The New York Times on the Attorney Firings

The New York Times is asserting in an editorial today that the fired attorneys were standing up for the integrity of the election system by not pursuing voter fraud investigations that the Bush Administration wanted it to. This is the Times’ logic:

In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.

In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on “fraud,” the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system…

There is no evidence of rampant voter fraud in this country. Rather, Republicans under Mr. Bush have used such allegations as an excuse to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups…

Voter fraud may not be “rampant” but there are pockets of it like this allegation of it in Wisconsin , which Ann Althouse thinks is pretty convincing.

John Hawkins nails the New York Times for its hypocrisy:

The most nauseating part of this is that New York Times, like many other liberals, constantly complain about irregularities in the voting system, so much so that they undermine people’s confidence in the system, while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail to prevent any sort of crackdown on fraud that they believe might benefit Democrats. This is why liberals scream about voting machines in any close race that Democrats’ lose while opposing photo ID at the polls, investigations of Democratic fraud, and cleaning off the voter rolls of people who have died or moved. It’s the worst sort of hypocrisy; trying to leave the door open for fraud that may benefit Democrats while claiming that conservatives are the ones who don’t want to secure the vote.

Where is the outrage?
Giving in to terrorists
  • Eric

    Barney,
    What …? According to the Washington Post Article I read about the memo there is no …

    Also, last week you got all bent out of shape because I quoted from a partial e-mail. Now you are doing the same. Everybody is quoting from a partial e-mail, where is the complete e-mail?

    Anyway that you look at it, your original contention is squashed. She was originally target for dismissal long before the Dusty Foggo and Duke Cunningham investigations.

    You can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts.

    The real question about the May 11 e-mail is what is the “real problem”?

    Take out the …,
    “The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires.”

    What if the “problem” is the need to act on getting her replcement? May 11 is about 6 months away from November 18. That may seem like a long time, but the clock would be ticking to find, recruit and vet a candidate.

    Could it be read that way? That sentence is so out of context to be able to tell what exactly he is talking about.

  • _Mike_

    ‘civil behavior’:
    Mike,
    As for calling a spade a spade had more people been cognizant of the extent of Hitler’s provocative stand on keeping the race pure and implementing measures that made sure those orders were executed we might not be speaking of such a similar approach to governing in the US today. That you don’t realize the same is happening is exactly why we had a war in the 1940’s.
    If I am banned it is too bad as the right needs people like myself to temper their nationlistic fervor so it does not get out of control. Banning me is like banning the little old lady at church who happens to be Rosa Parks. You need people like me. ( and Lee, and Hugh and Barney and the others who would be the first and last to defend your right to say what you might but not your own facts on which to base your imperial hegemony over others.) That’s where we draw a line and that’s where many other countries are also doing the same.

    That you would equate the U.S. today to Nazi Germany shows either the depth of your ignorance or the depth of your delusions.

    Comparing yourself to Rosa Parks ?? Banning you would be more like banning the unkempt, bearded guy wearing a overcoat and shorts in mid-July who stands at the red light holding a sign and yelling ‘The world ends tomorrow!’. Neither of you add anything useful to a rational conversation and neither of you believe that you’re delusional. My point was that the owners of a private property, which this is, have every right to decide what tone is acceptable.

    Personally, I find your comments comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany beyond ignorant. Further, I don’t think you add anything more insightful that the chap at the red light.. but that’s just my opinion.

  • WildWillie

    Getting input from employees is fine and I support that very much. After the input, a decision has to be made from that input. Once the decision is made, all have to get in behind it and support, if not, you are not a team player. That is business. ww

  • 914

    civil

    “You need people like Me.”

    So you can point your fucking fingers and say “look at Him! thats the bad guy!”

    Good one Montana!

  • BarneyG2000

    Eric, attorney M. Chiara termed ended on 11/2/05. Where was the urgency to find her replacement?

  • hansel2

    Personally, I find your comments comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany beyond ignorant.

    His comments are hardly “ignorant.” Because you fail to see even the slightest comparison between the actions of this administration in terms of manipulating the public through fear, dividing the electorate (in this case, in a McCarthy-esque way by claiming all voices critical of the administration are “aiding the enemy”) and grabbing more governmental power, once again, by playing on people’s fears (seizing power through elements of the patriot act in the guise of protecting the American people). If you can’t grasp this – and you’re too “appalled” by the comparison – well, that’s your failing.

    No one is saying Bush and his people have been blaming the Jews for all that is wrong in the world, and no one would suggest he’s capable of the kind of horror that monster was – but he’s sure used his own religion as a talking point – and a dividing line – when discussing our actions overseas.

    As far as most people are concerned, this is a war against radical islamists – much like we have homegrown wars against other radical religious sects that promote violence.

    But in the simplest terms, you can NEVER stand behind your government lock stock and barrel without at least a moderate amount of skepticism. These people are corruptible – doesn’t matter what party they are with – and reminding others of what happened in the past is the best way to try to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

    Believing it could never happen here is naive.

  • Eric

    “Eric, attorney M. Chiara termed ended on 11/2/05. Where was the urgency to find her replacement?”

    How do you know there wasn’t one? We don’t know what discussions took place in the months leading up to her dismissal. We still don’t know when the final decision was made to dismiss her. Was it made before November 2005 or after November 2005?

    My point was that there are other possible explanations for the May 11 e-mail. Without more information people are merely speculating about the context of the e-mail. I admit, that I am speculating as well.

    Look how poorly you speculated on it. You mistakenly concluded that the May 11 e-mail was the first discussion about Carol Lam’s dismissal. Therefore you assumed that there was a direct connection between the May 10 announcement and the May 11 e-mail.

    You still don’t have any evidence to support it other than the fact that May 11 follows May 10.

  • Rob LA Ca.

    “This is a company built to server us, not George W. Bush -“

    What ? Only Democrats get Lewinskiy’s

  • MikeSC

    If I am banned it is too bad as the right needs people like myself to temper their nationlistic fervor so it does not get out of control. Banning me is like banning the little old lady at church who happens to be Rosa Parks. You need people like me. ( and Lee, and Hugh and Barney and the others who would be the first and last to defend your right to say what you might but not your own facts on which to base your imperial hegemony over others.)

    Want a hand carrying your cross? Easily the most self-serving pile of pablum I’ve read in a while.

    Yes, you and Lee et al are just these great, decent people. Heck, we should be GRATEFUL that you’re here.

    Eric and Jo, I don’t need talking points, but we both need Talking Points Memo.

    I’ll stick with facts. Thanks just the same.

    Because you fail to see even the slightest comparison between the actions of this administration in terms of manipulating the public through fear, dividing the electorate (in this case, in a McCarthy-esque way by claiming all voices critical of the administration are “aiding the enemy”) and grabbing more governmental power, once again, by playing on people’s fears (seizing power through elements of the patriot act in the guise of protecting the American people). If you can’t grasp this – and you’re too “appalled”

    Whoa. Let’s go back a little bit.

    A recent administration directly blamed talk radio FOR CAUSING A DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACK. He singled out Rush Limbaugh specifically.

    Bush has not criticized a single Democrat SPECIFICALLY.

    Apparently, the Dems constant argument that Bush is putting the country at greater risk ISN’T governing via fear, but Republicans identical arguments about Dems IS governing via fear.

    How many times have morons such as yourself commented on how Bush has killed so many people, left us totally alone in the world, and has made the world hate us. What the heck is that if NOT an attempt to scare people into voting for “your” guy?
    -=Mike

  • kim

    Well, he certainly names his desperate need, TPM. I came to the Plame case from Josh Marshall’s blog after the SSCI exposed Joe Wilson’s ‘literary flair’. I was reading with bated breath Josh’s certainty that he was about to figure out the source of the Yellow Cake forgeries, and I saw how he handled the news of Joe’s slipperiness. So, no, you can’t convince me that TPM is anything but an extremely fine propaganda organ for the left. He’s not interested in the truth.
    =====================================

  • kim

    h2, I much prefer ‘ever again’ to ‘never again’. It has the correct perspective.
    =============================