Blurring Politics and Performance

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:37:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The administration's newest explanation for the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys -- "they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities" -- deliberately blurs the distinction between politics and performance.

Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, in remarks obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, spoke dismissively of Democrats' condemnation of what they call political pressure in the firings. "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," he said. "A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective ... is unsuccessful."

A president may certainly fire a U.S. Attorney who refuses to implement legitimate policy. A president who fires a prosecutor because he or she refused to use the office to influence election outcomes deserves to pay a heavy political price. Today's spin assumes that the public doesn't understand the difference.

We understand.

< On The Iraq Supplemental: KISS | Karl Rove as Rapper M.C. Rove >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Blurring Politics and Performance | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Deductive reasoning gives interesting answers. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Lacy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:49:48 AM EST

Kyle Sampson is on record as saying that in 2005 they considered firing all 93 US Attorneys, which would include all the "Loyal Bushies". That was scrapped. But "staffers" wouldn't be the level of such a consideration. Think AG and POTUS.

The only reason for that "consideration" could have been stop the copious GOP investigations/prosecutions ongoing at the time, and to try to conceal the intent behind reluctantly getting rid of every one of Bush's own appointees. But even Rove et al could see firing all their own appointees would be perceived as a Saturday Night Massacre cover.

So that consideration has to be rejected, but, a la Plame/Wilson, retribution for a few might not be noticed. And retribution in this administration starts at the top. Later, the plan to punish a few as a warning to others evolved, with the notion it would be under the radar.

That "slip", that they thought about firing them all, may well confirm the reality of the scheming, and guarantee the AG and Rove/GWB were in on it.

IMPEACH (none / 0) (#1)
by baba durag on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:09:38 AM EST

(h/t Kagro X)

So, just to keep things very, very clear (none / 0) (#2)
by scribe on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 07:39:26 AM EST

Either:
(a) these firings were the enforcement of political correctness upon both the fired US Attorneys, and intimidation upon those allowed to remain; or

(b) everyone knows what is expected of presidential appointees in the Bush administration, as they are either
(1) thoroughly inculcated with the doctrine during their education at self-described "Christian" schools and know no better or different or
(2) have proven their rigid adherence to these expectations in prior administrations or
(3) are brilliant enough to pick it up by osmosis during their job interviews when no litmus test is applied (because of sub (1) being operative), and
they then carry out these expectations without need for further guidance from above.

So, dear readers, either we have enforcement of political correctness with a ruthlessness (if not yet bloodthirstiness*) that Stalin would have admired, or we have an administration run through gleichschaltung** in action.
-
* Though Abu Gonzo's insistence, following hard upon Ashcroft's insistence, upon massively increasing captial prosecutions regardless of the sensibilities of local states, would seem to presage bloodthirstiness and bloodshed on Stalin-esque levels. And, I'm not going to talk about the more-than-a-half million already killed through Bush's wars.

**Do read the section of the wiki entry on the philology. I think the second entry is highly germane to understanding this term, as applied to our present situation.

Performance IS political (none / 0) (#3)
by profmarcus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:12:40 AM EST

what sampson seems to be saying is that the president's "priorities" ARE political and that a failure to follow those priorities is evidence of a performance failure on the attorney's part... i think he makes that clear when he says this...

"The distinction between `political' and `performance related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Mr. Sampson plans to say, according to his statement.

it's pretty hard not to take the logical step and assume that the attorneys were fired for political reasons...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Wonderful choice of words, TChris (none / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:22:03 AM EST

Today's spin assumes that the public doesn't understand

This could apply just about every day since Bush first stepped into the oval office. It is exactly how they view and treat the public.

A blatant lie (none / 0) (#6)
by Sailor on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:06:21 AM EST

considering he'd testified said "never, ever make a change for political reasons"

Obviously (none / 0) (#7)
by jondee on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:17:23 AM EST

the "freedom loving" Right has a deep need for an authoritarian regime; long as a fella like Bush is the dictator (heh, heh).

"political' v. "political" (none / 0) (#8)
by orionATL on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 10:22:59 AM EST

thanks t chris and commenters.

josh marshall at "talking points memo" has a superb "linguistic" analysis on just this matter.

"... let's get one big chunk of administration bamboozlement out of the way...."