[Leahe said] “Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. This sounds like the Administration’s version of ‘the dog ate my homework.'”
Too bad that the administration didn’t hire experienced, qualified lawyers. Nope, they confused Dominionist theology for professional capability and shopped Regent Univ for “talent” like former top aid to AG Gonzales, Monica Goodling. Well, live and learn, eh? Or not.
Please share widely!
Laurel, please read what I posted after yours hit the wires, then please explain to me how the firing of political hacks who serve at the President’s pleasure, and ONLY at his pleasure, can be in any way, shape or form unethical? Finally, I would appreciate an explanation of why the actions the congressional Democrats are taking are NOT unethical!
<
p>
Further, I don’t see the connection between Dominionist Theology and the appointments. And as a PCA Presbyterian, I really resent your cited website’s tar-brushing of Presbyterians as reconstructionists. (BTW, let me be clear that I DON’T resent you for having been misled enough by the Reconstructionists to cite the website!)
<
p>
We (PCA) are REFORMED, not reconstructionist, not by any stretch of the imagination. We adhere to the NEW Testament visions of law (“Render unto Caesar,”), and the unquestioned authority of the CIVIL law. (For further elaboration, and some real eye-opening, please see the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647 edition, the chapter entitled “Of the Civil Magistrate,” and its proof texts. It is online.)
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
Please read the many diaries already posted, the endless mainstream media articles and the Congressonal record exploring and explaining the unethical nature of this situation. Purposeful ignorance on your part does not a legitimate talking point make.
<
p>
Best always,
Laurel
I HAVE read most of the stuff posted and published (admittedly, some of it being blatantly political, from BOTH sides, I skimmed, not read, same!).
<
p>
From my posts, you hopefully have seen me as honest, probably a little backwoodsy, and staunchly ethical, if somewhat niave. But that last can be a real bummer, as it means distancing oneself from much of the dirt slung in the Realpolitik arena of the Hill. (Living in Seattle doesn’t really help much, especially when much of the news we get is filtered, and we have to fill in the blanks to get back to the real veritas!)
<
p>
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If a Democrat pulled the same “stunts,” I would not hesitate to defend his right to do it. I have raised the issue of Carter’s firing of an Attorney who tried to prosecute a Democratic Representative who really WAS guilty of accepting bribes, and who later spent five years in prison for same. The man was a political appointee. He did something contrary to the political reality of his position. I applaud his ethics, and agree that what he did was good. At the same time, I would not raise an issue with Carter for taking a political action against a political appointee.
<
p>
What’s good for the goose had better be good for the gander, else the future of goosedom is in jepaordy!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
talking points that have been widely refuted here and elsewhere.
At just whom is the zero launched? At me, at Laurel, or both of us!?!?!?
<
p>
Just asking . . .
Suppose you tell me exactly what it is about the Carter firing that has been so rehashed that it is a “tired” talking point?
<
p>
What is sauce for the goose . . . DUDE, WHERE’S MY EQUALITY?!?!?
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
Please, this is Massachusetts. There are a whole lotta people here who have a belief system regarding a select group of people and the tenets and particular religious persuasions. Whatever the political organs pump out that day/week/month becomes the gospel. It’s like any fervent believe system that one may find “interesting” for want of a better word. Don’t bother to engage in dialogue, questioning, discussion, probing. That can lead to disturbing the foundation of the belief system which is not tolerated. Heretics are dealt with accodingly. We used to hang people here and burn them at the stake for a lot less.
<
p>
As you have obviously noticed, some folks do not attack the arguement, they attack YOU. Just pack your trash and move on. You are wasting your time, patience, and a portion of your life on people who don’t wish and will not tolerate having you question “the belief system”.
<
p>
Enjoy your day.
for the Carter story. If it’s as you say, it was a bad thing to do and he shouldn’t have done it.
<
p>
It’s already been documented pretty clearly that, from the Reagan administration forward, there are no instances of what Bush did (maybe 1 from Reagan, but even that one’s iffy) from any president.
<
p>
Please explain why the firing of political hacks who serve ONLY at the pleasure of the president requires one… no wait, two… nope… three (four?) different, and contradictory, explanations.
<
p>
I mean, if it’s only about the “pleasure of the president” as you alledge, then George Bush coulda (shoulda) just said “I fired ’em. So what?” Why muddy the waters with explanations??
If the RNC is a professional operation, they probably have tons of backup tapes, that would have Rove’s Emails. Most professional operations apparently keep things backed up for years. It really isn’t a major effort to reconstruct the files from the back-ups. (EMC got rich off the fact that nobody deleted their back-ups. They just kept adding to them.) Rove might have deleted the Emails from his accounts, but he probably couldn’t have deleted them from the back-ups.
<
p>
Two, if there actually is a gap, Leahy’s Senate committee should subpeona everyone involved with the RNC and grill them. Who authorized any deletions of any files, and where the back-ups are.