http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/wa...hp&oref=slogin

Another allegation confirmed.

thats the name of the game for, conservatives hire conservatives and liberals hire liberals.

no story here move on.

Except for that being illegal, and all....

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf

This is really hilarious. And so-----we are to believe that a Democrat-led Justice Dept would hire REPUBLICANS OVER DEMOCRATS??? Yeah, sure---and pigs fly too!! <G> Besides, since MOST lawyers in the Justice Dept are probably liberals/Democrats---then why wouldn't they TRY to make it more even in that area????

Let's just say that a Democrat president gets in office and find that the Justice Dept is full of ONLY Republican or conservative-leaning lawyers. Do you think he/she would try to get that changed?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

So, why don't these libbies give us the layout of the rate that conservatives were "deselected" during the 8 years of the Clinton administration? ONLY THEN----if they PROVED to me that they were nothing BUT fair, would I listen to their complaints now. This sounds like some partisans in these two groups that are ONLY looking at the Bush years.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Yeah, both sides are guilty of that. No story.

__________________
There shall ye find Light

Be thou faithful unto Death
And I will give thee a crown of Life

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

Oh cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

And I'd bet money, marbles and chalk that there are FAR more liberal lawyers in the Justice Dept than the other way around. But, of course, they have NO PROBLEM when it's one-sided for THEIR party.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

The fact of the matter is that hiring/firing based on political affiliation is bad policy. These folks should be judged by their experience and their qualifications. If you want to prove that Clinton's administration wasn't fair, that's fine, but the fact of the matter is still that Bush's administration implemented policy that was detrimental to the quality of the JD and therefore detrimental to the US. The JD is supposed to be able to operate without partisan intervention. Clearly they were manhandled by Bush's administration.

Furthermore, where does the logic of affiliation-rollover end? Are you going to argue that every time the presidency changes parties, all government employees should be fired to make way for people who are judged simply by their luck of affiliation?

__________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RIDE A BIKE

It's nonsense. The Clinton's fired every single US Attorney in office when they came to office and the majority that were hired were liberal idealogues.

The distinction here is that during the Clinton regime, attorneys on the federal payroll which were found with reason to complain, found themselves 'suicidal' at the hieght of the legal career, having shot themselves to death before driving themselves to the park, where the semi-automatic pistol found in their hand by the prior military first responder ambulance driver was mysteriously swapped with a serial-number-less untracable, valueless revolver assigned as the 'suicide' weapon, which said to be a piece from his father's high value Gun-Collection.

So with all things considered, it's nothin' really.

Ah, yes, only a few posts into the thread and we have already reached the Clinton Defense - "Yeah, but Clinton did ________ (pick something) ________ (pick one: first, worst, longer, repeatedly)! Soon it'll be, "Yeah but Bush . . . "

So if it was wrong for Clinton to do it then that means future Presidents get a pass? How does that work? Then if it was wrong for Bush to do it future Presidents get a pass. Beautiful logic. I remember using that logic when I was uh, 5 or 6 years old trying to get my mom or dad to let me slide because my brother got caught doing it first.

Let's approach this like adults. No one wins when we continue to lower the bar. We are not at war with liberals or conservatives or Democrats or Republicans. In fact in most cases it is difficult to distinguish between them no matter how the childlike want to blame it all on the others. Once we get into the playground perspective the chances of improving our government are remote at best.

Clinton was a bad President, Bush is a horrible President, Bush the Elder was a bad President, Reagan was a bad President. Anyone see a pattern there? I do, it's called partisan politics. Partisan politics is government for the willfully ignorant. Washington is NOT going to raise the bar, people. Either we demand better or we continue to get excreta in Washington. Partisan politics is no good. It must change. It leads very quickly to adolescent attitudes about government, "Yeah, but, he hit me first'.

If it is wrong it is always wrong. If it is illegal it is always illegal.