Of course I was only joking when I suggested that Rep. Dave Reichert should recommend “Major” to replace John McKay as U.S. attorney for Western Washington. That would be ridiculous. Major doesn’t even live in Western Washington, and like Rick White, he isn’t currently eligible to practice law in the state. And, oh yeah… he’s a dog.
But if Reichert really wants to live up to the Seattle Times’ absurd assertion that he possesses “a conscience-driven independent streak,” then I have a serious suggestion that would not only put the U.S. attorney’s office in the hands of perhaps the most qualified candidate out there, but would absolutely cement our local media’s love affair with the notion that Reichert is a political moderate. Reichert should recommend replacing McKay with a candidate who has years of prosecutorial experience, a demonstrated respect for the Constitution, and an unchallenged reputation for rising above the political fray. Reichert should nominate John McKay.
Really.
Politicians are often faced with a choice between good policy and political expedience, but this is one of those rare occasions when doing the right thing would also qualify as a stunning act of political savvy. Think about it. Who is best qualified to fill out the final two years of the term? A six-year U.S. attorney with excellent performance reviews, or a one-time bankruptcy attorney with expired credentials who would have to bone up on the legal profession itself, let alone learn the job on the job? If Reichert wants to nominate the best qualified candidate, McKay is the hands-down winner.
Plus, a McKay nomination would not only inoculate Reichert from the growing scandal surrounding Gonzales, Rove and the teetering Bush administration, it would in a single stroke forever establish his credentials as the conscience-driven independent he pretends to be. A Republican congressman sticking it to the Justice Department like that would make national headlines, while transforming Reichert into a local hero.
From a purely political perspective, it would be fucking brilliant. Which I suppose explains why you’re more likely to see Reichert nominate Major than McKay.
UPDATE:
Dave Neiwert at Orcinus is also calling for John McKay’s name to be resubmitted.
Goldy — you have an excellent suggestion.
Dave Reichert and Norm Maleng (the fellow Reichert put in charge of his committee) could remove Rick White from the list of three names and add John McKay. This would result in the “short list” being Jeff Sullivan, Mike Vaska, and John McKay.
The McKay (Mike & John) brothers are still very good friends and allies of Norm Maleng. Believe me on this one.
John McKay is established in his new position as a law professor at Seattle University, and probably enjoys working in academia. McKay would respectfully decline the appointment. Besides, McKay has complete confidence in Jeff Sullivan — the long-time Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney who McKay personally hired to be the number two person in the office when he decided not to run again over there in 2002 (probably because his position with McKay’s office was already planned for).
Mike Vaska doesn’t want the job. Believe me. He would have loved to have been elected to a four year term as state Attorney General back in 2004. Probably he would have loved to have been appointed U.S. Attorney back in 2001, when Bush first took office. But I seriously doubt that Vaska wants to leave a nice partner position at Foster Pepper for what could be a mere 22 months at the U.S. Attorney’s Office (or quite a bit less than 22 months, were Vaska to wait until confirmation before assuming the position).
Also, the federal judges have complete confidence in Sullivan — they know him and have worked with him. The U.S. Attorney law WILL soon be amended back to provide the district judges have appointment power, if the temporary appointee remains more than 120 days. The local federal judges WOULD keep Sullivan on the job.
Probably they would keep Vaska if he were a temporary appointee waiting for Senate confirmation, but who knows — and Vaska won’t chance it. Besides, Sullivan would be much easier to confirm than Vaska — who is certainly a great guy, but would be tarred with suspicions by opportunistic Democrats.
Maybe I should write everyone I know in the GOP and suggest exactly what you have proposed …
Not really on topic, but not really off topic either….
Is Major not better looking than HelmetHead Dave? In addition, he has that cool just “toweled” his hair look, honest eyes and he probably does not give a shit when someone expresses their right to free speech by “flipping the bird” at a passing car.
OK I admit I am under the influence of Dr prescribed vicodin for the sinus infection I am currently suffering from, but still…
I’m just wondering.
And Richard at 1:
I still think you should switch over to our side. You seem to have a good heart, very sound legal ability (just because you are the most organized attorney, does not make you a bad guy) and with Democrats in charge around here, putting the Democrat label next to your name on a ballot might be just what you need to get over the hump.
Furball:
Two bunches of virtual carrots for you.
Enjoy!
OK, the v i c o din is tak ing effec t now.
N
i
t
e
y
n
i
t
e
@2 Even on drugs, you make more sense than any of the trolls.
@4 Gee thanks! But what did I do to deserve the goody basket?
White House Lied — Rove Was Deeply Involved In Prosecutor Firings!!!
Stunning new e-mails released last night show Karl Rove asked the Justice Department about firing U.S. Attorneys in January 2005. But why was Rove involved? He is Bush’s POLITICAL adviser, not legal adviser — unless the firings furthered a political agenda? (Such as smearing Democrats with false election-fraud charges.) Which, of course, is now painfully obvious.
“WASHINGTON (March 16) – The White House is being pulled further into the intensifying probe over federal prosecutor firings amid new questions about top political adviser Karl Rove’s role ….
“E-mails released … Thursday night … appear to contradict the administration’s assertion that Bush’s staff had only limited involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which Democrats have suggested were a politically motivated purge. …
“The latest e-mails between White House and Justice Department officials … ‘show conclusively that Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning,’ said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. ‘Every time new information comes out, it proves that the White House was not telling the truth.’ …
“‘Eight U.S. attorneys who did not play ball with the political agenda of this administration were dropped from the team,’ said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois. ‘We have a right to ask what that political agenda was and whether or not it was a reasonable firing and dismissal.'”
Excerpted under Fair Use; for complete story and/or copyright info, see http://tinyurl.com/28j5f7
The article also says Republican support in Congress for Gonzales is “eroding,” citing another GOP senator and an unspecified House member who will call for Gonzales’ resignation next week.
“A Dishonest Republican Talking Point on the Prosecutor Scandal
“Posted Mar 15th 2007 3:27PM by Cenk Uygur
“Some Republicans have now been using the talking point that it’s no big deal that Bush fired the eight prosecutors at the Justice Department — because Bill Clinton fired 93 prosecutors when he came into office. This point is completely disingenuous. And the people making it are smart enough to know that it is.
For policy reasons every president replaces all of the prosecutors at the Justice Department in the beginning of their term. George H. W. Bush did, Bill Clinton did and so did George W. Bush. And when George Bush did this in 2001 it was not a scandal or a problem. It was completely normal.
This case is different because he fired the prosecutors for political rather than policy reasons. He was punishing some of them for going after Republican legislators and not going after Democrats before the elections ….
“If Hillary Clinton wins, do you want her firing any prosecutor who goes after corrupt Democrats in the middle of her term? Or coercing her Justice Department to pursue cases against Republicans, whether it’s justified or not?
“This is a terrible precedent of allowing politics to corrupt the Justice Department. That’s why so many Republicans as well as Democrats are furious.
“Remember … the prosecutors fired were Republicans …. But they … believed in doing their job rather than being hatchet man for Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales. …”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete article see http://tinyurl.com/2t8lry
Supporting the Troops Dep’t.
“Coroner Calls British Troop’s Death Avoidable
“AP
“LONDON (AP) – A coroner conducting an inquest into a U.S. ‘friendly fire’ attack that killed a British soldier … said Friday the death was entirely avoidable …[and] also criticized the U.S. military for failing to cooperate with his investigation into the incident.”
http://tinyurl.com/28dxbm
Maybe he should nominate for the federal position the attorney Sims hired to investigate the allegations against his department.
Oh yea, I forgot, he never hired anyone.
McKay dropped the ball as best I can tell. Smart move for hi, as its easier to be a friend of Dems around here than to be liked by repubs..
@8
The only ball McKay dropped was the Repube’s circle jerk mania to make it illegal to vote for Democratic candidates. It you nut balls don’t get intervention for that, you’ll make yourselves intelligible for public office in perpetuity.
Not that such a situation would be a bad thing, but I’m just sayin’.
RP reminds us that all eight US Attorneys canned by the Rovians are dyed in the wool Repubelickers. As such, liberals such as I have to hold our noses and hope we can get a clean slate at Justice by winning the White House. This means electing a president by a large enough majority so as to overcome ballot destruction by elections officials in places like Florida and Ohio, of course. Illegalities in elections that all 93 current US Attorneys have, if not ignored, been loathe to act on.
That deflates much of the humor in Goldy’s modest proposal. It would be funny, if it weren’t happening to me.
Why aren’t these US attorney jobs permanent jobs? Why are they “political” appoinments in the first place?
Of course, if they’re as bad as that Mike Nifong guy in North Carolina, they should be fired. Now THERE was a guy trying to feather his nest for politcal gain!!
Except for the fact that John McKay now has a teaching job at Seattle University, and says he doesn’t want the old job back. So though I see your point, Goldy, it would be sort of a worthless gesture. I’m sure there are some qualified Republican lawyers who actually want the job (if only for 20 or so months).
McKenna I wouldn’t let near the job, s/he has demonstrated too much partisanship already. Isn’t Sam Reed a Republican? How about Norm Maleng?
Of course, anyone who would agree to serve under Gonzales after what has come out this week has already got a mark against them. So one is faced with the Catch-22 of having to nominate someone who, if they have the ethical fortitude required for the job, would in fact refuse the job, given the current management of DOJ.
If not John McKay, maybe Mike. He would get GOP points for having been “fired” by Bill Clinton (as part of the standard, usual, SOP events when the presidency changes parties).
I feel sick. Something must be wrong. I actually agree with Richard Pope on this one.
David
http://www.homesteadbook.com/blog
Bill Clinton has lashed out against an old ally, the New York Times, saying the paper wasn’t giving his wife Hillary “a fair shake.” At a fund-raiser for Hillary on Tuesday night at the Trump World Tower in Manhattan, the former president spoke for two hours and devoted much of that time to attacking the Times.
He forgot to support the Troops in harms way when down dressing The New York Times. Yep Democrats are in it for themselves not what best for the country. Cut and Run Gang supporting terrorist all over the world just to get elected into office.
re 20: “He forgot to support the Troops in harms way when down dressing The New York Times. Yep Democrats are in it for themselves not what best for the country. Cut and Run Gang supporting terrorist all over the world just to get elected into office.”
Do you use these idiotic talking points just to get a rise out of intelligent people, or do you really think you are at some clooging festival in Georgia?
Stay on topic, please, or take your act back to North Kakilacki.
Raise your hands if you think Alberto Gonzales will step down this weekend. He is history, sooner or later. He is also one more corpse attesting to the shortsightedness of attaching oneself to George Bush.
erratum: clogging
Why is the Bush administration attempting MICROMANAGE U.S. Attorneys?
lucy at 24,
Good question. Why are these jobs political appointments in the first palce?
There’s no argument here that as the law currently stands (even if maybe it should be changed) the President has the privelege of appointing his own flock of US Attorneys, and that most Presidents do when they take office. (Bill Clinton did, and so did this one.)
The issue here is that all of them appear to have been given a very clear message: “Now, you’re going to be getting specific instructions from the AG and Uncle Karl as to what cases to pursue, who and what to subpoena, who to prosecute and when, what cases to let go by and whose transgressions to ignore, no matter what they might be. And if you don’t play ball, you’re going to be on the sidewalk in a New York minute, and we’ll top it off by telling the world you were let go because you’re incompetent.” Then, eight of ’em were thusly punished to make sure the message had sunk in with the rest.
It is ironic that this US Attorney thing is causing such political damage to Bushco because, as many have pointed out, TECHNICALLY, it’s all legal.
But the little guy, the average citizen, has long suspected that the courts are rigged against him. The “legality” of it is mere smoke and mirrors by the rich and well connected.
The little guy is used to getting screwed (legally, of course) and there is a real satisfaction in screwing Bushco over for something immoral and wrong that has the patina of legality.
In other words, to quote VP Dick Halliburton, Gonzalez can expect a severe rectal exam courtesy of Congress.
After all, Congress can investigate and MICROMANAGE anything it wants to “AT THEIR PLEASURE”.
After all, it is legal.
The Seattle Times picked up on this story about Rick White, and how he was suspended and isn’t currently licensed to practice law:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....te16m.html
“White, contacted at home Thursday night, said he could not talk about his situation “because the White House has very strict rules about commenting on this process.
“I understand I’m in a bad position,” he said. “I wish I could explain, but I can’t.”
Likewise, a spokeswoman for Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, said his office would have no comment. Reichert was assigned to oversee the selection process to replace John McKay, a President Bush appointee who was fired as U.S. attorney last month.
Reichert had picked King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng to lead the panel and submit candidates. The Seattle Times reported Thursday that White was among the three candidates whose names were submitted to the White House. The others are Interim U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan and Seattle attorney Mike Vaska. Both Sullivan and Vaska are listed as “active” members of the state bar.
Maleng’s spokesman, Dan Donohoe, said the prosecutor would have no comment.”
22 The more interesting question, assuming Gonzales is indeed going to be the next sacrificial lamb, is who or what Bush will propose to replace him.
ArtFart @ 29
How about replacing Alberto Gonzalez with Rick White? I looked at the applicable statutes, and he would be eligible. Nothing requires that the Attorney General of the United States be eligible to practice law in any court. Anyone is eligible under 28 USC 503. The Attorney General simply has to manage the Department of Justice.
By contrast, Rick White could not be the local U.S. Attorney. 28 USC 541 doesn’t impose eligibility requirements, but the duties under 28 USC 547 include representing the United States in court. Since White isn’t licensed to practice law, he would be unable to perform these duties and presumably ineligible for appointment.
I think that maybe they should replace the Arrorney Gernerals with the upstanding, responsible, honest people like Reichert himself. Maybe like Mark Fuhrman. Someone with the integrity to follow Bush’s integrity. What a perfect group a Nazi’s we would have leading us to the gallows. Isn’t he a convicted Felon now. I just wonder how many guns he is able to own.
Anybody out there besides peee-dookie and klake the village idiot still believe that this is not the most corrupt and incompetent administration ever???
The Bush Admisistration has faltered badly – largely due to not paying attention and allowing corruption to go un-checked in a lot of areas in government. Bush underestimated the mess Iraq has turned out to be, and this will go down as the Big Mistake of his administration.
Bush forgot the fundamental lesson of the previous military adventures: if you’re going to get involved in a fight, get involved to win. If you can’t do what it takes to win, don’t get in the fight.
Will the Democrats do a better job? To be honest, I don’t think they’re capable. The Democrats’ capabilities aside, they are walking into a political ambush in 2008. Sure, they’ll win (as long as they don’t run Hillary), but getting out of the tar pit in the Middle East may be a lot tougher than the Democrats think.
Re 33: We’ve been setting the world back on it’s feet ever since Herbert (prosperity is just around the corner) Hoover.
All we need to do this time around is get corporate money out of the political process.
That means you sre absolutely correct about the Clinton’s. In many people’s opinion, it’s time for a fourth way.
Lucy,
I don’t think the depression was caused so much by Herbert Hoover and his administration as the Federal Reserve not doing its job of trying to contain the economy. The Fed, at that time, had a margin requirement of only 10%. That meant smaller investors were using 90% leverage to make stock purchases. Any little decline meant a margin call, which led to selling to cover the margin, which led to lower stock prices, which led to more margin calls, which led to more selling …. You get the picture.
One of the famous tycoons of the day was fond of saying it was time to get out of the market when the little guy was buying. Empircal studies supported this statement, too, but ever since the advent of mutual funds, the little guy has a lot better chance than he/she used to. The power of institutional investors like Fidelity and Vanguard have brought about a more level playing field for little versus big investors.
Still, the old adage that says turning $100 into $110 is hard work, whereas turning $100,000,000 into $110,000,000 is inevitable. The rich will always seek to get richer, as that is what makes their money into “wealth.” As long as the little guy gets a chance to build wealth, I’d say the playing field is about as level as it’s gonna get.
Libertarian @ 33:
Any Democrat elected in 2008 will have troops out of Iraq on the next plane, followed by more planes, or s/he will have to deal with the same “base” that put Lyndon Johnson out to pasture. Just because Republicans have no balls to jerk their own President’s leash doesn’t mean Democrats have the same lack.
Charlie Smith @ 36,
Time will tell if you’re right or wrong. I wouldn’t be holding my breath, if I were you.
re 28 and Rick white saying he was in a bad spot
can you ever imagine a whacko Dem admitting he flubbed? mc Dimmot admitting he leaked phone calls, or patty admitting she has no clue?