posted on March 31, 2007 10:19:10 AM new
If you're old enough to remember the Stockman scandals of the Reagan years, this will be interesting.
When the Woodshed Isn't Enough
By David S. Broder
Thursday, March 29, 2007; Page A19
In the midst of the travails of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's former budget director, burst into the news as the defendant in a big corporate fraud prosecution in New York. It got me thinking, not just about those two men but about the two presidents who had to wrestle with whether to keep or fire them.
Is there something about tough-guy conservative chief executives that turns them squeamish when it comes to firing people? Reagan, who had no hesitation about building up America's store of arms and telling the communists to "tear down this wall," couldn't bring himself to let Stockman go -- after the young budgeteer had committed an egregious breach of loyalty. Now, Bush is hanging on to Gonzales to the detriment of the Justice Department and the political embarrassment of congressional Republicans.
The parallels are striking.
For those who have forgotten -- or are too young to know -- the Stockman saga offers a cautionary lesson on the dangers of brilliant egotism. When I first met him in 1969, Stockman was a student at Harvard Divinity School, hiding out from the draft like many others and living as a babysitter with Harvard professor Daniel Patrick Moynihan and his wife, Liz.
I was on sabbatical at the Institute of Politics, teaching a noncredit seminar for undergrads, and Moynihan phoned me to say that he had this graduate student-roomer who was passionately interested in politics and wanted to be in the class. Of course, I made room for him.
One of my guests during the seminar was Rep. John B. Anderson of Illinois, and when he became chairman of the House Republican Conference later that year, he asked if I could recommend one of my students to be his staff director. Stockman had become a friend, and I knew how eager he was to get to Washington. His braininess made him a good fit with Anderson.
It took Stockman only five years to move from the staff job to election as a member of the House from his home district in Michigan -- and only four years in the House to develop a reputation strong enough for Reagan to make him, at 34, the youngest Cabinet-level official in a century.
Stockman devised the first Reagan budget, with its broad tax cuts and big boosts in military spending, and helped move it through Congress over the objections of skeptical Democrats. At the same time, he secretly began giving weekly interviews to Bill Greider, a Post editor and an old friend of his. When Greider published an article based on the interviews, called "The Education of David Stockman," in the Atlantic magazine, all hell broke loose.
Stockman told Greider that the Reagan budget was built on false premises, that it employed a "magic asterisk" to conceal the size of its inevitable deficits and that the tax cuts he had championed were really designed to benefit the wealthy. The detailed accounting of the internal battles that produced a budget that would saddle the country with years of debt was a stunning indictment of the very administration in which Stockman was serving.
Democrats pounced -- just as eagerly as they are now pummeling Gonzales -- and Reagan summoned his young aide to the White House for what Stockman called "woodshed" treatment. But Reagan didn't fire him. Instead, Stockman issued a contrite apology and remained in office until 1985.
Now he is accused of breaking the rules again, not by fudging budget numbers or leaking copiously to a reporter but, allegedly, by concealing from investors and bankers the dire condition of a Michigan auto parts company he was running. He has pleaded not guilty.
In terms of biography, Gonzales is totally unlike Stockman. His rise from poverty to become the first Hispanic attorney general is a great chapter in the American tradition. He owes his position not to brilliance but to his proven loyalty to Bush, the man he has served as a counselor for more than a decade.
But, like Stockman, he has given his president plenty of reasons to fire him. The Justice Department, a vital part of the federal government, has been reduced in stature and has lost the trust of both the public and its career employees under Gonzales.
Bush has modeled himself on Reagan in many ways. One of the worst traits they share is their reluctance to dismiss people for cause. It took more than three years of the mismanaged Iraq war for Bush to get rid of Don Rumsfeld.
The Republican White House is too often a no-fire zone.
--
_____________________
"There is more to life than increasing its speed." --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on March 31, 2007 06:24:18 PM new
How funny.....
"One of the worst traits they share is their reluctance to dismiss people for cause."
Just shows how the liberal thinking process goes. BACKWARDS.
What are the liberals bitching about? His decision to FIRE these people.
LOL LOL LOL
Yep...they want it both ways. Complain about his 'reluctance to dismiss people' and then whine and make a circus out of it when he does.
Yep...that's liberal thinking for you. Never can please them no matter what he does.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 31, 2007 06:25 PM ]
posted on March 31, 2007 07:08:46 PM new
Hey little miss uneducated...bushit should fire Gonzales but doesn't have the backbone....he did have the attorneys , who did NOTHING wrong, fired....can you handle that big complex situation ?
posted on March 31, 2007 07:48:59 PM new
Oh I know the liberals would LOVE for him to fire Gonzales. But again today he has stated that Gonzales has done NOTHING wrong.
So see...he's not just going to fire him because the dems/liberals THINK he should.
Complex? LOL Nope...not at all.
The dems throwing more donkey poop at him doesn't make anything 'complex'. It's just more liberal BS. We're used to that.
posted on March 31, 2007 07:54:33 PM new
No, no, no linduhliar. You posted, ""Yep...they want it both ways. Complain about his 'reluctance to dismiss people' and then whine and make a circus out of it when he does""
I explained that there were two different firing issues involving different people...YOU can't comprehend that simple concept.
And you and bushit might think Gonzales did nothing wrong but many others, including REPUBLICANS, do think he did something wrong.
You and bushit may never see that as both of you are amoral.
posted on March 31, 2007 08:01:43 PM new
Yep, coincoach....they are the key words.
And since this President obviously felt there WAS cause...it really doesn't matter what the liberals think.
They've NEVER agreed with one thing he's ever done. So it should come as NO surprise that they'd start this circus when he fires people HE HIRED.
LOL LOL LOL
The liberals are always whining and bitching about something he does or doesn't do.
This issue ALL Presidents are allowed to do. You and your ilk haven't a leg to stand on. Just blasting your anger once again....because you have NO CONTROL over him.
posted on March 31, 2007 08:13:42 PM new
poor linduh.....no, all presidents are NOT allowed to fire attorneys for no good reason.
And, I can't help it you're so stupid and uninformed that you don't know there are Republicans who disaprove of what Gonzales did. Don't you EVER READ anything ????
posted on March 31, 2007 08:24:19 PM new
linduh, can you read this great big old post without getting all worn out ???
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Mar 25, 7:28 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales eroded
Sunday as three key senators sharply questioned his honesty over last fall's firings of eight federal prosecutors. Additionally, two Democrats joined the list of lawmakers calling for Gonzales' ouster.
Several Republicans also urged President Bush to allow sworn testimony from his top aides about their role in dismissing the U.S. attorneys — a standoff threatening to result in Capitol Hill subpoenas of White House officials.
The embattled attorney general was facing the toughest test of his two-year tenure at the Justice Department with the release of documents suggesting he was more involved with the firings than he indicated earlier.
Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.
Stopping short of demanding Gonzales' resignation, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) cited a Nov. 27 calendar entry placing the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals. Those documents "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements that he never participated in such conversations,
said Specter, top Republican
on the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.
"We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find out he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Specter, R-Pa.
Specter said he would wait until Gonzales' scheduled April 17 testimony to the committee before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general. He called it a "make or break" appearance.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record),
R- (that means Republican, linduh)
S.C., said Gonzales has been "wounded" by the firings. "He has said some things that just don't add up," said Graham, who also is on the Senate Judiciary panel. And Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record),
R- (that means Republican, linduh)
Neb., said the Justice Department has continually changed its story about the dismissals.
posted on March 31, 2007 08:26:10 PM new
LOL.....oh yea, TWO RINO's maybe????
ALL these federal attorneys serve at the PLEASURE of the presidents.
again...clinton did it only with ALL of them....and carter did it mid term.
These are attorneys that the President said he would like to remove IF he was re-elected. He was.
Like I said...just the liberals who are trying to divert attention from their own cowardly ways of NOT ending the wars they SAY they want ended. LOL
It's donkey poop....nothing more.....liberals hoping once again they might make something - ANYTHING - stick. lol Like most of the BS they've thrown...this too will pass shortly. Most likely after Gonzales testifies the middle of next month.
Then the cowardly liberals will have to find something else to try and make a federal case/CIRCUS out of to divert the attention of the voters away from their raising taxes and NOT ending the wars.
lol
posted on March 31, 2007 08:30:55 PM new
david broder was WRONG in his comparison. This administration HAS fired people, for cause, so his liberal opinion is again FAULTY. Based on untruths.....proven untruths.
They just require some PROOF before doing so. Unlike liberals who will use people then discard them like the clintons did the whole time in their admininstration.
And understanding what loyalty actually means, is something I don't believe liberals are capable of EVER understanding.
Wrong is wrong. But loyality is an important character strength with this President. UNTIL someone has been proven to have acted incorrectly....he will stand behind them.
posted on March 31, 2007 08:33:44 PM new
No, you poor uneducated donkey. Clinton did NOT do it and Carter did not do it.
The SYSTEM goes this way :when ALL new presidents take office the attorneys SUBMIT their RESIGNATIONS . Their RESIGNATIONS are accepted, or NOT, at the pleasure of the president.
It is NOT customary, nor legal, to fire attorneys for not following party lines.
But as I said , you are amoral and don't consider firing an attorney because he will prosecute those of the president's party ...and will NOT prosecute those of the other party when there's no evidence of wrong doing...as illegal or immoral or unethical..
posted on March 31, 2007 08:38:50 PM new
You're just another liberal who's confused. VERY confused.
BOTH clinton and carter did the same thing. You're just another uninformed liberal. No surprise there. You can deny it all you want....won't change the FACTS. Something that constantly SCARES you to death.
NO where is it required presidents give their reasons for wanting to fire them. NO WHERE are is there any requirement that they have to have ANYONES approval to do so.
You're lucky this administration has been willing to cooperate with the circus leaders. I wouldn't have. Your ilk isn't worth the time and energy.
posted on March 31, 2007 08:42:45 PM new
""BOTH clinton and carter did the same thing. """
PROVE IT!
They didn't.
You sure haven't got much lately linduh...no c&ps, nothing, just the same old "I hate liberals" chant. I mean , you didn't have much before but unbelievably you're even worse now....hard to get computer time ???
posted on March 31, 2007 08:48:43 PM new
We "liberals" understand loyalty very well. My first loyalty is to my country--not to some bungling politician who is trying to ruin it.
posted on March 31, 2007 08:51:25 PM new
It doesn't matter that he did or didn't appoint them or if they serve at his pleasure......the LAW, ETHICS and MORALS deem it reprehensible to fire them for POLITICAL reasons such as...
NOT prosecuting Democrats enough...or prosecuting Republicans too much.
THAT IS INTERFERRING WITH THE LAW OF THE LAND !
Or do you still contend that bush is not president but monarch ?
posted on March 31, 2007 09:20:50 PM new
I never saw a more confused bunch of morons. Constantly babbling about "laws" broken, and the House passing "laws". I'm convinced not one of these people went to grammar school or ever had a civics class.
