In other words, the concept of accountability has gone down the tubes. Party loyalty trumps accountability to the American public.

...And both parties are loyal to the same sets of moneybags.

...and never mind the dead in the military they just don’t count politically class wise being mostly blue color white and black working class who can't find a good job as their potential jobs have been exported for extra profit by the greed centered global elite, who try to disguise themselves as international humanitarians and democracy lovers(democracy is the very last thing they want). Some of those young people also enlisted to get some College money as working your way through college isn't much of an option any more thanks to economic elitist's greedy policies that put a higher education economically out of reach for most o their class. What those young people in the military are not is the children and grandchildren of the elite running the country right now, who obviously don’t give a damned how many of those young people they kill in pursuit of their polices which serve their desires and needs not the country’s.

...and seventy-five percent of Americans, THREE OUT OF FOUR, do not want illegals allowed amnesty or to stay illegally in the country but the leadership of both parties are trying to ram a bill that does that down our throats. We are told terrorism is a big threat yet the same fear mongers want to leave our border wide opened to terrorists, criminals, and all sorts of loathsome diseases that are carried in by a fool of illegals. Truth is, those elitist bastards know just how much of a threat terrorists really are and they likely control some of them.

Democracy is dead in America, killed by big campaign financing, a monopolized media, and crooked voting machines put in place by the elite who run the media and the congress by the power of money.

Jefferson recommended a political revolution about every twenty years...we are about thirty-seven years over due.

Whitman is also a very vocal spokeperson for Nuclear Energy.

Increased nuclear power urged
Tallahassee.com, FL - May 30, 2007
By Bruce Ritchie Nuclear energy is a clean and safe alternative that should play a greater role in Florida's energy future, Christine Todd Whitman, ...

Bryan must have had an uncanny ability to foresee the future if he resigned over Wilson's decision to go to war in 1917. He resigned in 1915.

'The Environment' is just one more stick to smack the public over the head with, if they spent all that money and energy into actually DEVELOPING eco-friendly technology that did the jobs that people need done by various current forms of technology, there'd be nothing to argue about, and you probably wouldn't need some bureaucrat metering out monies to political groups to keep playing these stupid games.
Example: Place I used to work at went on this eco-kick, and we had to sit and listen(politely) while this guy yammered on for an age about chemicals etc. Well, had all that money and time been spent getting the Good Stuff, the eco-green stuff, on the shelf where the employees could use it, that would have satisfied both the needs for expediency of a functioning business as well as the environmental concerns. My secret suspicion is that some of these eco-twits work FOR the oil companies, because the oil companies know that when two people are fighting, the third one's happy, and they make money regardless because, at the end of the day, the public is a captive audience(you're just one of Bernanke's 'consumers', remember), that's stuck buying what's put in front of em. So, most effective answer? Reduce the bureaucracy here by about 85%, and actually talk to folks like Johnson Wax etc. about developing green products that are safer to use, there's that Simple Green stuff, I think they make, and there's other direct straightforward solutions that can be gotten into production, and there's always the 'retro' approach, hot soapy water, and lots of it, water being the Universal Solvent, and all, so part of it is that a lot of redundant junk gets sold to people that they really don't need. That's money though, start messing with people's revenue streams, and they're likely to get mad, but while we're talking about money, go ahead and talk about all these people in these enviro-jobs, making mad money for pontificating about the little fishies instead of actually doing something to effect positive change. Anyone can give speeches, publish literature, rant and rave on the internet, and everyone wants to get back to nature, but nobody wants to walk. I say, if you don't like electricity and clean clothes, sit in the dark and stink, and while you're at it, eat cold food, or, OR, innovate, and figure out ways to do the things that need to be done and sell that to the public instead. Again, people will use what's available, what's put in front of em, for lack of anything better as an alternative. And, if it's so important to do this, then by golly let's see every town across the country go to their city council, and put in an ethanol pump at the local gas station, for example. Technology's out there, question is how bad people really want to do this, and how much of it is just a political sideshow...I still wouldn't put it past these oil people to be playing both sides of the fence, here...

There are a couple of holes in this story. First, everyone--apparently, except for Rosenberg--knew at the time why she was quitting. More specifically, she made it known more subtly and quit to stay one step ahead of the ax that was coming down anyway.

Second, we all know what happened to administration members--or other Republicans, for that matter--who dared to denounce the administration or to reveal damaging information. Somehow, they would suddenly become "Democrats" in the media.

What concerns me about Whitman is something else--not related to her resignation, but related to the NYC decisions. The EPA was decimated on her watch. Placing a Cheney-friendly figurehead in charge of the EPA was just gravy--there was little substance left in the agency by the time Whitman resigned. If she were serious about her principles, she would have made sure that weasels did not take over all the posts below hers--she would have demanded that honest, knowledgeable people be placed throughout the agency. Of course, that's a pipe dream in this administration, but that's no excuse. If this really was about principles, standing firm would have been more important than keeping low profile in a high-profile job.

Does the phrase public service mean anything anymore? Who did Whitman work for exactly?

Until the last coal plant shuts down, I find myself in agreement with her on this...

Who signed her paychecks?

Clearly nobody at the cabinet or subcabinet level has shown a semblance of principle or backbone. In this administration, loyalty to Bush has always trumped loyalty to the country or to the official's oath of office.
However let's not forget that there have been some outstanding low-level career individuals whom we should honor. My personal favorite was John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat of 20 years, who publicly resigned over the disastrous and deceptive post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush administration.
Then there was General Antonio Taguba, who conducted the initial Abu Ghraib investigation and wrote a devastating report, from which he refused to back down, even though he was quite clear that he was destroying his career. No public resignation, but an insistence on principle that took even more stamina and courage.
So, we do have a few inspiring examples. At the top these days there are only sycophants.

I suspect the President and Cheney's declining power are the primary reason people like Whitman are now coming forward.

It's easy to criticize her for not speaking up publicly before, but remember how viscious and powerful these people were in 2003.

They had no qualms with smearing and ruining people who publicly attacked them, and they were often successful in potraying people like Richard Clark and the former Treasury Secretary, whose name escapes me, as partisan, crazy or morally tainted.

While we and she may wish she had more courage at the time, I can also understand choosing not to go through that.

Today, the ability of the President and VP to successfully hammer people like that is much diminished, which provides us with a lesson.

If you want people to come forward, make it safe for them to come forward.

Link:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/031203h1.htm

And who freaking provides the money that is in the budget?  Do you truly believe that the EPA director is beholden to the party who appoints her, or to the American people?  Oh, well.  Your poorly constructed answer says it all:

The money is simply part of an authorized budget. That why we say, "In God We Trust?"

What does this have to do with the federal budget? 

"In God We Trust?" 

Jan