Perhaps Michael Kinsley will agree that this isn't kosher: "Witnesses have told congressional investigators that the chief of the General Services Administration and a deputy in Karl Rove's political affairs office at the White House joined in a videoconference earlier this year with top GSA political appointees, who discussed ways to help Republican candidates." The irony in all this, at some level, is that if the Bush administration had spent less time thinking about ways to abuse their power for electoral gain and more time thinking about ways to govern the country in a non-disastrous manner, they probably would have done much better in the midterms. At some level, there's no substitute for knowing how to do your job properly.
« Getting Thrifty | Main | Hillary Clinton, Hawk »
Scandalous, Eh?
26 Mar 2007 12:55 am
Comments (8)
True enough, but the fact that most people think he blows nowadays means he is a drag on conservatism. So while he can't do anything to hurt his own future electoral prospects, he can still screw things up for his ideological soulmates.
GSA is the backbone of the whole shit. The head, let's put it that way. We form like Voltron and GSA just happen to be the head. You know what I'm sayin?
I'm reminded of the summer in college when I worked on the groundskeeping crew at a wastewater treatment plant. The maintenance crew, all very nice guys and all pretty skilled, had this strange culture of trying to avoid work and went to great lengths to hide all the time. I couldn't understand it: it would have been easier for them just to do the work.
"Witnesses have told congressional investigators that the chief of the General Services Administration and a deputy in Karl Rove's political affairs office at the White House joined in a videoconference earlier this year with top GSA political appointees"
That video conference probably lasted two hours. So are you saying that if Karl Rove had spent two more hours working legislation, and two less hours campaigning, the country would be in better shape?
And if they had done so, they would have done better in the Mid-Terms, right?
So, 1) do you really think two hours makes that much difference, and 2) are you really saying that you wished Bush had done better in the Mid-Terms last time?
Confused about the connections,
Sk
sk,
those two hours were spent trying to distort the proper functioning of government. And it is not just these two hours - they are constantly focusing on corrupting government for their political benefit or for their backers.
So, 1) it has nothing to do with two hours, but rather their view of what the goal is. 2) If their goal was to do their jobs well, they would be much more acceptable -- in fact, I would prefer to have an honest party (and therefore stronger long term) representing the conservative viewpoint even though I do not share it.
I doubt it.
Michael Kinsley makes David Broder look strong.
Sure he'll say it stinks. And then he'll go on to make a bunch of excuses about why it isn't "smart" strategy for the Democrats to investigate it.
Kinsley is an irredeemable pussy.
Comments closed April 09, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
At some level, there's no substitute for knowing how to do your job properly.
At some level? Well, let's see: we know that level isn't "President of the United States," or even "two-term President of the United States." So I guess we can just be glad that Bush lacks the competence to secure the title Lord of Eternity.
Posted by dj moonbat | March 26, 2007 1:00 AM