Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Did we ever have a formal "Eh, just let the krauts keep France after all" contingency plan in WWII?

In hindsight, we should have.

Was Iraq invaded by the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds? Who knew?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
When i was last in SF I tried to meet with some of the socks, and none of them were willing to come into the city. They all live somewhere outside i guess. What I find so odd about that, is that for 90% of the country I am "most beoved" and socks line up to meet me. Explain that dichotomy.

I was never invited.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Which always reminds me that someone should have kicked my ass when I signed up for high school German, and said "No, dimwit, you live in California - you can either take Spanish or Mandarin." Instead, I barely speak a language spoken in only 3.25 countries (Hi Lichtenstein!) and they all answer me back in good English when I try to speak German.

LessinMendoza

I remember saying something to you to that effect at the time when you told me you were taking German.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The news that Dick Cheney underwent a medical procedure today to address a blood clot in his leg reminds me of a fun question I asked before (last year?) that might be worth reconsidering now that things have changed some:

Who would Bush select as his Vice President if Cheney became medically unable to serve?

I don't think any of the presidential candidates would want the job -- they'd have no chance to affect the policy that matters (Iraq) and they'd get tied to the Administration's low ratings. Who else is there?

If I'm not mistaken, the new Veep would have to win Senate confirmation -- not a sure thing with this Senate.

My bet is that Bush would name some elder statesman (John Danforth?) who would easily get confirmed but who would be excluded from anything that matters within the White House.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The news that Dick Cheney underwent a medical procedure today to address a blood clot in his leg reminds me of a fun question I asked before (last year?) that might be worth reconsidering now that things have changed some:

Who would Bush select as his Vice President if Cheney became medically unable to serve?

I don't think any of the presidential candidates would want the job -- they'd have no chance to affect the policy that matters (Iraq) and they'd get tied to the Administration's low ratings. Who else is there?

If I'm not mistaken, the new Veep would have to win Senate confirmation -- not a sure thing with this Senate.

My bet is that Bush would name some elder statesman (John Danforth?) who would easily get confirmed but who would be excluded from anything that matters within the White House.

I'd name Bill Clinton.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Which always reminds me that someone should have kicked my ass when I signed up for high school German, and said "No, dimwit, you live in California - you can either take Spanish or Mandarin." Instead, I barely speak a language spoken in only 3.25 countries (Hi Lichtenstein!) and they all answer me back in good English when I try to speak German.

LessinMendoza

my daughter has to take 2 years of a language and we had this same fight. Japanese or better, Mandarin- No, German sounds cooler, or easier?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I was never invited.

we met. I'm Paigow.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The news that Dick Cheney underwent a medical procedure today to address a blood clot in his leg reminds me of a fun question I asked before (last year?) that might be worth reconsidering now that things have changed some:

Who would Bush select as his Vice President if Cheney became medically unable to serve?

I don't think any of the presidential candidates would want the job -- they'd have no chance to affect the policy that matters (Iraq) and they'd get tied to the Administration's low ratings. Who else is there?

If I'm not mistaken, the new Veep would have to win Senate confirmation -- not a sure thing with this Senate.

My bet is that Bush would name some elder statesman (John Danforth?) who would easily get confirmed but who would be excluded from anything that matters within the White House.

I think there are any number of elder statemens amongst the republicans who would have no problem getting confirmed (Bob Dole? Warren Rudman? Sam Nun?), although James Baker would seem like a good bet.

But you are right, none would likely have much influence, which would be the normal state of things.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
I remember saying something to you to that effect at the time when you told me you were taking German.

You lie. All you ever said was "My level 10 Druid uses my +2 quarters glasses to capture your +3 standard highschool girl, but only before she pukes in the Scirocho.

LessinMendoza

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The news that Dick Cheney underwent a medical procedure today to address a blood clot in his leg reminds me of a fun question I asked before (last year?) that might be worth reconsidering now that things have changed some:

Who would Bush select as his Vice President if Cheney became medically unable to serve?

I don't think any of the presidential candidates would want the job -- they'd have no chance to affect the policy that matters (Iraq) and they'd get tied to the Administration's low ratings. Who else is there?

If I'm not mistaken, the new Veep would have to win Senate confirmation -- not a sure thing with this Senate.

My bet is that Bush would name some elder statesman (John Danforth?) who would easily get confirmed but who would be excluded from anything that matters within the White House.

Harriet Miers?

I'd like to think Al Gore - just to fuck with him a little bit? (Although Al would then probably suffocate him)

[Gattigap]

More on the AUSA kerfluffle. Saw this story in Slate which points out that the USA Patriot Act contains provisions which eliminated any Congressional oversight and/or judicial involvement regarding the hiring of new AUSAs.

• U.S. attorneys are well aware that they serve at the president's pleasure, but new wording in the Patriot Act made it worth the president's while to fire a big, fat lot of them and hire a group of new ones. And while certainly half the scandal is that the Justice Department did that—let eight U.S. attorneys go, seemingly for no reason—we seem to have forgotten that even without the mass firings, this law had been changed in the sneakiest way imaginable.
  
  The background: When Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act last year, it included little-noticed language that changed the way U.S. attorneys would be appointed if their predecessors were removed in the middle of their term. Under the old regime, interim U.S. attorneys needed to be confirmed by the Senate after 120 days. If they weren't, federal district judges could select their replacement. The new language removed both judicial and congressional oversight of the interim U.S. attorneys, letting DOJ anoint them indefinitely. This served three important goals: consolidating presidential power, diminishing oversight, and ensuring that "interim" prosecutors had permanent jobs.

Sen. Spector, the committee chair in charge of the legislation, professed that he didn't know about this change, and that it was his chief counsel on staff who put it in late in the game, at the request of the DOJ.

Nice. I can't decide if it's more depressing to consider that (1) even the chair of the committee that passed the legislation didn't know what was in it, or (2) possibly that he did read it at the time but is being less than truthful about it, or (3) congress doesn't seem to mind that they're giving away elements of co-equal power in the interest of unitary executive power.

Gattigap

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
More on the AUSA kerfluffle. Saw this story in Slate which points out that the USA Patriot Act contains provisions which eliminated any Congressional oversight and/or judicial involvement regarding the hiring of new AUSAs.

• U.S. attorneys are well aware that they serve at the president's pleasure, but new wording in the Patriot Act made it worth the president's while to fire a big, fat lot of them and hire a group of new ones. And while certainly half the scandal is that the Justice Department did that—let eight U.S. attorneys go, seemingly for no reason—we seem to have forgotten that even without the mass firings, this law had been changed in the sneakiest way imaginable.
  
  The background: When Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act last year, it included little-noticed language that changed the way U.S. attorneys would be appointed if their predecessors were removed in the middle of their term. Under the old regime, interim U.S. attorneys needed to be confirmed by the Senate after 120 days. If they weren't, federal district judges could select their replacement. The new language removed both judicial and congressional oversight of the interim U.S. attorneys, letting DOJ anoint them indefinitely. This served three important goals: consolidating presidential power, diminishing oversight, and ensuring that "interim" prosecutors had permanent jobs.

Sen. Spector, the committee chair in charge of the legislation, professed that he didn't know about this change, and that it was his chief counsel on staff who put it in late in the game, at the request of the DOJ.

Nice. I can't decide if it's more depressing to consider that (1) even the chair of the committee that passed the legislation didn't know what was in it, or (2) possibly that he did read it at the time but is being less than truthful about it, or (3) congress doesn't seem to mind that they're giving away elements of co-equal power in the interest of unitary executive power.

Gattigap

They saw the writing on the wall and gutted the power of the incoming Congress - this sort of thing has been done by scurilous lame-duck Presidents and Congresses who lack public support since John Adams appointed his midnight judges.

Of course, in Adams case it was a major contributor to the near-demise of his part (near-demise because, of course, Slave is the last surviving Federalist).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
More on the AUSA kerfluffle. Saw this story in Slate which points out that the USA Patriot Act contains provisions which eliminated any Congressional oversight and/or judicial involvement regarding the hiring of new AUSAs.

Slate's a little slow on the uptake. The Senate introduced a bill nearly a month ago that would return to the pre-Patriot Act change days:

S. 214 (pdf)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
They saw the writing on the wall and gutted the power of the incoming Congress - this sort of thing has been done by scurilous lame-duck Presidents and Congresses who lack public support since John Adams appointed his midnight judges.

Of course, in Adams case it was a major contributor to the near-demise of his part (near-demise because, of course, Slave is the last surviving Federalist).

I heard an interview a few days ago with the attorney in New Mexico, David Iglesias. He's the one that Domenici and the other representative called (has that person fessed up yet?) about the corruption case.

Anyhow, one of his theories as to why this happened was that Republicans want to have as many of their people as possible qualified for federal judgeships and being an AUSA looks real good on the old judicial resume. He said that if the Justice Department had been candid about that ("Hey, Dave. Great job in Alburquerque. Love the adobe. Listen, we've gotta ask you to step aside to give Howard a shot at your job for awhile. You've done great, we really appreciate it, but we've only got a few years of appointments left and we need to take as much advantage as possible. I'm sure you understand.") he would have gladly stepped aside and faded into whereever AUSAs fade to.

He's testifying today. I think he sounded like a damned good witness who is really pissed off that he got booted, rather publically, for "performance" reasons. It sort of reminds me of the lawfirm non-layoff layoffs back in 2001. He didn't sound like he was looking forward to this, since he's pretty sure it will kill what's left of his legal career, but he was also pretty pissed off.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I heard an interview a few days ago with the attorney in New Mexico, David Iglesias. He's the one that Domenici and the other representative called (has that person fessed up yet?) about the corruption case.

It was Rep. Heather Wilson (R- NM). Here is the lawblog summary

Here is an interesting graphic from the Post. Note that of the six testifying today, five had been involved in ethics investigations targetting republicans. The sixth was Iglesias.

eta: If you are trying to boost the ranks of Rs with good resumes, I don't think you do it by publicly firing sitting USAs. Instead you call and discretely ask them to resign so someone else can have a turn, allowing them to move on like it was their idea.