Politico's Allen did not challenge McCain's claim on Gonzales resignation that "I just haven't been asked"
In an April 25 Politico article, chief political correspondent Mike Allen uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) statement that he decided "a long time ago" that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should step down but said nothing because "I just haven't been asked" about it. In fact, a March 16 New York Times article reported that McCain "declined to say ... whether he thought Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should be ousted," as Media Matters for America noted. Moreover, three additional reports from late March and mid April mentioned the senator's reluctance to comment on whether Gonzales should remain in office.
Allen wrote in the Politico on April 25:
The senator disclosed his view as his Straight Talk Express luxury bus rumbled away from the second stop on his announcement tour, a rally held in the pouring rain in a park in New Hampshire's largest city.
"Out of loyalty to the president, he [Gonzales] should obviously step down," McCain said. "He's not serving the president well. I reached that conclusion a long time ago. I just haven't been asked."
The Times article on McCain's March 15 presidential campaign stop in Iowa reported:
On Thursday, even as he promised a stream of the candid comments that distinguished him in 2000 -- "Anything, anything you want to talk about," he said -- he steered clear of offering opinions on two of the biggest issues on the political landscape this week. He declined to say whether he agreed with the assertion by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that homosexuality is immoral, or whether he thought Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should be ousted for his handling of the firing of federal prosecutors.
Moreover, an April 20 article, Manchester, New Hampshire's Union Leader reported that, in an April 19 telephone interview with senior political reporter John Distaso:
McCain reiterated his strong support for the war in Iraq and was noncommittal on the future of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. McCain said he believes how Gonzales handled yesterday's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee will be a key factor in whether he should remain in office or resign.
In a March 27 Associated Press article, Laurie Kellman wrote:
Asked Tuesday if Gonzales had lost their confidence, many Senate Republicans demurred. Sen. John McCain's response was typical.
"He has my confidence that I think he ought to make his case," said the Arizona Republican, who also is running for president.
Other members of Congress didn't hold back.
On March 22, the AP reported:
In Iowa last week, McCain said it was too soon to call for Gonzales' resignation. "I'd like to give him his chance to appear before the Congress and respond to the allegations," McCain said."
Caught him. Giuliani '08 =>
Not a big fan of John McCain however...
How about Richardson's excuse for not calling for the removal of Alberto Gonzales because the two both have Hispanic backgrounds? Mmmmm... that probably takes the AWARD for most foolish reason among all of the others.
Richardson had a valid reason, I was glad for his candor. Hispanic Americans like Women and African Americans have been targeted with hate speech and discriminated against. I was glad Richardson gave him the benefit of doubt.
McCain lies, and is a warmonger, you can not compare the two.
Valid Reason??
Sorry Doris that's not gonna fly with most people.
Using race or ethnicity as a reason to give someone the benefit of the doubt smacks of double standards.
Not a great trait for a President.
How is that any different than Bush using his long time friendship with Gonzales has a reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Somehow I'm gonna guess you don't approve of that. I know I don't.
He was honest and candid, and it is different because Bush picked his friend for the AG job even though he was never qualified.
I appreciate Richardson's candidness as well. I'm still not sure which candidate to support. However, at least my list is one name shorter now.
Richardson had some other valid reasons for withholding judgement. However, it seems those reasons should have been applied without regard to race.
There are times when race may be a reason for caution, e.g., in evaluating testimony that may be racially motivated. However, I don't see how that applied to Gonzales; he pretty well shot himself.
At least it's a reason, which is exactly one reason more than the zero reasons Bush has for retaining Gonzales.
At least it's a reason
That's brilliant Dave.
Well I'm sure Bush has "a reason" for keeping Gonzales on. That doesn't mean it VALID. And I'm just so sure IF Bush said 'I'm keeping him on cause he's my friend', you'd say "At least it's a reason"
Yeah right hahahaha.
Dave you are the most pigheaded partisan that posts here, you couldn't admit a Democrat/Liberal was wrong--even if it was so obvious that other Democrat/Liberals would concede as much... so I'm going to present you with my very first "Moonbat Award"
I have a hunch you'll be a repeat recipient ;-)
I protest! *I* believe that award belongs rightfully to me!
The nominating procedures were faulty, the field too limited, the very existence of the award kept covert until the award had been already announced, and I believe the voting demonstrates an unfair bias.
If the Moonbat Award is to gain prominence and prestige, one would hope that you would reconsider this all-too-hasty decision, and strip Dave of the title, just as "lewd" photos cause some Miss America "winners" to be stripped of their titles!
The nominating procedures were faulty, the field too limited, the very existence of the award kept covert until the award had been already announced, and I believe the voting demonstrates an unfair bias.
A rant worthy of consideration as a future nominee & winner of the *Moonbat Award*...maybe even a thread here by MMFA ;-)
However, your post also shows, in this judge's mind, a semblance of humor, which could eliminate you from contention. As we all know, Moonbats are immune to a sense of humor....
A tough one to be sure. You'll have to work on that.
But rest assured your concerns will be considered carefully in subsequent meetings with me, myself, and I on future nominating procedures.
Just another hint, I've read many of your prior posts, they may still be a tad too reasonable & fair to be catergorized as Moonbat material.
We, on the Award Committee do believe that dave_chicago has met every qualification to be the first recipient of the *Moonbat Award*.
=====
For moonbats emotion is a perfectly acceptable alternative to reason. In fact, in most cases it’s preferable, because you don’t need to support emotion with facts. It does not matter if you make sense, since you probably won’t
Moonbats can never agree to disagree, because the opponent is always the perfect embodiment of evil on the earth. His motives are never pure and his goal is always to to destroy freedom, equality and justice. If he is not Satan (too religious for many moonbats) then he is Hitler.
Moonbats always begin on the attack and never let up. Quiet, reflective pieces are for p#ssies - you must always charge over the trenchtop with rhetorical bayonets drawn! Eternal attack has two major benefits - it makes you look smart and it keeps the focus on the other guy’s screw ups and not yours.
To moonbats the slope is always slippery. We are always on the verge of tumbling into a fascist pit. All new security laws, supreme court rulings, or anti voter-fraud initiatives are just a thinly disguised effort to establish the coming Christianist Totalitarian Theocracy. Don’t worry when none of these predictions come true, just keep making them - that’s the cool part about the future, it can be whatever you want it to be!
*From an e-mail I received from a [Conservative] friend*
=====
The above was presented in good fun. I'm certain everybody but Dave will think so...which is why he's the perfect Moonbat ;-)
Well, I don't have to like it, but rather than alienate the refs with my protracted whining, I (disconsolate though I am) must accept your ruling. However, to ensure equal opportunity to all (see - I'm a librul, too) let's get the ground rules straight, here.
What is the anticipated frequency of award of the Moonbat? (I hope I may feel free to designate the award in such informal manner?) This is very much a key to conducting a competitive campaign, for one must consider when to round into form, rather than peaking too early or late for consideration. There is no point is releasing an Oscar-hopeful picture in January, for example: too late for last year, too early for this year.
Other than the guidelines offered in your email from the conservative friend, are there specific benchmarks that must be met, in order to qualify? (I would urge that habitually referring to the occupant of the White House as "Bungle" should not be held against me without a clear rule, and an opportunity to mend my ways.) Nor, hopefully, would "Darth" be fatal to the campaign?
Is there any press release concerning the award, to boost the periodic winners into public note? Or any cash value, as with the Nobels? If not, the contest may not be as spirited as I had feared, for even Repugnants might vie for a prize that included $$; but no one will greatly exert themselves without some inducement attendant to the win.
Of course, I must apologise if you actually suspected humor in my initial post: only absolute sincerity in pursuit of the award will do!
Unless the Dems can overturn the sizeable number of State decisions to keep their electronic voting machines, I fear there may be several Ohio-2004 situations forthcoming in 2008.
That would allow one of these mad Repugnants to occupy the Oval Office once again Unless Bungle declares martial law, and installs a successor via some ruse, such fraud is the only option viable for these candidates, and rest assured, the Repugnants are up for that.
You do bring up a good point. I too am so fearful of massive voter fraud by the GOP in 2008. I also have a fear that Bush will sometime in 2008 declare martial law, postpone elections all in the name of his phony "war on Terror". The Army would enter cities and towns and arrest politcal opponents. Is that far fetched? I never thought in my 60 plus years I would see a Guantamano Bay where "prisoners" are tortured by the US but I have seen it. Nothing would suprise me.
I hope not Doris, but it sure is convienent that the National Guard is busy in Iraq and not at home to stop such a move.
Hey the Repugnants covered that, too: Posse no longer obtains! Should Bungle decide to declare Martial Law, he can mobilise whatever State's Guard he chooses, to enforce whatever edicts he issues, where-ever he sees need; and believe me, all those "libruls" would constitute prima facie need.
Even if they were here, Bush now has the authority to nationalize the Guard, taking them out of the control of their state governors.
I see nothing wrong with saying I am not sure or I am still thinking about it. I agree with Jeters as far as giving the benifit of doubt to someone of like ethiticity does not fly