PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - No sense of right and wrong

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)

- - No sense of right and wrong (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/228961-no-sense-right-wrong.html)

No sense of right and wrong

I wonder whether Monica Goodling understands why her actions at DOJ were illegal and immoral. Somehow I doubt that her Regent University legal education equipped her to make that determination:

Quote:

Goodling Screened DOJ Career Candidates For Affiliations With ‘Abortion, Homosexuality, Iraq and WMD’»
According today’s report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), former Justice Department lawyer, Monica Goodling conducted detailed “Internet research on candidates for Department positions…designed to obtain their political and ideological affiliations.”

Apparently drawing on her experience conducting opposition research for the RNC, Goodling used a complex LexisNexis search string to screen candidates for affiliations or statements related to conservative flash points. The search string included such affiliations as homosexuality, abortion, and the 2000 Florida recount. This is the search that Goodling entered into the LexisNexis database to research job candidates:

[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

The OPR found that Goodling obtained this search string from a colleague who used it to screen political appointees. Goodling, however, used it in violation of federal law to screen candidates for career department positions. In addition, Goodling “instructed” a temporary assistant to “use the search string for all candidates she was asked to screen.”

According to the report, Goodling also used “www.tray.com and other web sites to get information about political contributions made by candidates.” She explained in her testimony to Congress, “Normally, if I found something that was negative about someone, we didn’t hire them.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/28/goodling-googler/

Goodling and her boss, Alberto Gonzales, got in trouble for the same reason - neither knows the difference between right and wrong.

How about that. No interest in the administration's subversion of the Department of Justice. Don't feel bad, the press corps doesn't care, either:

Quote:

White House press corps hasn’t asked Perino about DOJ politicization.»

Desipite yesterday’s explosive report confirming that top Justice Department officials, including Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson, had violated federal law, the White House press corps has not asked White House press secretary Dana Perino a single question about it. Both yesterday’s and today’s press briefings included no discussion of the report, nor a question on whether Attorney General Mukasey would follow through on a criminal perjury referral from Congress.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/29/white-house-press-corps-hasnt-asked-perino-about-doj-politicization/

dculkin,

its obviously wrong, but do you think any political appointees appointed by any democratic politician is anything different? theyre appointees for a reason: they tow the line that the politician is towing himself, DOJ, judges, etc, etc.

sucks, but it is what it is. to me, this is truly a non-story.

bob

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_98sr5 (Post 1924449)

do you think any political appointees appointed by any democratic politician is anything different?

Let's see evidence it's nothing different. Even if everybody does something wrong, that doesn't mean it's not wrong anymore.

For normal non-political Fed jobs (GS)...
We have to go through background checks and invetviews with the US Marshall or FBI or Secret Service In fact the ONLY political party you are NOT allowed to be a part of is the American Fascist Party -- Commies are Ok;)

Political appointees are a different story. It is not clear if she was doing this for GS jobs or political appointees...

If this was for GS positions what she did was illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver (Post 1924525)

Let's see evidence it's nothing different. Even if everybody does something wrong, that doesn't mean it's not wrong anymore.

again, read my entire statement:

its obviously wrong, but do you think any political appointees appointed by any democratic politician is anything different? theyre appointees for a reason: they tow the line that the politician is towing himself, DOJ, judges, etc, etc.

so let me clarify for you:

1. its obviously wrong (what the republicans did). tandriver: do not confuse me with some crazy right wing neocon. i am not above criticizing republicans, nor democrats, though i find that most democrats like to read the first two or three lines of an article and stop right there. i do however, take issue with any factually incorrect, political nonsense and provide my best to refute it.

2. democrats do it too; there's no difference. case in point: in 1993, President Clinton fired all 93 of the US district attorneys upon entering the White House. Those DAs were replaced by like minded DA appointees. please search this for yourself. and to pre-empt your counter argument, yes, this is not a Clinton thing. Most if not all presidents take a hatchet to all appointed offices and fill them with like minded individuals. and to reiterate my last line "it is what it is".

3. the process to pick political appointees is rife with less-than equitable decision making because the goal is to appear impartial, especially when it comes to areas where the public feels that impartiality is paramount to politics. hence the great debate over the "last" supreme court justice seat.

clear?

thank you,
bob

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels (Post 1924532)

...It is not clear if she was doing this for GS jobs or political appointees...

I believe that is clear. Here is the Inspector General's report: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/goodling072408.pdf

What she did was thoroughly illegal.

good link, d. if she did break the law, she should be prosecuted, plain and simple.

I wasn't too surprised when I googled her when the story first came out and learned that she had graduated law school from Regent University (Pat Robertson's Law School). I don't think she doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. I think she just has a different idea of right and wrong than the average non-Regent student. Her undergraduate degree was from Messiah College, a conservative evangelical school. I'm supposing that her version of right and wrong is closely associated with God's commands and putting believers in positions of legal power was one of her goals.
I wonder what Pat Roberston and the faculty of the law school at Regent University are saying about what she did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_98sr5 (Post 1924648)

...2. democrats do it too; there's no difference. case in point: in 1993, President Clinton fired all 93 of the US district attorneys upon entering the White House. Those DAs were replaced by like minded DA appointees. please search this for yourself...

Different situation. Those were US Attorneys, who are political appointees. Incoming administrations always replace the US Attorneys with people whose philosophies mesh with the new President's. George Bush did the same thing. What Bill Clinton did wrong was fire them all at once without providing for an orderly transistion. His screw up was a management malfunction, not official corruption of the sort perpetrated by Goodling and her cohorts.

I don't agree that they all do it. Goodling and Gonzales are corrupt. I don't think that is generally true of people in Washington.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry (Post 1924698)

...I don't think she doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. I think she just has a different idea of right and wrong than the average non-Regent student. Her undergraduate degree was from Messiah College, a conservative evangelical school. I'm supposing that her version of right and wrong is closely associated with God's commands and putting believers in positions of legal power was one of her goals...

If so, then she is arrogant in addition to being unethical.

Quote:

I wonder what Pat Roberston and the faculty of the law school at Regent University are saying about what she did.

Part of me would love to be a fly on the wall. The rest of me thinks that it would be revolting to hear their BS.

I just went to CBN news (Robertson's news network). I couldn't find anything on the site about the story.

CBN and news makes about as much sens to me as Central Intelligence. Just my opinion.

This is what I "love" about the political season...

Got an election?

Get the dirt.

Republican candidate for (insert office here)? Smear his/her party...make it appear that all Reps are snakes...

Democratic candidate for (insert office here)? Smear his/her party...make it appear that all Dems are snakes...

Go on?

Find the smallest pile of dirt and vote for it... :)

Ruth Marcus has a good column in today's Washington Post. I really like this quote from the column:

Quote:

This administration will leave office having trashed the place -- and I'm not talking about a few "W's" pried loose from White House computer keyboards by the exiting Clinton crew. I'm referring to the myriad ways in which this administration, dismissive of the role of government, abused the enterprise it was entrusted with overseeing.

Exactly right. As was the case under Presidents Reagan and Bush 41, Bush 43's wrongdoing goes directly against the very government he is responsible for running. That is why W's corruption is more dangerous and more immoral than anything Bill Clinton did.

Here's the full text of the column:

Quote:

Goodlings Amok
A Common Thread in Bush's Failings

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; Page A15

The improbable topic of today's column is Monica Goodling and the federal budget deficit. You might think that the two of these have nothing in common save the happenstance that both are the subject of devastating new reports: Goodling about the stomach-turning politicization of the Justice Department; the deficit about the stomach-turning state of the federal treasury.

But the linkage goes beyond the adjective. The ousted Goodling and the lingering deficit are twin manifestations of the Bush administration's overarching contempt for government and blind adherence to ideology.

This administration will leave office having trashed the place -- and I'm not talking about a few "W's" pried loose from White House computer keyboards by the exiting Clinton crew. I'm referring to the myriad ways in which this administration, dismissive of the role of government, abused the enterprise it was entrusted with overseeing.

My favorite sentence in the Goodling report sums up the hiring practices in the department's supposedly nonpartisan career ranks: "Tell Brad he can hire one more good American."

This was the response by Goodling, who served as Justice's liaison with the White House, to a request from Bradley Schlozman, the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo., to bring aboard a new prosecutor. "Good American" is Goodling's code for "Republican."

Every victorious administration enjoys the legitimate spoils of government. The president is entitled to bring in his people -- those who have voted for him, written checks to him and back his policies. Every administration has its Goodlings, inexperienced punks who flaunt their authority as conspicuously as a West Wing badge.

Most administrations find ways to keep the Goodlings under control and the grown-ups in charge. The trouble with this one is that it is riddled with Goodlings Gone Wild, incapable of or unwilling to distinguish between the proper pursuit of political aims and the responsible administration of government.

To take one other recent example, the NASA inspector general found last month that press officers in the space agency "reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized" studies of global warming, toning down politically unwelcome conclusions. A news conference on global warming was postponed, according to a senior scientist, because the "administration does not want any negative environmental news before the [2004] election."

So what's the deficit got to do with it? The deterioration of the nation's budgetary picture under the reckless stewardship of this administration is the fiscal equivalent of the Goodlingization of the executive branch. President Bush put adherence to Republican theology -- taxes must be cut -- over prudent governing.

In February 2001, when the new president presented his first budget to Congress, he described the fiscal situation this way: "We have increased our budget at a responsible 4 percent, we have funded our priorities, we have paid down all the available debt, we have prepared for contingencies and we still have money left over."

That happy situation, he said, justified -- no, necessitated-- a tax cut: "The growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I am here asking for a refund."
The next president will confront a far gloomier situation. The deficit, the administration's budget experts reported Monday, will be $482 billion -- a huge number that is probably a low-ball. Among other things, it assumes only $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The best argument the Bush administration has going for it is that this number, however mind-bogglingly large it sounds, is not alarming measured the most logical way, as a share of the economy. The 2009 deficit is projected to be just 3.3 percent of gross domestic product, well below the record 6 percent in 1983.

The difference is that President Ronald Reagan, facing such daunting deficits, changed course and undid about one-third of his earlier tax cuts. Bush, by contrast, is determined to insist, on his way out the door, that the tax cuts he once said were required by the surplus he inherited are now required by the deficit he is creating.

Delivering the bad deficit news, Jim Nussle, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, asserted that it was essential to keep the tax cuts in place to achieve balance. Huh? The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total budgetary cost of the Bush tax cuts will be $245 billion next fiscal year -- half the hole the administration has helped dig.

Monica Goodling was not the problem. She was the symptom of an administration so certain of the correctness of its worldview that it never pauses to reconsider.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072901967.html

That happy situation, he said, justified -- no, necessitated-- a tax cut: "The growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and on their behalf, I am here asking for a refund."
The next president will confront a far gloomier situation. The deficit, the administration's budget experts reported Monday, will be $482 billion -- a huge number that is probably a low-ball. Among other things, it assumes only $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The best argument the Bush administration has going for it is that this number, however mind-bogglingly large it sounds, is not alarming measured the most logical way, as a share of the economy. The 2009 deficit is projected to be just 3.3 percent of gross domestic product, well below the record 6 percent in 1983.

The difference is that President Ronald Reagan, facing such daunting deficits, changed course and undid about one-third of his earlier tax cuts. Bush, by contrast, is determined to insist, on his way out the door, that the tax cuts he once said were required by the surplus he inherited are now required by the deficit he is creating.

I don't know what she's referring to, but that's not how I remember it. And just looking at individual tax rates, it's not true.
Individual income tax rates dropped all thru the 80's, while tax brackets rose.
Top corp tax rate was mostly constant at 46% Slight surtax int he mid 80's.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

That said, Congress and the prez together spent like drunken sailors the past 8 years....and show no signs of slowing the presses. (The young guy even wants to give us Stimulus II)
Tax cut 1, ok. Tax cut 2, maybe. Tax cut 3, Unh uh! And not vetoing any bill for seven years? Surely there must have been some spending he didn't see eye to eye with.
The last time the govt. and the economy tried to give us guns and butter on credit.....well, it wern't pretty. Sooner or later the check arrives at the table.
Maybe we should order some of those hundred billion dollar notes like Zimbabwe's tossing around just in case inflation rears its ugly head.

Quite frankly, I'm just shocked and horrified.(sp)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_98sr5 (Post 1924648)

I read your entire statement. Since we agreed it was obviously wrong, I didn't quote that part. The people were not appointees.

EDIT: Dculkin beat me to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry (Post 1924698)

They'd probably say she is a good foot soldier pursuing the ends of her supervisors, and the lord. I don’t remember if it was Bush or Rove who spoke of a “permanent Republican majority,” but that statement was clearly marching orders.

According to one of the articles I read, the worst par of her actions was that several people were placed in career jobs expressly because of their support of the party. Accordingly, the laws protecting the employment of these people will make it all but impossible to remove them from office.

I hope she ultimately looses her license to practice law and spends some quality time in a Federal prison. Maybe she’ll be hired as a professor at her old law school. Disgusting sycophant.