Bush Pick for No. 2 Atty. General candidate Timothy Flanigan withdraws his name
 

The background for this development was detailed in an article that I posted on Sept. 22, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=95107
Has the indictment of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the reports that his key assistant, Susan Ralston, ended up being appointed as special assistant to Bush and to Karl Rove, combined with a new awareness of the level of qualification and background of numerous Bush appointees, in the wake of "Brownie" at FEMA, made it much more difficult for Bush to move his appointees through the senate confirmation process? With his party enjoying a 55 to 44 majority in the senate, Bush should be able to routinely expect to appoint qualified candidates and then watch the senate quickly confirm them. Bush is having difficulty doing this, even with his party in the majority.
Is this the fault of a flawed selection process on the part of Bush?

I've endeavored to use my research to give those who are interested, a "heads up", in advance of stories that break about the Bush administration.
Recent examples are a thread that reminds members that Bush sought personal representation from a criminal defense attorney, Jim Sharp, more than a year ago, and that the MSM fell silent about it.

I posted the news report that Bush demoted a prosecutor (Frederick Black) who was investigating Jack Abramoff's lobbying in Guam, and then stopped the investigation. Shortly after my post, the press reported that the DOJ inspector general is now investigating the demotion of prosecutor Black and the Bush administration decision to stop his investigation. It also reported that the administration appointed a successor to Black who was "Karl Rove approved".

My point here is that the recurring theme of my posts and threads is that the MSM is NOT "liberal", and that republican politicians and Bush and his administration are not MSM "victims". I also reiterate that those who lean to and sympathize with the "right", use the false premise of "media bias" as an excuse to ignore much of what MSM reports. I try to post at TFP, what is ignored by the right, "un" or under reported by the MSM.

I appeal here for equal treatment. The articles that I post are from MSM and other respected sources. An example are articles by Murray Waas, most recently in the new "Rove" thread. How many have ever heard of Murray?

His latest article on Rove is published in the respected National Review. He may turn out to be the most reliable and definitive source reporting abou the Plame leak investigation.

I do not observe that I have any competition here in regard to the depth and variety of the content of my posts and threads. Whatever your opinion of me personally, if you read my posts, you would know what the withdrawal of Timothy Flanigan's name from nomination means.

These are historic days. I see a presidential administration that is "going down". I am a resource here who is "covering" these momentous political developments.

It alarms me that many MSM articles are not accessible without payment, just 5 to 7 days after they are published on the web. "Suggestion" here that I post small segments of articles and leave it to individual readers to decide whether to visit the source site for the entire article, belies a lack of recognition that these are reports of historic import that are only briefly available on the web. This is the wrong time to discourage "host" from posting long articles. Those who believe that they can simply "google" information for themselves, miss the point that much of what I post is time sensitive and stored in a "pay per article" private archive, soon after I post it here.

Host,

While I understand that you find it important to share news sources with the readers of the politics board, I also understand why the moderators respond to you the way they do. I will be the first to admit that I cringe when I see you have responded to a thread I am following because I absolutely know that you will have posted absurdly long quotations from half a dozen articles related to the topic being discussed, which coincidentally is always something about President Bush being corrupt.

I think you would find more support and respect if you sometimes made a post without quoting from other news sources: sometimes saying things in your own terms and providing a link is far more effective than creating a long-winded post that everyone just scrolls by.

I will close by saying that my "four-post" opener was of an article written by me. That is the difference: the article wasn't something I pulled off nytimes or CNN: I wrote it myself. Mark my words: if I ever post a similarly long article from the MSM, I will expect it to be deleted in the same manner that yours was.

I... look forward to reading more of your prophesizing about the fall of the Bush administration in the future.

Politicophile

I think the problem with Bush is the same that plagued Ulysses S. Grant during his presidency (....no, not alcoholism).

Bush and Grant both show undying loyalty to friends and work to place them in jobs they, as president, felt their friends deserved. Unfortunately, those friends are very corrupt and have used these men's kindness and loyalties to their advantage.

So while Bush is thinking he is helping friends and I truly believe he feels these friends are competent and can do the job, these friends have taken advantage of him and his blind loyalty to them.

I'll be second to admit.

Seriously, I DON'T READ LONG-ASSED NEWS QUOTES.

If you are trying to get your message out to the masses, you might want to sprinkle some humour in while you are at it.

Intelligent, (occasionally) self-depricating humour is a hit in my books. As stated in other threads, I am a Canadian Liberal (Big L); I doubt if you are trying to reach me with your message in the first place.

i was just thinking about this yesterday and how bush reminds me so much of Grant or maybe a mixture of grant and harding, honestly. grant for the loyalty to friends, harding for the cronyism and lack of intellectual curiosity.

You don't observe any competition? Maybe that's because no one else considers this forum a contest. It's a place to exchange ideas, not bash them down each others throat.

And depth and variety? Are you kidding? Every single one of your posts is regarding the current administration and how horrible they are. And how dumb everyone is who can't see it for themselves.

You call that depth and variety? I call it redundant and irritating.

Host, with Flanigan stepping aside, would I be correct in assuming that Fitzgerald won't be shelved before he completes his investigation?

Since others have discussed this topic, I will too.

Host, if I'm correct, you fled to Canada to avoid the draft during the Vietnam era.

Bearing in mind that Kennedy got us into that, and LBJ lied to escalate it, why do you have such an obsession regarding BUSH?

I've never resided outside the U.S. I refused to cooperate with selective service in the military draft during the Vietnam war.

U.S. military involvement in Vietnam began at least as far back as 1956. Kennedy took office five years later, and emphasized strengthening of special forces, and the coup that the US was involved in.....assassination of the South Vietnamese head of government, took place in 1963, a week before Kennedy died. So.....the war began under Eisenhower, it was signifigantly escalated by Johnson, and then by Nixon.

edited for content

If there was an answer to my question in there somewhere, I couldn't find it.