September 14, 2008

NY Times Advocates 3rd Bush Administration

After reading the NY Times rail against Sarah Palin's style of governance, making it very clear that they find it reprehensible when political appointees are replaced by incoming elected officials, I can only assume that they will protest loudly if the next President does not keep President Bush's appointees once he takes office.

It's good to know they support such a continuity in government, doesn't it?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at September 14, 2008 08:50 AM

3rd Bush term? Here's a group promoting the idea, only stepping it up a notch.

Posted by: capitano at September 14, 2008 09:33 AM

Gee, I wonder what we would find these fellators singing if we went back and checked out what they were saying when Bill and Hillery fired every one of the U.S. attorneys (including the one investigating the Whitewater irregularities)?

Posted by: emdfl at September 14, 2008 12:22 PM

I was always curious about what would be said when "President Obama" confronted the 90 odd sitting US Attorneys... you know, the ones who serve at the pleasure of the President, who Clinton fired en masse, and who, because of some obscure language in the constitution, can only NOT be fired by a President if that President's last name has less than five letters AND he is left-handed.... or something like that.

So if President Oby wanted to replace them all.... just what is the case? "Oh firing ALL of them is just peachy... firing eight of them is an impeachable outrage!" Or literally (I would bet).... "Um.... if Bush had fired them ALL when he started, we (Democrats) would have been just fine with it. (COUGH COUGH). But... um.... firing eight of them six years in was a.... a... vendetta, obviously! Yeah, that's it. A vendetta. He didn't fire them at the right time! Yeah, that's the ticket."

Sadly, as things are developing, I may never get the chance to see how President Obama and his allies deal with the issue.

So sad.

Posted by: Andrew X at September 14, 2008 02:10 PM

When did librarians and police chiefs become political appointees? I understand that as Mayor, Sara Palin had every right to fire anyone under her purview, it just seems a bit of a stretch to call them political appointees in a town of 7K people and assorted moose. I believe that these positions are filled by application and or interview through city council and the mayor's office as it is done throughout the United States, but hey- it's Alaska, what do I know?

Posted by: wilson at September 14, 2008 07:14 PM

Do NOT forget that the pushback from the firing of the US attorneys is an element of the voter fraud program of the Democrats. In each case these appointees refused to pursue evidence of voter fraud. Folks, if it weren't for fraud no Democrat would be elected dog catcher outside the Liberal Heartland (NY and SF). We might have some allies in the Hillary people on this issue. Many saw Barry cheating, applying thug tactics in the caucus states. It could be we are about through poncing around on vote fraud. Of course it took Democrats suffering from it for that to occur.

Posted by: megapotamus at September 15, 2008 09:29 AM