BrainOC and Bearpaw:

 The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President

That is precisely my point.  As you both stated (correctly), Gonzales is acting primarily and perhaps even solely as advocate for the executive rather than that as an advisor.  His testimony yesterday underscored that he is not acting as the chief law enforcement official for the Unite States or he would have advised the president that this program in all likelihood would run afoul of both the 4th Amendment and FISA.  At that point, he should have given advice to seek full congressional approval (i.e. some statute change) that the current rubberstamp congress would have fallen over itself to pass.  Since that advice was either given and not heeded or not given at all as congressional approval seemed unlikely, my feeling is that this program is knowingly outside current law.

Because he is incapable of independent advice and adherence to the law, he is clearly not qualified to hold the position of Attorney General.  I believe Senator Feingold would agree.

Posted at February 7, 2006 11:35 AM in response to WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Senator Feingold,

Thanks (again) for leading the charge to expose the greatest threat to our democracy - a charge to imperialism from within.  I watched yesterday's procedings and wondered why is it that so many republicans are acting as representatives of the executive brance rather than that of their constituents?  Furthermore, time and time again, I heard the attorney general speak as if he were lead counsel for the executive - am I incorrect in my understanding that he is supposed to be the lead law enforcement official for the citizens?

Clearly laws have been broken.  If this official is unwilling or unable to do his job, he should be removed.

Posted at February 7, 2006 9:21 AM in response to WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

So...here we have yet another republican embroiled in a ethical dilemma that most Americans wouldn't find themselves in.  (Truth be told, if someone offered me 1.675 cash for my fixer-upper, I would be making coffee and pie to serve with the closing papers.  But I'm not in Congress, either...)
We have Ohio's coin scandal; DeLay's apparent inability to say no to lobby money; and now Rep. Cunningham's good fortune in the real estate market.  The question unanswered is this: at what point does the American public (or press or whatever) point to the elephant that the repubs are attempting to hide behind a ficus tree and say "you know, there's an elephant in the room and it kinda smells bad."  This is looking far worse for the GOP than 1994 was for the Dems.  I believe that there is a large silent majority that has not attemted to shout over the punidts to express their displeasure...yet.  And the GOP's hubris may be causing them to ignore that silence at their own peril.

Posted at June 15, 2005 7:53 AM in response to Big Trubba

i see at other sites that the ratings really seem to fall into two categories: Highest and lowest.  
You get rated highest when other site citizens either agree with you or 'like' you.  Likewise, if you are too contraversial, 'unliked' or just plain lazy, you get 'troll-rated.'
There shouldn't be anything wrong with getting a 'good.'  That should probably be the default rating with 'above average' and 'excellent for better and 'okay' and 'hmmm' for worse.  There should be no shame in 'good' ratings and 'excellent' should be exceedingly rare.  As should the lowest of ratings.
Maybe an expanded post on expectations?

Posted at June 6, 2005 12:24 AM in response to Note on Comment Ratings