Let's not (conveniently) forget to put all this in the context of Arlen Specter sneaking a last-minute provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization that allows the replacements for these ousted Federal attorneys to be named to more or less permanent terms without any Senate confirmation. (In the past Federal circuit court judges were the only ones who could name replacements for U.S. attorneys and their terms were limited to 90-120 days; after that, permanent replacements would have to be named and would have to undergo Senate confirmation.)

I'm sure bypassing Senate confirmation smells perfectly fine to A.J. and Joe but that's not surprising given where their noses usually are. To the rest of us "gullible Salonistas" it stinks!

ousting U.S. Attorneys "mid-term" is extremely rare, "Bob", so why eight and why now? Oh dear, you don't suppose it had anything to do with that last-minute addition to the Patriot Act expansion that said the ATTORNEY GENERAL could decide on who their replacements would be? In the past, Bob, only a Federal Circuit Court judge could name replacement U.S. Attorneys and those would only be interim appointments for terms not to exceed 120 days. Permanent replacements would then have to be named and those replacements would have to be evaluated and confirmed by the Senate. The replacements for these U.S. Attorneys wouldn't have to be evaluated and confirmed by anybody and their terms would be indefinite, not temporary. Ostensibly that provision was added to the Patriot Act in case terrorists started blowing up Federal prosecutors. Well, call me cynical, Bob, but I think it's much more likely that that provision was added so that the White House could get rid of U.S. Attorneys who put their oath of office ahead of politics.

Now maybe YOU don't think Congress should be investigating this, Bob, and you've already said that you think the president should be able to "hire or fire them, at will, for any reason he deems appropriate" (and, presumably, circumvent Senate confirmation when he picks their replacements) but if that's the way the White House is going to operate then, doggone it, that sounds a lot more like a fascist regime than an American presidency, dontcha think? George Bush is under the impression that he's accountable to no one and for the last 6 years that's just how it's been. Surely you don't have a problem with him being "reminded" that HE serves at the pleasure of the American people, do you? And would now be a good time to mention that a lot of us think "executive privilege" has no place in a conversation about the possibility of Federal prosecutors being pressured to go after political opponents? Richard Nixon had some strong ideas about "executive privilege" too and we all know how THAT went.

I know how unsettling all this must be to you, Bob. And I know what you're thinking and you're absolutely right, none of this would be happening if the Republicans hadn't blown it by losing their majority last November. Who knows, maybe if those damned 8 fired prosecutors had just been willing to play along when they were asked to, it would be just like the good ol' days ... George Bush would be doing whatever he damn well pleases and Congress would be busy looking for more ways to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Welcome to the Democrats' idea of the good ol' days, Bob.

is how do you keep from punching that strident, pontificating gasbag Pat Buchanan in the mouth?

Why Scarborough keeps inviting him back is beyond me ... his points of view are completely out-of-touch and it's infuriating when he keeps trying to drown out the other guests as he did to you the other night. (At least you held your ground and got your points across.)

Apparently nothing you say or write is going to satisfy some Salon subscribers. As for me, I'm enjoying your blogs and hope you'll continue doing them.

The "straight talk express" seems to be flying in ever-smaller concentric circles. If Einstein is correct, eventually it shall be forced to fly up its own ass. I doubt that it will be missed.

Presumably Karl Rove and the Department of Justice know the difference between VOTER fraud and ELECTION fraud. Voter fraud has generally come to mean individuals showing up to vote who aren't eligible to vote. Under the Bush administration a ton of prevention is apparently worth an ounce of cure since voter fraud has also come to mean trying to implement stringent voter registration requirements that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor and minority voters likely to vote for Democratic candidates. Election fraud, on the other hand, involves tampering with vote counts and results either while voters are voting or after the fact.

What I find interesting is that no one seems to be asking this administration and the Department of Justice why it's focusing on voter fraud instead of actively investigating alleged incidents of ELECTION fraud in Ohio and Florida. (Responding to the complaints of voters in the 2006 election, officials tested 62 touch screen machines in Montgomery County, Ohio and found that 33 of them recorded votes incorrectly. 14 were unable to be fixed and were shipped back to Diebold!) Surely election fraud could do more to affect the outcome of elections than even rampant voter fraud (of which there's been no evidence). By focusing on voter rather than election fraud they just reinforce my belief that the ease with which electronic voting machines could be (and perhaps already have been) hacked is the GOP's "ace in the hole" for future elections and the scandal to end all scandals if it's ever proved that vote counts in the last 3 federal elections were, in fact, tampered with.