Schumer's Postgame Analysis

Matt, this has been driving me crazy for a while now: It's Gonzales! With an s!

Carry on...

And it's "he" without an "s." Unless this was REALLY revealing testimony.

Looks like that "say she" was supposed to be "says he," with Schumer being the one saying that Gonzales should be gone. Though it's nice to see that the usual spelling and homophone mistakes have now been joined by spacing mishaps.

I wish one of the Senators hadn't said what Schumer just said right to Gonzales. "Since you say you didn't make the decision, and none of your subordinates apparently made the decision, are we right in concluding that it was made at a higher level -- in the White House by Karl Rove or President Bush?

"had"

Gonzales is discovering that, in contrast with his relationship with Bush, submissiveness isn't enough to get him out of trouble with the Senate.

I'm waiting for the moment when some talking head makes this exact point. When is Lou Dobbs or Chris Matthews or someone else going to say the obvious? These scandals are coming out fast and furious because the republicans in the house and senate bent over and took it from the white house for years. They abdicated their oversight responsibility because it was politically convenient to do so.

We have heard over and over that democrats are doing too many investigations, or that democrats need to be careful not to push too hard on this or that investigation, or that democrats just want to embarrass the White House. When will someone make the opposite points, that republicans embarrassed themselves by ignoring their constitutional responsibilities in order to prevent the White House from looking bad, and that republicans hurt the country as a result?

When will Arlen Specter be called to task for his piss poor oversight? When will Tim Russert or Wolf Blitzer ask these questions?

We need to start working the refs a bit better.

SInce this story was driven by the media, and some influential bloggers, this would have all come to light, just not under oath.

Don't be deceived by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. (Brownback, Hatch, Cornyn and Coburn,)They aren't concerned because they think the AG is lying. They just think he isn't right-wing enough, and if he goes down they can get someone they really like. I hoppe he stays on as a lame duck for the duration. It's not like the Bush crowd would listen to good legal advice if they had an AG who would give it. They will do whatever, regardless of law or advice.

OK, it's apparent Gonzales doesn't run the Dept. of Justice. Sampson appears just as clueless. McNulty's in it for the pussy and pay. Once Goodling talks what's the reaction going to be when everyone realizes a 30-something neophyte from a snake handling, rapture envy law school rode herd over all the federal legal system?

"When is Lou Dobbs or Chris Matthews or someone else going to say the obvious?"
"When will Arlen Specter be called to task for his piss poor oversight? When will Tim Russert or Wolf Blitzer ask these questions?"
"Once Goodling talks what's the reaction going to be when everyone realizes a 30-something neophyte from a snake handling, rapture envy law school rode herd over all the federal legal system?"

To answer in order: Never. Never. Nothing.

Gonzales threw out a fog of evasion and meaningless answers today because he knew he could--the same way every relevant player in Iran-Contra did, for those old enough to remember.

This story, like Iran-Contra, is just too complex to hold the interest of 99% of American voters, and is therefore of no consequence media-wise. I'm actually surprised Kyle Sampson felt compelled to resign--he could've just as easily spewed a fog of "I don't recall" bullsh*t like Gonzales did today. I guess that's what separates the amateurs from the pros.

This is driven by bloggers - and then the Democratic oversight pushed it into the mainstream media.

The media has a set of rules:
1) If Republicans send out talking points, or if Drudge prints something, or if a total wacko says something, and it's bad for Democrats, it's news.

2) If Democrats point out real, substantive, factual allegations against Republicans, it's not news unless there are hearings.

Well sure, he shouldn't stay on, and yes, that is obvious to some Republican senators. But it seems to me unlikely that he will resign for the obvious reason that he is protecting Rove and the the White House Occupant, and a new AG would have to be confirmed by the Senate and therefore could not be a mere apparatchik sworn in advance not to investigate the criminal conspiracy which has been running the country since 2001.

They can't afford for Gonzales to resign, and therefore he will not. Or at least that's my prediction.

"The media has a set of rules:
1) If Republicans send out talking points, or if Drudge prints something, or if a total wacko says something, and it's bad for Democrats, it's news.

2) If Democrats point out real, substantive, factual allegations against Republicans, it's not news unless there are hearings."

Indeed, and that's neither hyperbole nor sour grapes. People respect power. The Republicans had the power to make their allegations have consequences. Democrats and individual reporters, meanwhile, had no power to bring justice on scandals. So rather than cover the moaning weaklings who can't do anything about their finds, the press will report what Republicans say because that will have policy outcomes.

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar