*official* 2008 us election thread

[Kizzak]

I would turn around and ask him how moral killing, specifically the dropping of high ordinance explosive devices, was.

[omni_paul]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

I would turn around and ask him how moral killing, specifically the dropping of high ordinance explosive devices, was.

I think he'd suggest killing someone who's attacking your country/way of life is perfectly justifiable, but putting your penis in their bottom is not.

Seems fairly arbitrary to me.

[Splendid]

Peter Pace ifb for having been my dad's XO, k?

[Daaaaave]

peter pace is a gump. you can tell just by looking at him that he's advanced by being the perfect obedient soldier more than ever showing any initiative of his own.

[Splendid]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

peter pace is a gump. you can tell just by looking at him that he's advanced by being the perfect obedient soldier more than ever showing any initiative of his own.

Tbh, that's the assessment my dad made of him, too.

[bflaff]

Wow, there's some nice pelts waiting to be mounted on a wall. I should read "The Final Days" again so I can remember how the endgame works.

From the Tuesday NYTimes:

White House Said to Prompt Firing of Prosecutors

By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON

Published: March 13, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 12 — The White House was deeply involved in the decision late last year to dismiss federal prosecutors, including some who had been criticized by Republican lawmakers, administration officials said Monday.

Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official.

The president did not call for the removal of any specific United States attorneys, said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She said she had “no indication†that the president had been personally aware that a process was already under way to identify prosecutors who would be fired.

But Ms Perino disclosed that White House officials had consulted with the Justice Department in preparing the list of United States attorneys who would be removed.

Within a few weeks of the president’s comments to the attorney general, the Justice Department forced out seven prosecutors.

Previously, the White House had said that Mr. Bush’s aides approved the list of prosecutors only after it was compiled.

The role of the president and his advisers in the prosecutor shakeup is likely to intensify calls by Congress for an investigation. It is the worst crisis of Mr. Gonzales’s tenure and provoked charges that the dismissals were a political purge threatening the historical independence of the Justice Department.

The idea of dismissing federal prosecutors originated in the White House more than a year earlier, White House and Justice officials said Monday.

In early 2005, Harriet E. Miers, then the White House legal counsel, asked a Justice Department official whether it would be feasible to replace all United States attorneys when their four-year terms expired, according to the Justice Department. The proposal came as the administration was considering which political appointees to replace in the second term, Ms. Perino said.

Ms. Miers sent her query to D. Kyle Sampson, a top aide to Mr. Gonzales, the Justice officials said. Mr. Sampson, who resigned Monday, replied that filling so many jobs at once would overtax the department. He suggested replacing a smaller group, according to e-mail messages and other memorandums compiled by the Justice Department.

Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, also had rejected the idea of replacing all the prosecutors, Ms. Perino said. But as Ms. Miers worked with Mr. Sampson on devising a list of attorneys to oust, Mr. Rove relayed to her complaints he had received that the Justice Department was not moving aggressively on voter fraud cases.

The White House continued to defend its handling of the dismissals.

“We continue to believe that the decision to remove and replace U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president was perfectly appropriate and within our discretion,†Ms. Perino said.

“We stand by the Department of Justice assertion that they identified the seven U.S. attorneys who were removed, as they have said, based on performance and managerial reasons.â€

On Monday Congressional Democrats demanded more information from the White House about the ousters, calling on Mr. Rove to testify about any discussions he had had about federal prosecutors. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said he would seek a subpoena for Mr. Rove’s testimony if he did not appear voluntarily.

Justice Department officials have said they removed the United States attorney in Arkansas earlier last year to make room for a Republican Party lawyer and onetime adviser to Mr. Rove.

In the other cases, though, the department at first denied that the dismissals were performance related, and then said they were, citing managerial problems, lack of aggressiveness and conflicts over seeking the death penalty or enforcing immigration laws.

Justice Department officials said Monday that they had only learned recently about Mr. Sampson’s extensive e-mail and memos with Ms. Miers about the prosecutors. The communications were discovered Thursday when Mr. Sampson turned over the material to officials who were assembling documents in response to Congressional requests.

The documents did not provide a clear motive for the firings. Some suggested that department officials were dissatisfied with specific prosecutors, but none cited aggressive public corruption inquiries or failure to pursue voter fraud cases as an explicit reason to remove them.

On Dec. 4, 2006, three days before the dismissals, Mr. Sampson sent an e-mail message to the White House with a copy to Ms. Miers outlining plans to carry out the firings

“We would like to execute this on Thursday, Dec. 7,†Mr. Sampson wrote. Because some United States attorneys were still in Washington attending a conference, he planned to postpone telling them they were being fired. He wrote, “We want to wait until they are back home and dispersed to reduce chatter.â€

Mr. Sampson predicted that dismissals might stir debate. “Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval,†he wrote in describing what to expect as a result of the firings. “U.S Attorneys desiring to save their jobs aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department community, likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. You should expect these efforts to be strenuous.â€

Mr. Rove’s role in expressing concerns about prosecutors had emerged in recent days. The White House acknowledged Sunday that Mr. Rove had passed on complaints to Mr. Gonzales and Ms. Miers about David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as the United States attorney in New Mexico. Mr. Rove’s role surfaced after the McClatchy Newspapers reported that a Republican Party official in New Mexico had complained to Mr. Rove in 2005 and again a year later about Mr. Iglesias’s failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation.

Concern about voter registration fraud turned political in several states in 2004 where there were close elections, including some lost narrowly by Republican candidates.

An associate of Mr. Rove said Monday that although he had learned in November that the prosecutors were being replaced, his conversation with Allen Weh, the Republican Party chairman in New Mexico, and subsequently with Mr. Gonzales, were brief exchanges at holiday parties and that they occurred after Dec. 7, when Mr. Iglesias and six other prosecutors were dismissed.

John McKay, the ousted United States attorney in Seattle, said last week while in Washington to testify before Congress that White House lawyers interviewing him for a possible federal judgeship had asked him why he had “mishandled†an investigation into voter fraud allegations in his state following the 2004 elections.

House and Senate investigators have already made clear that they want to examine exactly what role the White House, Mr. Sampson, Ms. Miers (who left the administration in January), Mr. Rove and other senior officials played in the matter. Last week, six of the fired prosecutors testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Officials said Mr. Sampson, who once worked at the Bush White House interviewing candidates for United States attorney, was largely behind the effort at the Justice Department.

This week, the United States attorney dispute will be aired on the Senate floor during debate over legislation to roll back a provision of the antiterrorism law that allows President Bush to appoint interim United States attorneys indefinitely.

Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.

The question, as Paul Krugman has noted, is only partially about why the seven were dismissed. More importantly, did any of the attorneys who kept their jobs keep them because they played ball? If the Bushies tried to influence elections by getting October surprise allegations about Democrats into the open, then they have to be toast.

I like Bush the Don, by the way. He passes on 'concerns' about certain prosecutors, and then claims to be totally unaware that a process to fire them is underway. Look, your honor, all I said was, "I hear this guy's causing trouble." I never told anyone to whack him!

[Jason the Yank]

Seattle Times localization

Former U.S. Attorney John McKay said Monday night he was "stunned" to hear President Bush told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last October that Bush had received complaints about U.S. attorneys who were not energetically investigating voter-fraud cases.

McKay doesn't know if Republican unhappiness over his handling of the 2004 election cost him his job as U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, but the new revelations contained in a Washington Post story are sure to reignite questions about McKay's dismissal and whether it was connected to Washington state's hotly contested governor's race.

"Had anyone at the Justice Department or the White House ordered me to pursue any matter criminally in the 2004 governor's election, I would have resigned," McKay said. "There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury."

The conversation between Bush and Gonzales, along with e-mails and documents that the White House plans to turn over to Congress today, suggests the firings of McKay and seven other U.S. attorneys last year may have been politically motivated, despite previous Justice Department and White House denials, according to The Washington Post.

It is not clear whether the materials shed new light on McKay's firing.

Nonetheless, Bush's concerns about voter-fraud investigations will surely heighten the spotlight on how McKay monitored the 2004 race -- and how local and federal Republican officials reacted to his inquiry.

McKay insists that top prosecutors in his office and agents from the FBI conducted a "very active" review of allegations of fraud during the election but filed no charges and did not convene a federal grand jury because "we never found any evidence of criminal conduct."

McKay detailed the work of his office in a recent interview. He spoke out because he believed Republican supporters of Dino Rossi, still bitter over his narrow loss to Democrat Christine Gregoire, continue to falsely portray him and his office as indifferent to allegations of electoral fraud.

McKay also wanted to make it clear that he pressed ahead with a preliminary investigation, despite the hesitation of Craig Donsanto, the longtime chief of the Election Crimes branch of the Department of Justice, who ultimately concurred with McKay that no federal crimes had been committed in the election.

"No controversy"

"There should be no controversy at the Department of Justice, or anywhere else in the federal government, about how the 2004 election was reviewed," McKay said.

McKay's work on the 2004 election has become a national issue since he appeared last Tuesday at hearings into the Justice Department's firings of McKay and seven other U.S. attorneys in December. McKay testified that in late-2004 or early-2005 he received a call from Ed Cassidy, then chief of staff for Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who asked about the status of ongoing investigations of voter fraud.

McKay testified that he immediately cut off the call, telling Cassidy it would be improper for him to discuss the status of any future investigations with Cassidy.

McKay also said that during a meeting last summer with former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Deputy Counsel William Kelley, to discuss McKay's candidacy to become a federal judge, he was asked to explain why some Washington state Republicans believed he "mishandled" the 2004 governor's race.

McKay described in detail what happened inside his office as controversy mounted over the 2004 balloting.

Two machine counts initially declared Rossi the winner. A third hand recount declared Gregoire the winner, by just 129 votes over Rossi.

GOP sought investigation

Republicans sued in Chelan County Superior Court to have the vote declared invalid because of tabulation errors, improper ballots and alleged fraud.

From the time Republicans filed the case in January until it went to trial in Wenatchee in late May 2005, several prominent Republicans, including former Sen. Slade Gorton and state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance, publicly called on McKay and the Justice Department to launch a criminal probe.

McKay says he and four attorneys in his office worked closely with the FBI and the Department of Justice to monitor complaints of criminal wrongdoing.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Arlen Storm, who had received special Justice Department training on election crimes before the 2004 race, did the bulk of the day-to-day work. Floyd Short, the chief of the complex crimes unit, closely supervised Storm. Short also spoke regularly with Donsanto and others in Washington, D.C.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Bartlett and Jeffrey Sullivan, former chief of the criminal division and now McKay's interim replacement as U.S. attorney, also "were directly involved," McKay said.

Bartlett and Sullivan declined to comment because of Justice Department policies that prevent them from discussing a preliminary investigation, "especially one that did not result in a publicly filed court document," said Emily Langlie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office.

Short confirmed his involvement and said McKay was himself highly engaged on election issues.

McKay said one of the first actions he took on the 2004 race came in response to a request from one of his harshest critics.

Tom McCabe, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), contacted McKay's office in late 2004 or early 2005, alleging he had evidence of forged signatures on absentee ballots cast for Gregoire.

After talking to McCabe, McKay said, he called Mark Ferbrache, supervisory special agent at the FBI, and asked him to assign Special Agent Joe Quinn to review McCabe's evidence.

McCabe confirms he received a phone call from Quinn a few days later, and McCabe sent him documents supporting his forgery allegations.

But McCabe remains dissatisfied with Quinn's response.

"[Quinn] seemed distracted, almost bothered that he was talking to me about it," McCabe said. "He never instituted an investigation; no one was ever questioned.

"It started me wondering whether the U.S. Attorney was doing his job," McCabe said.

McCabe subsequently made repeated calls on the White House to fire McKay. McKay said Quinn examined McCabe's materials "and it was not the conclusion of the FBI that they were forgeries."

An FBI spokesman declined to comment.

One of the biggest controversies of the 2004 race was the casting of hundreds of ballots by convicted felons.

McKay asked Sullivan to create a task force of federal, state and county prosecutors to look into how and why the felons voted in violation of state laws.

Ultimately, Sullivan told McKay "there was no disagreement on the task force" that a federal case could not be brought on the felon voters.

Most of the felons who voted in the 2004 election, according to McKay, received ballots in the mail from the state of Washington. Therefore, he said, it would have been extremely difficult to prove in court that they knew it was unlawful for them to vote, but did it anyway.

Prosecutors and FBI agents took notice when Republican attorney Dale Foreman said during his opening statement in the trial in Wenatchee that he had evidence of fraud in King County.

"I was shocked to see him use the words 'ballot-stuffing' because that is a crime," McKay said. "If you say that, you are ethically bound to prove that."

The team closely followed the testimony and evidence introduced at the trial but saw nothing to confirm federal crimes had taken place.

"No stone unturned"

McKay said that at the conclusion of the trial, Sullivan, Short, Ferbrache and others conducted a conference call with Foreman to see if there was any evidence of criminality that had not been introduced at the trial. "We left absolutely no stone unturned," McKay said. "We were assured by [Foreman] that he did not have any evidence."

Short confirmed the call, and its conclusions.

Foreman did not respond to calls seeking comment.

After the conclusion of the trial and the phone call with Foreman, neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the FBI received other credible evidence of federal crimes during the 2004 race.

Consequently, McKay said, "I moved on to other things."

[bflaff]

It's also irritating to know that these clowns had US attorneys running around on BS snipe hunts when there was real work to be done.

On a side note, the last time we had a mayoral election here in Philly, a story broke a month or so before the election that the mayor's office had been bugged by the feds, who were conducting a major probe of 'pay to play' misconduct. My dad's Republican friends went into full celebration mode, thinking this would swing the election to the Republican challenger.

But pops was pretty hip to the fact that the city's black voters weren't going to stand for some government conspiracy trying to take down their mayor and replace him with a white guy. He was like, "This election's over." And he was right.

Street, btw, remains unindicted. Maybe they were just trying to catch him giving away tips on where to find good pizza.

[bflaff]

So Gonzales gave a press conference this afternoon to address the attorney scandal, and said, essentially, 'I believe in accountability. I take full responsibility for this mistake... But I knew nothing about what was going on.'

I didn't hang on every word, but it appears that none of the questions were about what role Karl Rove or the President had in the firings. That boggles the mind. Apparently the DOJ beat reporters are one step up from correspondents for Teen Beat magazine.

Today's money quote, from Tony Snow, who apparently was asked about the President's role in this:

The chief White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said today that President Bush had "made no recommendations on specific individuals."

"We don't have anything to indicate the president made any calls on specific U.S. attorneys," Mr. Snow told reporters in Mexico, as Mr. Bush neared the end of his trip to South and Central America.

Look how precise the language is.

[bflaff]

To keep this US Attorney story linked, however tenuously, to the upcoming election, I'll mention that, on the day that the White House was getting killed by this FUBAR situation, Hillary decided to provoke a tabloid distraction by invoking the phrase 'vast, right wing conspiracy' again.

Wha-?

You decided to grab some headlines and make the news about you? Today? Gunh. Al Sharpton, similarly, gave Hannity something else to talk about thanks to some pseudo-beef with Obama. Translation: Obama hasn't paid me off yet.

But again, why today Al?

Let's take stock:

- Gonzales is getting hung out to dry. Money quote from Wednesday's NYTimes:

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,†one of the Republicans said.

That means Gonzales might be done within three months of the Dems getting subpoena power? That's how much you suck, buddy.

- If anyone's interested, the DOJ has released a big document dump to the House Judiciary Committee that you can download from their web page here There's plenty of damning details if you wade through them (takes about an hour maybe?). But to highlight:

Here are the standards used to judge the performances of the USAttorneys, at least the ones that Gonzales' Chief of Staff (D. Kyle Sampson, who just resigned, ofc) drew up without ever letting his boss know about it. (Ahem.)

(Quoting from an e-mail he sent Harriet Miers)

"To be clear, putting aside the question of expiring terms, the analysis on the chart I gave you is as follows:

bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.

<STRIKE>strikeout</STRIKE> = Recommend removing; weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.

nothing = No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively.

One of the most entertaining bits, however, is the strategy memo attributed to no one, entitled "Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys," so you know it was written by a lawyer. It is a very detailed listing of what needs to be done, and who needs to be notified of the changes. They're very careful because they know they're stirring up a crapstorm. The fun part:

Direct and indirect appeals of the Administration's determination to seek these resignations will likely be directed at: various White House offices, including [ various lower level people are named, as is Attorney General Gonzales. He's the highest ranking person on the list, as far as I can tell. ] Recipients of such "appeals" must respond identically:

What? U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President (there is no right, nor should there be any expectation, that U.S. Attorneys would be entitled to serve beyond their four-year term).

Who decided? The Administration made the determination to seek the resignations (not any specific person at the White House or Department of Justice).

Why me? The Adminsitration is grateful for your service, but wants to give someone else the chance to serve in your district.

Who decided? The Administration. Can I talk to this Administration? Who do you want? The Administration. Who's on first?

It is also notable that the plans for executing this plan all note that the AG (Gonzales) will make a call to notify Senator Kyl (AZ) that his USA has been fired when the calls letting attorneys know they've been fired are being made simultaneously. So, is it plausible that on the day of the hit, these underlings were going to walk up to Gonzales, hand him a phone, and tell him to just read what they'd written down for him? (Hmm, don't answer that.) Yeah, no. I think he knew what was being cooked up, even if he staffed out the details.

Who signed off on this plan?

We're a go for the US Atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes.

Ha ha. Good luck keeping this limited to DOJ, or Harriet Miers.

Apparently, according to the background memos that Sampson had prepared for everyone, US Attorneys serve 4 year terms. Thus, they expire at the end of the President's first term. In both Reagan and Clinton's tenures (the last two-term presidents, and thus the only ones affected by this problem in the last few decades) they let the USAs stay on indefinitely -- that is, until the end of their presidencies. So Bush was at least breaking precedent.

But it also appears true that the 'serve at the pleasure of the President' excuse is airtight, even if it is a lame 'get out of jail free' card that covers everything. The problem for the White House is that the reasons for the firing, which should be 'STFU, it's within the President's rights to do this, and he did it', got out in the open instead, and it looks like the Attorneys were fired for an enormously shady reason: because they didn't carry enough water for Republicans. Asked whether or not there was any criminal misconduct in doing this, one talking head on TV said that there weren't any specific statutes that knew to be violated, but only because this was the sort of thing that no one would ever contemplate happening.

So conventional wisdom says that Bush, Rove and other big heads may be safe from any criminal wrongdoing, but what they did was so obviously wrong that they have to be punished for it...?

We'll see. Apologies is this is tl;dr.

[Jason the Yank]

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rejected growing calls for his resignation Tuesday as scores of newly released documents detailed a two-year campaign by the Justice Department and White House to purge federal prosecutors.

Gonzales acknowledged his department mishandled the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys and misled Congress about how they were fired. He said he was ultimately to blame for those "mistakes" but stood by the firings.

"I acknowledge that mistakes were made here," Gonzales told reporters at a news briefing after he canceled an out-of-town trip. "I accept that responsibility." He promised changes "so that the mistakes that occurred in this instance do not occur again in the future."

He focused on his department's dealings with Congress concerning the firings rather than the actual dismissals — which Democrats have suggested were politically motivated — and the planning behind them.

"I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when I provide information to the Congress that it's accurate and that it's complete. And I am very dismayed that that may not have occurred here," he said.

Gonzales also accepted the resignation of his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. The aide, along with then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, had begun discussing possible firings of U.S. attorneys in early 2005, according to e-mails released Tuesday.

It was the second time in as many weeks that Gonzales was under fire. Last week, the attorney general and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller admitted the FBI improperly, and at times illegally, used the USA Patriot Act to secretly pry out personal information about Americans in terrorism investigations.

Gonzales, himself a former White House counsel, has been friends with President Bush for years, going back to when he served as Bush's secretary of state in Texas. Bush retains full confidence in the attorney general, said spokesman Dan Bartlett, traveling with Bush in Mexico.

"He's a standup guy," Bartlett said of Gonzales.

As for the firings, Bartlett said White House officials had heard complaints from members of Congress regarding prosecutors and Bush had raised the subject during an October 2006 meeting with Gonzales. He described the exchange as "offhand" and said Bush did not name any specific prosecutors but did identify their states.

"This briefly came up and the president said, 'I've been hearing about this election fraud issue from members of Congress and want to be sure you're on top of it as well,'" Bartlett said.

Bartlett said Gonzales responded, "I know and we're looking at those issues."

Democrats clamored for Gonzales' to resign. Republicans also said they were outraged at being misled over the circumstances of the firings. GOP Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Judiciary Committee member, said the situation could cause Gonzales to "die by a thousand cuts."

For nearly two months, Democrats have accused the Justice Department of playing politics with the prosecutors' jobs. They suggested some of the U.S. attorneys were fired for either investigating Republicans or failing to pursue cases against Democrats. Several ousted prosecutors have told Congress they were improperly pressured by Republicans on pending cases.

Top Justice officials, including Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, have maintained in congressional testimony the dismissals were based on the prosecutors' performance, not politics. The fired prosecutors headed the U.S. attorneys' offices in Albuquerque, N.M.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Las Vegas; Little Rock, Ark.; Phoenix; San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

The e-mails released Tuesday revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials. The issue first arose in a February 2005 discussion between Sampson and Miers, officials said. At the time, Miers suggested the possibility of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Such purges of the political appointees often come at the beginning of a new president's administration, not midway through.

The e-mails show Sampson discouraged the across-the-board housecleaning but began a review to weed out prosecutors whom the administration deemed to be performing poorly.

In a Sept 13, 2006, e-mail to Miers, Sampson listed one prosecutor, Bud Cummins in Little Rock, as "in the process of being pushed out." Five others — in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, San Diego and Seattle — were listed as U.S attorneys "we should now consider pushing out."

Four days later, Miers responded: "Kyle, thanks for this. I have not forgotten I need to follow up on the info but things have been crazy."

Sampson then drew up an elaborate five-step plan to replace the targeted prosecutors with as little political fallout as possible, which he sent in a Nov. 15, 2006, e-mail to Miers, deputy White House counsel William K. Kelley and McNulty.

"We'll stand by for a green light from you," Sampson wrote to Miers and Kelley. Upon getting their approval, Sampson wrote, he asked that they "circulate it to Karl's shop" — which officials confirmed was a reference to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser and deputy chief of staff.

White House approval came a month later.

"We're a go for the US Atty plan," Kelley wrote in a Dec. 4, 2006, e-mail to Sampson and Miers. "WH leg, political, communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."

The term "WH leg" refers to the White House office of legislative affairs, which deals with Congress. Copies of dozens of Sampson's e-mails to various White House and Justice Department officials were released by Congress and the Justice Department.

They also included documents from J. Scott Jennings, the White House deputy political director, who e-mailed Sampson about the Little Rock prosecutor's replacement from an address with a "gwb43.com" domain name. That domain is registered to the Republican National Committee, according to a Network Solutions tracking system.

Cummins told television station KTHV in Little Rock on Tuesday: "It's a serious mistake to allow the political people from the White House and other parts of government to get inside the doors of the Department of Justice. There are huge issues at stake there and I'm afraid it's happened now and the damage is done."

Democrats on House and Senate judiciary panels said they would subpoena Miers, Rove and other White House and Justice Department officials if necessary to have them testify about the reasons for the firings.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., renewed his call for Gonzales to resign and was joined by a host of other Democrats, including national party chairman Howard Dean and presidential hopeful John Edwards of North Carolina.

"This purge was based purely on politics, to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans," Schumer said. "Attorney General Gonzales has either forgotten the oath he took to uphold the Constitution or just doesn't understand that his duty to protect the law is greater than his duty to protect the president."

Among Democrats calling for Gonzales' resignation were presidential candidates Sen.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards. "The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" being aired Wednesday morning.

Republicans also joined in the criticism.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said the dismissal of the U.S. attorney in Las Vegas was "completely mishandled by the United States attorney general." And Sensenbrenner warned that the Justice Department was "going to have to come up with some answers" in explaining the firings.

"If they don't, they're going to lose everyone's confidence," Sensenbrenner said. "What I'd like to hear is the truth."

[bflaff]

Wednesday's editorial in the NYTimes, which offers one-stop shopping for the highlits so far (better then I did). I'll c'n'p it so you don't have to register just to read it.

Politics, Pure and Cynical

Published: March 14, 2007

We wish we’d been surprised to learn that the White House was deeply involved in the politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, but the news had the unmistakable whiff of inevitability. This disaster is just part of the Bush administration’s sordid history of waving the bloody bullhorn of 9/11 for the basest of motives: the perpetuation of power for power’s sake.

Time and again, President Bush and his team have assured Americans that they needed new powers to prevent another attack by an implacable enemy. Time and again, Americans have discovered that these powers were not being used to make them safer, but in the service of Vice President Dick Cheney’s vision of a presidency so powerful that Congress and the courts are irrelevant, or Karl Rove’s fantasy of a permanent Republican majority.

In firing the prosecutors and replacing them without Senate approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took advantage of a little-noticed provision that the administration and its Republican enablers in Congress had slipped into the 2006 expansion of the Patriot Act. The ostensible purpose was to allow the swift interim replacement of a United States attorney who was, for instance, killed by terrorism.

But these firings had nothing to do with national security — or officials’ claims that the attorneys were fired for poor performance. This looks like a political purge, pure and simple, and President Bush and his White House are in the thick of it.

Earlier, the White House insisted that it had approved the list of fired United States attorneys after it was compiled. Now it admits that White House officials helped prepare it. Harriet Miers, the White House counsel whom Mr. Bush tried to elevate to the Supreme Court, originally wanted to replace all 93 attorneys with Republican appointees.

The White House still says Mr. Bush was not involved in the firings, but newly released documents show that he personally fielded a senator’s political complaint about David Iglesias, who was fired as United States attorney in New Mexico. The papers suggest that the United States attorney in Arkansas was fired just to put a Rove protégé in his place, and a plan was mapped out by administration officials to “run out the clock†if lawmakers objected.

Among the documents is e-mail sent to Ms. Miers by Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, ranking United States attorneys on factors like “exhibited loyalty.†Small wonder, then that United States Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego was fired. She had put one Republican congressman, Duke Cunningham, in jail and had opened an inquiry that put others at risk, along with party donors.

More disturbing details have come out about Mr. Iglesias’s firing. We knew he was ousted six weeks after Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, made a wildly inappropriate phone call in which he asked if Mr. Iglesias intended to indict Democrats before last November’s election in a high-profile corruption scandal. We now know that Mr. Domenici took his complaints to Mr. Bush.

After Mr. Iglesias was fired, the deputy White House counsel, William Kelley, wrote in an e-mail note that Mr. Domenici’s chief of staff was “happy as a clam.†Another e-mail note, from Mr. Sampson, said Mr. Domenici was “not even waiting for Iglesias’s body to cool†before getting his list of preferred replacements to the White House.

Given what’s in those documents, it was astonishing to hear Mr. Gonzales continue to insist yesterday that he had no personal knowledge of discussions involving the individual attorneys. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, was right on the mark when he said that if Mr. Gonzales didn’t know what Mr. Sampson was doing, “he doesn’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on†at his department. Fortunately, last year’s election left Democrats like Mr. Schumer in the majority, with subpoena power. Otherwise, this and so many other scandals might never have come to light.

Mr. Gonzales, who has shown why he was such an awful choice for this job in the first place, should be called under oath to resolve the contradictions and inconsistencies in his story. Mr. Gonzales is willing to peddle almost any nonsense to the public (witness his astonishingly maladroit use of the Nixonian “mistakes were made†dodge yesterday). But lying to Congress under oath is another matter.

The Justice Department has been saying that it is committed to putting Senate-confirmed United States attorneys in every jurisdiction. But the newly released documents make it clear that the department was making an end run around the Senate — for baldly political reasons. Congress should broaden the investigation to determine whether any other prosecutors were forced out for not caving in to political pressure — or kept on because they did.

There was, for example, the decision by United States Attorney Chris Christie of New Jersey to open an investigation of Senator Bob Menendez just before his hotly contested re-election last November. Republicans, who would have held the Senate if Mr. Menendez had lost, used the news for attack ads. Then there was the career United States attorney in Guam who was removed by Mr. Bush in 2002 after he started investigating the superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. The prosecutor was replaced. The investigation was dropped.

In mid-December 2006, Mr. Gonzales’s aide, Mr. Sampson, wrote to a White House counterpart that using the Patriot Act to fire the Arkansas prosecutor and replace him with Mr. Rove’s man was risky — Congress could revoke the authority. But, he wrote, “if we don’t ever exercise it, then what’s the point of having it?â€

If that sounds cynical, it is. It is also an accurate summary of the governing philosophy of this administration: What’s the point of having power if you don’t use it to get more power?

[Jason the Yank]

Wonkette can be absolutely brilliant at times:

Ok, so the White House fired eight US Attorneys for sketchy political reasons. Everyone caught up? It seems, in hindsight, like a remarkably stupid decision, especially now that the congressional Dems are firing up the subpoenas and calling for Alberto Gonzales’ head. (Justifying torture? We’ll let that slide. Fire a lawyer, though, and you’re in deep ****, Mister.)

:lmao:

[Daaaaave]

just heard word that the congressional black caucus will go with cnn for coverage of their debate. :*)

fofn

[Gordon Comstock]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/

PWNT

[bflaff]

AJ, I'll save you the trouble: Obama will win.

That said,

Poll: Clinton leads Obama by double digits

Clinton has a 15 point lead over Obama in CNN/Opinion Research Corporation's latest poll.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, D- New York, has a 15-point edge over Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday finds.

Clinton registered at 37 percent -- three percentage points higher than a similar CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted in January. Obama drew 22 percent -- a four-point increase from the January poll.

Former Vice President Al Gore, at 14 percent, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, at 12 percent, rounded out the candidates polling in double digits. The rest of the field drew a combined six percentage points.

The poll also finds that if Gore chooses not to run for president, most of his supporters will go over to Clinton. If Gore is not in the race, Clinton draws 44 percent, seven percent higher than if Gore did run. Edwards improves his showing by four percentage points and Obama by one in a Gore-less field.

The seemingly good-ish news for AJ is that Obama's gains from the last poll are more than Hillary's, barely (+4% vs. +3%) but considering the poll's margin of error is probably around +/- 4%, that's not saying much at all. More to the point, Gore's people right now are also Hillary people (and apparently not Obama people at all), and it looks like Clinton and Obama are currently crowding out the rest of the field.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/

PWNT

Ha, the US section of this week's Economist was all about Scooter and Walter Reed and I was thinking, "wow, that really was only last week."

This has long been my pop theory for why no scandals have stuck with Bush. Even if you wanted to investigate the details of any particular smeg up, you get distracted by the six more that pop up over the few days.

[bflaff]

Just saw this headline:

Republican says Gonzales should be fired

It's a Senator, and he's the first Republican to make this call. Can you guess who?

Answer here

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., predicted Wednesday that Gonzales would lose his job.

"I think he is gone. I don't think he'll last long," Reid said in an interview with Nevada reporters. Asked how long, Reid responded: "Days."

Not before he testifies on Capitol Hill, please. That could be a classic train wreck.

[Jason the Yank]

Originally posted by bflaff:

Just saw this headline:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Republican says Gonzales should be fired

It's a Senator, and he's the first Republican to make this call. Can you guess who?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guessed wrong.

[Daaaaave]

I guessed right. probably the most vulnerable 08 republican.

chump.

[Kizzak]

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign had no comment on the new 527, known as “Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.†It is founded by the same veterans who ran an Internet information campaign against Kerry in 2004, “Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.â€

Vietnam veterans Jerry Kiley and Ted Sampley filed with the IRS late last month and recently launched a website with the “express purpose of defeating John McCain.†In contrast to the 2004 election, the group plans to run ads on television and radio in addition to its Web-based approach.

In 2004, the group made a splash by publicizing pictures of Kerry at anti-war protests in the 1970s, including one showing him several rows behind Jane Fonda. It claims credit for originating many of the attacks used by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth later in the campaign.

Sampley has compared McCain to the brainwashed “Manchurian Candidate†and is highly critical of McCain’s actions after his return home from Vietnam. Sampley calls himself “the one McCain hates most†and has a long history of battling McCain, including a conviction in the early 1990s for assaulting McCain aide Mark Salter.

“He has a false, media-created image of himself, and we want to correct that,†said Sampley, who publishes the U.S. Veteran Dispatch newspaper. The paper is not associated with the 527 and has endorsed Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.).

In a 2004 New York Times article, McCain called Sampley “one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.â€

“I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit,†McCain said. “He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans.â€

McCain to get the swiftboat treatment.

[Daaaaave]

mccain probably could have received some very public support from kerry if he hadn't thrown kerry under the bus in that whole "joke" scandal.

[Guest]

I'd like to know why Newt Gingrich thinks he has a chance despite not intending to announce until October.

[Daaaaave]

rudy, mitt and mccain aren't hardcore conservative enough, so as republicans sour on each of them as the smears and their records come out, newt will arrive late on his white horse to save the party. no time for the other candidates to smear him and the party would be desperate for a champion.

[finneys13]

US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama can now count himself as one of the millions of Americans with Irish heritage.

Research by the genealogy website ancestry.co.uk reveals that Mr Obama's great great great grandfather was born in Ireland, although it is not yet known where.

Falmouth Kearney sailed from Ireland to New York in 1850 at the age of 19 on the S.S. Marmion arriving on the 20th of March.

Advertisement

He initially settled in Ohio, got married, had eight children, and later moved to Indiana, right next door to the state Obama currently represents in the US Senate.

Falmouth was part of the great American migration to escape the 1840s potato famine in Ireland.

Mr Obama's father was from Kenya, while his mother grew up in Kansas.

'A great deal has been made of Obama's Kenyan roots, however his European ancestry has until now been overlooked', said Ancestry.co.uk Managing Director Simon Harper.

If Mr Obama gets elected, he would be the first multiracial US president in history - and join a long list of those with Irish ancestry including Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and of course, John F. Kennedy.

Ronald Reagan's great-grandfather, Michael O'Reagan, was born in Ireland in the 1820s. John F. Kennedy's great-grandfather, Patrick Kennedy is said to have come from Dunganstown, Co. Wexford, while Bill Clinton's maternal ancestors are said to have come from Co. Fermanagh.

Sad isn't? All these American Presidents wanting to be 'Irish' to gain extra votes

[Daaaaave]

uh...1) due to america's polyglot, especially on the east coast hubs where immigrants first landed, the number of people with some small amount of irish in them approaches 100%. my puerto rican wife's maiden name was o'neill ffs.

2) there's nothing in that article that stated obama was seeking this heritage, but rather some dodgy genealogy website dug it up.

[finneys13]

I know, but it will still be used to show 'look, he's Irish', even when he is less Irish as Muhammed Ali.

[RedefiningForm]

Why should ancestry even begin to matter in a presidential race?

[Daaaaave]

or it could be an attempt by some random website to earn itself a little st paddy's day buzz by riding obama's coattails.

attention: obama might be the nation's first black president. no one gives a **** if he's 1/75th oirish.

[Kizzak]

Iowa threatening to hold caucus on New Year's Eve \o/

That's about the only thing that could make the process any more absurd.

[bflaff]

We have lost cabin pressure... /o\

California moves primary to February

By LAURA KURTZMAN, Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Thursday moved the presidential primary of the nation's most populous state to February, shaking up the 2008 race and making a one-day, mega-primary increasingly likely.

"Now California is important again in presidential nominating politics ... and we will get the respect that California deserves," Schwarzenegger said during a bill-signing ceremony.

California has not played a prominent role in a presidential primary since 1972, when George McGovern beat Hubert Humphrey for the Democratic nomination. Schwarzenegger is hoping that by moving the presidential primary from June to Feb. 5, the state will again play a significant role.

California is one of as many as two dozen states that have selected Feb. 5 — or are considering that date — for one or both of their Democratic or Republican primaries or caucuses. Other states that have already set that date for their primary are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho (Democrats only), Missouri, and Utah. Also, New Mexico Democrats have set their presidential caucus for Feb. 5, and the West Virginia GOP plans to hold its state convention, where selects presidential candidates, on that date.

The prospect of an early primary has already prompted presidential candidates from both parties to add California to their itineraries, along with the handful voting states that lead off the nomination contests in January: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

Democratic political consultant Jenny Backus said the rush of states to move forward to Feb. 5 only increases the importance for candidates to get a win in the early nominating states in January.

"To go to California, you are going to need a huge head of steam," she said. "California moving up actually makes more attention go on the first lap. Even if you have all the money in the world, it will be hard to catch up to somebody who has racked up some victories in the first states."

She said the move is not good for democracy because it compacts a primary election that helps weed out weaker candidates and energize voters.

"It's very disappointing to see all these states to try to front-load the process," Backus said. "I think the party and the process got stronger in 2004 by trying to stretch out the calendar."

Republican candidates John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and Rudy Giuliani have appeared at Schwarzenegger's side during campaign trips to California.

"Before the election, it's already accomplished what we set out to do: The candidates for president are already in California. They're already talking with us. Before they would just come, raise money and leave," said Democratic state Sen. Ron Calderon, a sponsor of the measure.

Many Republicans, particularly in the state Assembly, opposed moving up the primary, saying it would cost counties too much money to hold an extra election. But as he signed the bill, Schwarzenegger pledged to reimburse counties for the cost, which local officials estimate between $60 million and $90 million.

___

Associated Press writer Nedra Pickler in Washington contributed to this report.

[bflaff]

Somehow this line got cut off when I set the boldface:

Among the 15 other states considering moving their contests to Feb. 5 are Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Texas.

So basically almost every big (electoral) state wants to go on the 5th.

*Huge* advantage for anyone who has enough money to wage a nation-wide primary campaign. *cough* Hillary. *cough*

[Jason the Yank]

In other news, the sky is blue:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback is backing the Pentagon's top general over his remarks that homosexuality is immoral.

The Kansas senator planned to send a letter on Thursday to President Bush supporting Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who earlier this week likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs also said: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."

Lawmakers of both parties criticized the remarks, but Brownback's letter called the criticism "both unfair and unfortunate."

"We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues," Brownback said. "In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views."

Asked whether he agreed with Pace's comments, Brownback said: "I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I'm a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this."

While there is no indication that Pace's job is in jeopardy, Brownback's letter to Bush said "personal moral beliefs" should not disqualify anyone from a position of leadership in the U.S. military.

"General Pace's recent remarks do not deserve the criticism they have received," the letter said. "In fact, we applaud General Pace for maintaining a personal commitment to moral principles."

Pace said he supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy" in which gay service members are required to keep their sexual orientation private. Brownback on Thursday said "don't ask, don't tell" is "an appropriate policy."

Brownback, a favorite of the religious right, has been a prominent opponent of gay marriage.

Brownback spokesman Brian Hart said the senator was working Thursday to get other lawmakers to sign his letter. Hart said Brownback's office would not disclose who has signed on to the letter until there is "a final count."

On his campaign bus in Iowa on Thursday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declined to comment when asked whether he agreed with Gen. Peter Pace's comment that homosexuality was immoral. He said he still backs the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. "It's working."

[Gordon Comstock]

Obama will win.

[Jason the Yank]

WASHINGTON - White House political adviser Karl Rove raised questions in early 2005 about replacing some federal prosecutors but allowing others to stay, an e-mail released Thursday shows. The one-page document, which incorporates an e-mail exchange in January 2005, also indicates Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.

In other news, sun rose in east

[Jason the Yank]

Guess who becomes the 2nd Republican to call for Gonzalez to go?

Hint: tangential connection to OTF

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

WASHINGTON - White House political adviser Karl Rove raised questions in early 2005 about replacing some federal prosecutors but allowing others to stay, an e-mail released Thursday shows. The one-page document, which incorporates an e-mail exchange in January 2005, also indicates Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.

In other news, sun rose in east </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the kids who like to read the documents, the only link I found was from abcnews.com, which apprently broke the story. link.

Just scroll down the page. The link to the document should be in the middle of the news story.

[Jason the Yank]

Giuliani gets the endorsement of the Police Officers Association of Michigan.

Linkage

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

Guess who becomes the 2nd Republican to call for Gonzalez to go?

Hint: tangential connection to OTF

at this rate, collins will be next. then coleman.

[Kizzak]

Any candidates blatantly pandering to the potato vote today?

[Jason the Yank]

Rudy was at the St. Paddy's Day parade in NYC.

[Kizzak]

That's not really a surprise, I was hoping more for the hilarity of Hil-bamaniacs being at the same parade but one being a mile down the road and/or Walnuts and friends showing up somewhere.

At least Kucinich in a leprechaun costume would have been a picture for the ages :*)

Actually, I think that sounds like a great shorthand for both candidates/supporters. From here on out, all Hillary/Obama lovers will aggregately be referred to as Hilbamaniacs by me.

America, Whatcha gonna do when Hilbamania runs wild on you?

[Jason the Yank]

So does that make AJ a Hilbamaniac? Cool.

[BamaZeus]

Forget Kucinich, could you imagine Perot in a leprechaun costume?

"Now are you gonna let me finish? Here on my pie chart, I have all the gold broken down into how much gold we'll lose to Mexico and Guatemala if we pass NAFTA. I am going to make sure that the pot of gold stays right here in America where it belongs"

[Jason the Yank]

Gore on the Un-Campaign Trail

Newsweek

March 26, 2007 issue - Since the documentary he starred in, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Academy Award, speculation has only increased about Al Gore's potential entry into the presidential race. He is not taking any overt steps toward running, and that may be the cleverest strategy of all. A Democratic strategist sent Gore a memo sometime ago suggesting he announce, but forgo the traditional campaign trail and continue promoting the cause of global warming. He would be the nonpolitical candidate. Word came back: Gore isn't running. But in fact he is. Whether it results in an official run depends on what the field looks like six months from now. Laurie David, who helped bankroll Gore's film, and whose "personal fantasy" is that he run, says that when she presses him, he's always coy and says his cell phone is breaking up. "I believe him when he says he doesn't have any intention of running," David told NEWSWEEK. "But I also believe the door is not completely shut."

As part of his noncampaign, the former VP is returning this week to Capitol Hill for the first time since he left the White House to testify before the House and Senate about global warming. Gore will warn that the problem is accelerating so fast that any solution must be more than incremental. "The danger is they'll do some small fix that allows them to claim credit without facing up to the problem," says an adviser who did not want to be on the record seeming to disparage Congress.

A leading indicator of his intentions could be Gore's waistline. The theory is that slimming down will be a signal he intends to run. "He has lost a few pounds, and Hillary can read into that what she wants," says a longtime adviser who declined to be identified discussing his boss's figure. Gore has always been a voracious eater, and at 58, the pounds don't come off so easily. He is trying to be healthier, working out daily when he can.

Gore is also finishing a book that sure seems like a prelude to something. "The Assault on Reason," to be published in May, is about "the forces in society that are undermining democracy," says Roy Neel, Gore's chief of staff. The manuscript has gone through three rewrites in the past month because of new Bush administration scandals. Gore undoubtedly knows that he'd lose his iconic status the minute he got in the race. But Earth Day is coming up. Laurie David and Sheryl Crow will lead a college tour that will culminate with a rally in Washington. Perfect setting for a presidential announcement, but Gore won't be there. He'll be conducting a virtual reunion of the thousand "climate messengers" he has trained to carry on his crusade.

[Gordon Comstock]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

So does that make AJ a Hilbamaniac? Cool.

Obamaniac tbh.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

So does that make AJ a Hilbamaniac? Cool.

Obamaniac tbh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The combined Hillary and Obama manias merged into one general Hilbamania. Especially when the primaries get closer and they chase each other around the country.

[Gordon Comstock]

but I hate Hilary.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

but I hate Hilary.

And Hillary lovers hate Obama.

Hence even more of a reason to aggregate the two together.

[Gordon Comstock]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

but I hate Hilary.

And Hillary lovers hate Obama.

Hence even more of a reason to aggregate the two together. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hillary haters > Obama haters.

spelled it Hilary ffs, pitiful.