Comments on: Gonzales’s Fall, Bush’s Impeachment?

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:55:03 +0000

Steve - your Selective Service number may have been high.

But your FBI number might be pretty low, considering some of the places you post.

Luckily, you don’t need to worry about the FBI intentionally tapping your phone or trampling your rights. It will always be an accident - or at least it will not be a criminal offense.

By: Original Steve

Original Steve — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:16:12 +0000

I’m not worried about being drafted by Jim. My birthday and lottery numbers are pretty high (a little Vietnam reference for you).

Jim, Josh Marshall was on this thing ages ages ago. In fact, his posts were almost in the same few hours as the last couple of firings just as they were going down.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:59:31 +0000

So the guys did arrive, or you are doing a hypothetical here?

If the guys did arrive, I hope your thumbs heal real soon.

By: Lawhobbit

Lawhobbit — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:03:16 +0000

I’m just trying to wrap my mind around Jim conscripting people to post in his blog. I picture two big (bigger than me) guys showing up at my office - two men with a common middle name of “the” - and them intoning, “Mr. Bovard wants 125 words out of you on the Rindepest For Congress issue, and he wants it on his blog before noon. And they had best be arranged in coherent sentences and 50% of them need to contain at least two or more syllables.”

It staggers the imagination.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:31:34 +0000

Steve - Thanks - but Josh Marshall is in a class by himself on this atty firing scandal. He and his team have done a great job of advancing the story when the major papers did their usual snoozeathons at the crime scene.

It is good that he put the Wash. Post and NY Times and other places to shame.

By: Original Steve

Original Steve — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:28:30 +0000

Thanks Jim. Thats all I can say. You and Josh Marshall continue to do a fantastic, level headed job on this and other stories.

By: John Lowell

John Lowell — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:25:01 +0000

Jim,

Uh huh.

And I see no reason whatsoever to revise my appraisal.

John Lowell

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:17:32 +0000

John - I am not “censorius” because I am blocking no one from commenting anywhere else on the web.

This blog is not a public utility.

And no one is being conscripted to comment on this blog.

By: John Lowell

John Lowell — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:11:44 +0000

Jim,

What you may mean by “non-germane ethnic/national/religious references in comments” I can’t say but if by “there is more to political reality (and the current abuses) than a single lobby” you are referring to the comment I’d made above, I’d suggest that you reach for the Alka-Seltzer. Someone disagrees in a respectful way with your take on things and you turn censorious? And we’re worrying about Gonzales?

John Lowell

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:45:37 +0000

FYI - a notice on this blog’s protocol -

There have been quite a few non-germane ethnic/national/religious references in comments lately.

Such comments are susceptible to being deleted without notice. (Comments from three people have been struck in the last couple days).

I’m critical of Bush & his foreign policy. But there is more to political reality (and the current abuses) than a single lobby.

I appreciate the effort folks put into their comments here. Endless repetition of any point throughout the comments deflects from the fresh thoughts people post here.

And - as Nixon would say - “Let me make this perfectly clear” - I welcome critical comments, harsh & otherwise, on my own positions & writing. That makes for zesty reading - part of the reason I sometimes post hate mail I receive.