Letters to the Editor
orbitboy
Published Letters: 1215 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Who is Monica Goodling?
[Read the article: Drudge and the Politico -- poisonously joined at the hip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who is Monica Goodling?
By Ron Hutcheson
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Monica Goodling, the Department of Justice official who
said Monday that she'll invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than talk
to lawmakers, is a frequent figure in department e-mails released so
far as part of the congressional investigation into the firings and
hirings of U.S. attorneys.
Goodling, 33, is a 1995 graduate of Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an
institution that describes itself as "committed to embracing an
evangelical spirit."
She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach,
Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its
mission is "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference,
who will change the world."
E-mails show that Goodling was involved in planning the dismissals
and in later efforts to limit the negative reaction. As the Justice
Department's liaison to the White House, she could shed light on the
extent of White House involvement in the dismissals.
Goodling took a leading role in making sure that Tim Griffin, a
protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, replaced H.E. "Bud"
Cummins as the U.S. attorney in Arkansas. Documents released to
Congress include communications between Goodling and Scott Jennings,
Rove's deputy.
In an Aug. 18, 2006, e-mail to Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales' chief of
staff, Goodling warned of potential political problems with Griffin's
appointment and underscored White House interest in getting it done.
"We have a senator prob, so while wh is intent on nominating, scott
thinks we may have a confirmation issue," Goodling wrote.
At Jennings' request, documents show, Goodling agreed to meet last
summer with two Republican activists from New Mexico who felt that
U.S. Attorney David Iglesias wasn't doing enough to pursue
allegations of voter fraud by Democrats. Iglesias believes the issue
was a key factor in his firing.
In a June 20 e-mail, Jennings asked Goodling to arrange a Justice
Department meeting for New Mexico Republican Mickey Barnett, who came
to Washington with Paul Rogers, another GOP activist.
"It is sensitive - perhaps you should do it," Jennings suggested.
"Happy to do so," Goodling replied. A copy of her daily planner,
which was provided to congressional investigators, shows that she met
with the two the next day.
Goodling also appears to have been influential in preventing the
ouster of U.S. Attorney Gretchen Shappert in western North Carolina.
When Shappert's name appeared on a list of targeted prosecutors in
September 2006, Goodling recommended that she be left alone.
"There are plenty of others there to start with," Goodling wrote,
"and I don't think she merits being included in that group at this
time."
-
Goodling and the Bush Administration
[Read the article: Drudge and the Politico -- poisonously joined at the hip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think what’s also clear is that Bush has stacked the DOJ with Jesus freaks who have highly dubious credentials. All this underscores the extent of his contempt for the rule of law, and the federal government in general.
-
Conspiracies everywhere...
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, Drudge and Politico aren't the only organizations in cahoots here.
I've been reading Glenn Greenwald's blog for quite some time now, and I can also say that I have read his book, "How Would a Patriot Act?" It is quite clear to me after my investigation into his conduct that he is very obviously and deliberately conspiring with the truth. In fact, it's as though he sorts through the facts when researching a particular topic, and only after that does he make up his mind as to what the truth really is.
This is in stark contrast to the "conservative" strategy of beginning with a conclusion, and assembling whatever facts will support that conclusion, leaving out any points that might lead a reader to believe that the conclusion is absolute bullshit.
-
ta daaaa!!!!
[Read the article: Drudge and the Politico -- poisonously joined at the hip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Meanwhile this thread seems to have degenerated into a battle over who can be most inane with the english language."
I agree. And shooter wins!
-
This is somthing we see from Bush supporters everyday here
[Read the article: Neoconservative radicalism has reshaped our political spectrum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And no doubt we'll see it again later today from the likes of shooter, daleyrocks, joe, Elephantman, etc.:
If you are critical of Bush, you are therefore a "liberal."
It's a fundamental preconcepttion to any argument they make.
-
I wish I could be optimistic
[Read the article: The Politico's John Harris replies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn wrote:
"I just react strongly when people claim that the misleading though simplistic themes of the Right will prevail because they are simplistic and easier to sell. I just don't think that's true, and worse, I think it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."
I wouldn't argue that the Right will ultimately win because their simplistic themes are easier to sell, but I DO firmly believe that the extent to which Right wing themes are successful, it is due to the simplicity of the message. Unfortunately, I can only give anecdotal examples of why I believe this to be true, but here's just one:
I was talking to a friend a few weeks ago who had received a forwarded mass email from her mother that listed several "quotes" attributed to Hillary Clinton. Most were truly awful. And, most were "he said, she said" hearsay that is impossible to verify. A total swift-boat job. However, this friend's initial response was to believe it. When I began explaining why it was bunk, she said, "See, this is why I can't get involved in politics--it's too much trouble to figure out who's telling the truth. I never know what to believe."
Granted, that's just one story, but how many times does this exact thing happen? I'm not saying MOST people react this way, but that if ONE person reacts this way, it's one too many. And the extent to which Karl Rove is successful is dependant on how many folks out there are like her who can't be bothered to do a little homework.
-
@Poco
[Read the article: The Politico's John Harris replies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Why don't some of you lefties subscribe?"
"Some" of us do.
"Probably for the same reason that conservatives outgive (to charitable organizations) loving, caring, compassionate liberals ten-to-one."
Does that reflect giving as a percentage of income or net wealth? If so, why don't you cite us some relevant data?