select weasels for important posts, they turn on you when you try to take them out.

Cronyism will likely always exist, but there are cronies who can actually do the job. Bush, instead, selected a college dropout.

aceventura3 · 02-13-2006, 01:50 PM

Some of you may find this of interest. Perhaps not. Either way here it is.

The actual list is way to long, so check the link, below are a few examples from his appointees.

I post this just to show that the "wheels" did not fall off of Clinton's bus, just as they are not falling off of Bush's. When you are President you will always have people around who will make errors or people who are dishonest.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/crime2.html

Quote:

LIST OF ALLEGED CRIMES IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
June 24, 1996

For several years, the Washington Weekly has published a compiled list of alleged crimes in the Clinton administration. Current events quickly make the list incomplete, necessitating updates. The list, now including 33 Clinton appointees, is by no means exhaustive, but does include activities before taking office.

BERNARD NUSSBAUM, Former White House Counsel

(1) Obstructed justice in the Foster suicide investigation by
blocking access, removing documents, lying about his removal of
documents, and by retrieving Foster's pager from Park Police.

(2) Attempted to quash a Whitewater investigation at the RTC
through White House liaisons.

Nussbaum has resigned and is under investigation for lying to Congress.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, Senior Advisor

(1) Took a $600,000 loan below market interest and with
insufficient collateral from Nations Bank, a bank having business
before the Clinton Administration.

(2) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings.

(3) Attempted to have Whitewater investigator Jay Stephens at the
RTC fired.

MIKE ESPY, Former Agriculture Secretary

(1) Took bribes from Tyson Foods Inc., which was under regulatory
control of his Agriculture Department.

Espy has resigned and is under investigation by a Special Counsel

ROGER ALTMAN, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury

(1) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings. (2) Lied to Congress about having lied to Congress. (3) Instructed Ellen Kulka and Jack Ryan at the RTC to block the Whitewater investigation by L. Jean Lewis. Roger Altman was forced to resign.

RON BROWN, Former Commerce Secretary

(1) Has taken bribes from almost everybody. Says it is part of
the way Washington works. The allegations are too numerous
and complicated to be detailed here.

Ron Brown was still under investigation by an Independent Counsel when he died in a plane crash in 1996. The investigation continues.

LES ASPIN, Former Secretary of Defense

(1) Through criminal negligence was responsible for the death
of Army Rangers in Somalia. Has never been held accountable
in public hearings.

Les Aspin has resigned and is deceased.

WILLIAM KENNEDY, DAVID WATKINS, PATSY THOMASSON:

(1) Fabricated charges against White House Travel Office
personnel to have the business taken over by Clinton friends.

(2) Coerced FBI and IRS agents into complicity with this
scheme.

Kennedy and Watkins have resigned.

CATHERINE CORNELIUS, Travel Office employee

(1) Removed documents from White House Travel Office.
Because those documents later became the subject ofa trial
against Office Director Billy Dale, that could amount to
obstruction ofjustice.

PATSY THOMASSON, Director of White House Administration

(1) Lied to Congress about the composition of the Health Care Task Force and the size of its budget. (2) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from the office of Vince Foster.

MARGARET WILLIAMS, Chief of Staff to the First Lady

(1) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from the office
of Vince Foster.

(2) Lied to Congress about removing those documents.

Maggy Williams is under investigation by Independent Counsel.

BRUCE LINDSEY, Senior Advisor

(1) As treasurer for the Clinton gubernatorial campaign in
1990, he signed withdrawals from Peny County Bank, the president
of which has pled guilty to conspiring to conceal these
withdrawals from the IRS and FEC.

Bruce Lindsey is an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the owners of Perry County Bank.

MARIAN BENETT, USIA Inspector General

(1) Covered up credit-card fraud by USIA Inspector General staff.

FEDERICO PENA, Secretary of Transportation

(1) State and federal contracts were awarded to companies in
which he had a financial interest.

The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to appoint
a Special Counsel.

HENRY CISNEROS, Secretary of HUD

(1) Lied to the FBI about payments to former lover.
Under investigation by Special Counsel.

JANET RENO, Attorney General

(1) Fabricated charges of child molestation against the Branch
Davidians in Waco, Texas.

(2) Ordered the use of military equipment against citizens of
the United States

(3) Ordered the use of chemical agents against citizens of the
United States.

ROBERT REICH, Secretary of Labor

(1) Lied to Congress when he wrote that there were no memos
circulating in the Labor Department instructing staffto gather
political material against the Contract with America. Such memos
were later published. Under investigation by Congress.

DONNA SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services

(1) As Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison
instituted speech codes which were found to be unconstitutional
in federal court. Instituted thought police star chamber proceed
-ings to drive politically incorrect people off campus.

CAROL BROWNER, EPA Administrator

(1) Used the EPA to campaign against Republicans running on
the Contract with America, an illegal use of the executive
branch for political campaigning.

Carol Browner is under investigation by Congress.

ROBERTA ACHTENBERG, Former Assitant Secretary of HUD

(1) Violated the First Amendment when she ordered HUD
lawyers to silence citizens who spoke out against planned
housing projects.

(2) Exceeded her authority when she had HUD staff threaten
Allentown County to withdraw an "Use of English language
encouraged" ordinance.

Roberta Achtenberg resigned to run for Mayor of San Francisco, a
race which she lost.

HAZEL O'LEARY, Energy Secretary

(1) Abused taxpayer money for extravagant travels around the
world.

Hazel O'Leary is under investigation by Congress.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense

(1) Intervened in a Chinese trade deal on behalf of a business
partner.

CRAIG LIVINGSTONE, Chief of White House Security

(1) Was seen carrying a box from Foster's office the morning
after Vince Foster died.

(2) Ordered confidential FBI background files on Hillary
Clinton's political enemies, a violation of the privacy act.

In light of this record, it is appropriate to mention those Clinton Cabinet Secretaries who are not under investigation and have never had criminal allegations raised against them:

RICHARD RILEY, Secretary of Education
WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State

In this administration these secretaries must be considered beacons of morality.

(Sources: published accounts in The Washington Weekly)
Copyright (c) 1996 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)

--Used With Permission--

02-08-2006, 10:41 AM	#7 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Let's not get sucked into the rhetorical game of picking one unassailable point and using that to justify myriad insanities. Yes, the Big Bang is a theory. A well-supported theory, the most scientifically plausible theory, but a theory. Going to excessive lengths to point out that it's a theory smacks of creationism, which has no basis in science. None of this changes the fact that a political appointee's job should NOT be "to make the president look good". Last edited by ratbastid; 02-08-2006 at 10:43 AM..

02-08-2006, 01:56 PM	#8 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I think I understand. Kinda like when they say budget cuts, when they really mean cuts in the rate of growth. Because you shouldn't have to say cuts in the rate of growth when you can say budget cuts, everyone knows what it means... accept...when someone is talking about a real budget cut. Oops, there goes another wheel. Oh, my...there I go again...getting sucked into a rhetorical game of picking on an unassailiable point and using that to justify myriad insanitiies. Do they have a patch or something for that? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

02-08-2006, 05:37 PM	#13 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Ace, you have provided excellent thoughts to consider. Returning to Sailor's OP, I sincerely doubt that Bush has been well served by several political appointments that were made or recommended by his administrative staff. The exception is Bush's recommendation of Miers. I give Bush full benefit for that fubar. Wouldn't we all love to follow Michael Brown's selection to FEMA all the way back to it's source? Congress failed in doing their job of oversight in the confirmation hearing as well. Simply claiming that it is business as usual lacks taking any responsibility for the problem. I have posted elsewhere that I believe political cronyism can be curtailed to some extent and without great difficulty via existing governmental structures. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

02-12-2006, 07:23 PM	#21 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I don't doubt that there were other people more qualified than Deutsch for the appointment. However, if we want to criticize the guy and the Bush administration we should do it for the right reasons. Otherwise, critics loose credibility or prove the lack of credibility to begin with. The Big Bang Theory is in fact a theory. NPR is "liberal". And, political appointees are supposed to make their boss look good. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

02-08-2006, 09:16 AM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Woo hoo, I've been paraphrased! On this particular issue, It's almost impossible to be partisan. Fact is, Clinton was as big a buddy-appointer as Bush. It's just that his appointees never got caught being utterly incompetent. They may well have been incompetent, mind you, but they didn't get busted like this. For some reason Bush's people can't even play competent competently. Maybe they're too cocky to care?

02-10-2006, 03:35 PM	#17 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Thanks for trolling.