If it's so ineffective, why is the McCain campaign throwing everything they have at Obama after this house counting revelation? Tony Rezko, arugula eating, POW, they're his wife's houses (that makes it so much better), POW, POW. Did I mention POW?

No, this is gold and the McCain folks are dumbfounded that they let their guy go off and talk to someone without notes. Keep it up.

Posted at August 22, 2008 3:11 PM in response to Dems Open Major Populist Offensive Over McCain's Houses Gaffe

Duck hunting, huh? It should be relatively easy to figure out if this is true. What kind of gun was it and what kind of ammo did he have?

Posted at August 15, 2008 9:51 PM in response to McCain Adviser Was Arrested For Carrying A Shotgun To Work At The Capitol

Emily's List, I am sure had no idea that Tinker was such a nut case.

And that's supposed to be reassuring how? It's a tough call which is worse: that they didn't know or they did.

Backing a candidate with money when you don't know what they stand for is just plain irresponsible and asking for trouble. Besides, how could they *not* know about Tinker's latest statements or the fact that she advertised from the start that she was campaigning on Cohen not being a Christian. No, it'll take more than your assurance that Emily's list did know about Tinker.

Posted at August 8, 2008 12:30 AM in response to Tennessee Jew-Baiter Loses Primary In Landslide

Fine said it. Elston is a perfect example of it. Edmund Burke was right when he said All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Posted at July 30, 2008 11:25 PM in response to DOJ Report Shows Partisan Culture Reigned Beyond The Few Names Named

Well, from the clip above all I get is that Gonzalez said "He did not know ... he did not know ..." over and over again. I didn't hear of any corroboration. Perhaps the full testimony had some. If so, then I'm remiss for not listening to it all. But the point stands that he gave Goodling unprecedented power to make these hiring decisions with (apparently) no checks and balances on it. Did Fine ask why Gonzalez did that? Did the WH have anything to do with that decision?

Posted at July 30, 2008 11:21 PM in response to Gonzales Was Oblivious To Politicization At DOJ: IG

Of course it was on purpose. He was creating plausible deniability for himself and his buddies in the WH.

Posted at July 30, 2008 9:20 PM in response to Gonzales Was Oblivious To Politicization At DOJ: IG

He may not be a liar but he's a shitty investigator. He asks Gonzalez if he had anything to do with the politicization and takes his answer at face value. Any corroboration? Doesn't sound like he looked for any. Hell, don't we already know Gonzalez was responsinble for the new regs giving Monica Goodling the extraordinary power she had? She couldn't have pulled off this little pro-GOP hiring bamboozlement unless she was enabled by Gonzalez.

Posted at July 30, 2008 9:18 PM in response to Gonzales Was Oblivious To Politicization At DOJ: IG

Notice how Fine mostly avoided eye contact with Specter while he was lying, er, testifying? Very telling.

Posted at July 30, 2008 9:14 PM in response to Fine Says IG's Office Only Talked To One White House Official In DOJ Probe

So, being oblivious to the operation of your own office (let alone your agency) is a perfectly acceptable way to run the DOJ? That's very comforting to know. Looks to me like Alberto was simply trying to protect his plausible deniability by just not doing his job. He should be excoriated for not knowing what was going on at DOJ instead of being able to us it as a defense.

Posted at July 30, 2008 5:33 PM in response to Gonzales Was Oblivious To Politicization At DOJ: IG

So, let me get this straight. An "investigation" of this type consisted of asking former AG Gonzalez the following (in essence):

Q. So, the whole process of picking immigration judges and other DOJ personnel was corrupted by political ideology by people in YOUR OFFICE and you had no idea it was going on?

A. Correct.

Q. So, you're saying that you had no idea how the agency you were head of was, in fact, operating.

A. Correct.

Q. And there's no reason we shouldn't just take your word for all this?

A. Correct.

Q. No reason to look at your emails of phone calls with people in the Whitehouse?

A. Correct.

Q. So, Mr. Attorney General, your defense to any possible allegations about your involvement in the politicization of the DOJ is that you were simply oblivious to what was going on?

A. Correct.

OK, it sounds like you're innocent to me. Nice work.

Posted at July 30, 2008 5:29 PM in response to Fine Says IG's Office Only Talked To One White House Official In DOJ Probe