One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other...

The Teacher and The Student.

Communist News Network posted an article regarding the Anita Dunn controversy. If you're not up to speed on who Anita Dunn is, read all about it and watch the video below.



Now that you know some background, CNN attempted to defend Anita Dunn, offering her claim "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.". Here are some especially interesting quotes from the article. See if you find anything interesting:

Dunn, taped in a speech in what appears to be a church, said the leader's philosophies were a guidepost for her own strategy on politics. She also praised the philosophy used by religious icon Mother Teresa.

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."

And here's the second part.

Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog group, points out that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, also a Fox News contributor, quoted Mao in a 1995 Roll Call profile.

"War is politics with blood; politics is war without blood," Gingrich said, citing Mao.

Karl Rove, another Fox News contributor, wrote in a December 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed that President Bush "encouraged me to read a Mao biography."

Notice any difference between the two? Sure, there's the obvious trying to drag republicans down by tying them in with the source of the controversy, in this case Mao. However, there seems to be a major difference between quoting Mao and stating that he is one of your two favorite political philosophers. Sorry CNN & Media Matters, not the same. Nice try though, fools.

Please take the time to comment!

Rove, Conyers Duke It Out; I Put $500 On Rove

John Conyers, the highly qualified stand up public servant who only has the people's best interest in mind (unless they happen to be his staff), has written an article for that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, the Huffington Post. It is a 'rebutal' article taking on Karl Rove's editorial over at the Wall Street Journal. Conyers takes the opportunity to complain about how Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the WSJ is playing politics with his newspaper. This is important becuase John Conyers would never play politics! There's no doubt that Conyers runs a tight ship, and therefore has position to lecture others on how to run theirs.

I've written about the nonstory surrounding the political firing of political appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States, and fail to understand why the libtards have their hemp panties in a wad over this. One thing is for certain, they are making a mistake by having Conyers as the face-man on this deal. Don't the Democrats have anyone who doesn't have an ethics complaint in their past who can lead this charge... Oh wait, nevermind.

Since the Demotards are all into the Bible now, someone should tell Conyers to check out Matthew 7:5...

I'm Back! And the Latest In The Greatest Nonstory of The Bush Administration

Bane of Libtards everywhere.

Sorry for the lack of posts over the last 72 hours, I've been all over the beautiful state of Californistan, just over 650 miles in 24 hours. Anyhow, I'm back home now and jonesin for a bloggy fix! Let's dive right in, shall we?

The Washington Post recently had an article covering the new testimony from Karl Rove in closed door hearings over the 9 fired US Attorneys. Being questioned is what, if any, role did White House staffers have in the firings of the 9 US Attorneys back in 2006-2007.

The reason that the firings of the US Attorney's is because no President had ever fired a sitting US Attorney, since the founding. None except Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton, who axed all 93 soon after taking the White House. The difference, libtards claim, is that W Bush did it for political reasons and he did it in the middle of his 2nd term.

First, let's back up here and cover the appointments of US Attorneys and under what circumstances they serve. From teh Wikipedia:

"The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate. A U.S. Attorney shall continue in office, beyond the appointed term, until a successor is appointed and qualified. By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. The Attorney General has had the authority since 1986 to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys to fill a vacancy."

US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President, and 'By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.'

Another claim is that W fired the attorney's for political reasons...gasp! Once again quoting from teh Wikipedia:

"By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party."

Let's see, after accepting the resignations from or firing an attorney, the President selects a new POLITICAL appointee? Huh, so then that whole 'political reasons' thing doesn't hold any water...

Okay, so we've established that W's three predecessors had removed US Attorney's from office, and that each had the constitutional authority to do so. So... that leaves Bush fired them in 'an unprecedented' middle of the [second] term. I'm sorry, but 'who cares?' Oh, that's right, the law enforcement hating left...sigh.

The reality is that Federal Prosecutors (aka US Attorneys) are in what is considered a political position and are subject to Presidential dismissal at any time, regardless of reason. This story is nothing more than the continuation of the liberal attack machine attempting to bring the Bush Administration down for: stealing the election in 2000, starting the war in Iraq, lying about WMD, stealing the election in 2004, refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, causing global warming, creating the AIDS virus to keep the black man down, lying about man landing on the moon, Haliburton, Blackwater, Enron, ad nauseam, etc., so on and so forth, insert crackpot conspiracy theory here. Getting anyone in the executive branch, but especially in someone within the President's circle was the libtard's wet dream with Bush being at the top of the list, and Karl Rove being number two.

The facts are: The Federal Prosecutors are POLITICAL appointees. The Federal Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, and can be terminated at his discretion. End of story, get over it and move on with your lives you bitter, defeated bastards.