I wish I were astounded, in the sense that I hadn't come to expect obtuseness from him, but I'm not.
Something needs to smack him in the face at this point.
Also, there's the minor detail of dispensing with senate approval.
That was just stunning, though. Disagreement is fine, but not being able to see the fundamental difference between the two situations? How does that happen to someone?
"Michael Kinsley has a [is] weirdly obtuse post"
Michael Kinsley is paid to write this shit. He truly is paid to confuse the voters. Whenever a Republican does something bad, you have to remind the voters that a Democrat has done something equally bad.
I had a minor epiphany when I realized that sometimes journalists are writing for a small audience of people-like-themselves -- specifically, that they are trying to manage those people's perception of them. So it becomes "Oh, Kinsley* is fairminded, he's calling the others on their partisan prejudices."
The topic of the piece could be US attorneys or anything at all -- the real work is being done by the fairminded (or contrarian, or whatever) schtick. It's the same phenomenon as when a woman puts down another woman as way of bonding with the guys.
*N.b. I don't know this guy or his writing well enough to make any kind of judgment as to whether he does this routinely or even whether he was trying to do it in this case.
Kinsley had a brief moment back in the Stone Age of the interwebs where he was the "it" boy -- you know, back when Slate was the shit (if it was ever so). Sadly, I was actually a *paid* subscriber to Slate once upon a time (to my deep and everlasting shame), but like I said, it was during the Pleistocene Era of the tubes.
Anyway, he's edging deeper and deeper into David Broder territory now. Time to hit the mute button on that guy and move on.
It's hard to believe now, but he was considered the outstanding liberal journalist of his generation in the early eighties, and by serious people.
Kinsley was great (at least my teenaged self thought he was great). No idea what happened, or whether I was just suckered.
it is unusual and worthy of comment and explanation when one replaces one's own political appointees after a period of service.
Especially if one never makes a mistake in appointing anyone in the first place. IMO, what's worthy of comment and explanation is the admin's usual lying, confusion, and obfuscation. That people one initially thought might be able to do a job get replaced (we just did that here at Chaos, Inc.) isn't a big deal. The reasons behind that replacement might be.
One commenter here, in another thread, said something like "The history of the unfolding series of events justifies assuming from the start the worst possible motivations for any new action they take. I have to agree. If this admin told me that gravity sucks, has always sucked, and will continue to suck, I'd immediately check to ensure my wallet and loose change were in a buttoned pocket.
Something needs to smack him in the face at this point.
This is me, not making a Parkinson's joke.
10: That's what's freaking me out. I've been reading this guy off and on for a long time now, and he's not remotely stupid. I don't understand how a not-stupid person could talk themselves into thinking that was a reasonable thing to say, regardless of the incentive. (That is, I can imagine an incentive that would make you say it, but I can't imagine an incentive that would color your judgment to the point that you believed it.) How does this happen?
I think Kinsley's brain migrated into Jonathan Chait about five years ago. I get the same feeling of "Of course! Put that way, it finally makes sense." from Chait's weekly New Republic/LA Times column that I used to get from Kinsley.
As I explained on his thread, only a partisan Democrat would refuse to concede that what Bush did is no worse than what Clinton might have done.
Kinsley has been an pain in the ass ever since he showed up -- the opportunist ex-liberal cutting deals with the right wing and sliming better people than himself. The whole contrarian schtick was old and rotten five or ten years ago, but Kinsley apparently can't learn. (As I also said somewhere, Kinsley really whips Broder, since he got old so much faster. Some argued that that's not fair, since Broder never was any good, but in my opinion neither was Kinsley).
It sort of bothers me that he's still writing while his health deteriorates -- I've always really disliked him, and still do for the same reasons, but now sometimes I feel that I'm being mean whenever I say anything. It's not as if he's been Mr. Nice Guy himself.
Nah, it'd be wrong to lay off him just because he's sick.
TPM addresses the motivation for the firings, and it's the message being sent. This answers Kinsley's apparent obtuseness- If you fire everyone at the start of a term, the message is, "Don't be appointed by the guy who loses the next election." If you fire people in the middle of a term, the message is, "Do / don't do specific actions in your role as a USA, regardless of what the law requires." The former is what Kinsley calls "good" politics, the latter is politicizing the legal process.
I suppose you could also argue that "Don't have your party lose the election" means use your power as a USA to alter the outcome, but I that's not what Kinsley's arguing. I don't really know what he's arguing.
To me it's legit to have the executive control prosecution philosophy (e.g., even though it's stupid, emphasizing pronography). But Bush made the US Attorneys part of the Republican Party political operation.
My buddy Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest writes about this a lot. The Party becomes the State, the Party becomes the media. Marshall sees this as a decline to third-world standards of authoritarian, corrupt government, and I think he's right. But there's a 1924 Mussolini fascist feeling to it. All that's missing are roving gangs of quasi-Republican thugs (though yes, that's a big exception).
Hot off the press. Even Kinsley admits: "I'm old and used up and generally flaccid, as many of the commentors [sic] have noted." Here is the link:
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/03/politics_lies_and_93_v_8.html
I want a picture of GWB, shirtless, pitching in to drain the Pontine Marshes. When dictators were hott.
20: What jumps out at me about that link is how truly dreadful the formatting is. Firefox problem or sign of muddled thinking?
"weirdly obtuse" is exactly the reaction I had. There's just no way that someone actually paying attention, and not a Republican partisan, could write that on the up-and-up.
Reading that, too, gave me something like the feeling I get when I hear Republican shills get on teevee and repeat *obviously* false talking points. The willingness to lie, ludicrously, publicly, and without shame just makes me so goddam angry.
I always think of those priceless BBC interviews where a reporter is talking to some African dictator about the latest horrifying thing his administration's done. The reporter presents evidence of the offense, say, a village full of hacked-up corpses documented by dozens of UN workers and foreign journalists, and the dictator just casually states that it didn't happen, no massacre, nothing to see here, colonial powers once again fucking with the 3rd world, etc, etc. A ridiculous, obvious lie, repeated confidently in the face of overwhelming evidence. Just crazy.
OTOH, Kinsley says: "I do tend to think that the solution is in electoral politics--punish liars by voting against them-- and not in subpoenas and hearings and special prosecutors and impeachment talk and all the other paraphernalia of scandal."
He still doesn't get it. And does he suppose the electorate would find out? By osmosis?
Just crazy—says the self-identified psychologist. Reminds me of the diagnoses Royko would do as Dr. Kookie.
24: We're all plugged into the same lunch 'n' gossip group as he is, right?
Perhaps there ought to be term limits on the punditocracy.
26. BH, the link as #20, quotation from bottom of article.
Well, if I were President I would have at least fired the guy in Washington "pour encourager les autres". Finding boxes of ballots days later sure seems fishy. And Lam in San Diego had some strikes against her as well. But the interference of partisanship into prosecution (or investigation) should not be tolerated, whatever the source.
What's the going rate these days for botching a tobacco industry investigation?
The Bush apologists have adopted the rhetoric of the administration and they're convinced the American public will buy it.
Just yesterday Alberto Gonzales once again told us he is working tirelessly to be sure he has every American's back covered...especially our children. Should the alleged firing of six top performing U.S. Attorneys make us feel better?
I don't know about anyone else but I've always been suspicious of the guy that seems to go out of his way to tell you he's "got your back covered".
See a sarcastic visual that demonstrates how many Americans feel when the Attorney General reassures us that he's got our backs covered...here:
27: I was agreeing with you. *He* might hear things from the principals, the rest of us don't.
Some argued that that's not fair, since Broder never was any good
That's not my impression. Granted, I wasn't reading him in the 70's but I always thought of Broder as someone who was a genuine star reporter when he was younger.
As the Church Lady used to say: "How convenient.
It's good of Kinsley to restrict his pop culture references to a time when he was relevant.
25: the self-identified psychologist
Nuh-uh.
And that wasn't a diagnosis, it was verbal head-shaking. If you want some creative faux-diagnostics, try Charles Krauthammer: a Real! Live! Psychiatrist!
Two psychologists: Krauthammer, Karadzic. One a hunted war criminal, one an as-yet-unindicted Washington Post columnist. The ironies of life.
31. Ahh, yes. Term limits. Maybe I should do a self-effacement as Kinsley did, or perhaps it was something I had for lunch. In any case, sorry.
What journalists have not joined the Hermetic Order of the Shrill have probably got stuck in contrarianism by now and can't be saved.
I think there's something seriously wrong with the way the last generation raised its young. Surely at some point parents are supposed to teach kids that "I know you are, but what am I?" doesn't get you off the hook when you've done something wrong.
probably got stuck in contrarianism
Now there's a quagmire.
Kinsley says: "Or is there a humongous, crucial distinction between firing prosecutors in in your first term and doing it in your second?"
If it were just a case of Bush replacing these (or all 93) prosecutors at the beginning of his second term, it might be understandable. But he didn't do it at the beginning of his second term, he did it half way through his second term.
Which raises obvious eyebrows...and when you look at the obvious reasons behind the firings, it is scandalous. For Kinsley not to see this - means he is either obtuse (doubtful) or deliberately disingenuous.
I think there's something seriously wrong with the way the last generation raised its young
Yes, I've had this feeling about my parents for ages...
Did Bush Firing Of Attorney Have To Do With Turning A Blind Eye To A Pedophile?
People In Washington State Are Wondering.
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/008252.html
Perhaps there are reasons behind why Bush fired these people. Perhaps these people are not as innocent as the Democrats are trying to portray them as being.
"These people"? For better or worse, you had something to say about one of the eight, "greg@greg.com". FOAD.
And then, of course, there's always the Ross and Rachel defense.