U. S. Attorney General

"There is growing bi-partisan consensus that he is not fit for the job"

Senator Charles Schumer was right now on C-SPAN-3 being interviewed on the Gonzales mess.

He has not only has said that there is growing bi-partisan consensus that Alberto Gonzales is not fit for the job of US Attorney General, but has said that "he is less qualified to be attorney general than the US attorneys he fired". And, just to dig the point deeper, he offered the comment that, had this had happened under the Reagan administration, Gonzales would have been summarily fired.

I kind of disagree on that one because, in Reagan's America, he would have never been hired in the first place.


liza's picture

| | | |

I don't want my "latinidad" to be associated with latinos like Alberto Gonzales


Image found at Wikipedia

I have always been baffled by the inclusiveness and diversity of the Bush administration. I could have never fathomed a black woman Secretary of State under any Democratic presidency, yet thanks to George Bush, Condoleeza Rice is not just that, but she's also one of the most powerful women in the world.

The same goes with the concept of a latino working as U. S. Attorney General, but here I am watching Alberto Gonzales trying to weasel his way out of the Judiciary Commitee hearing on the recent firing of eight U.S. Attorneys.

Gonzales ...

Rice ...

It's amazing what people will do for power.

It's kind of taboo for a minority to denounce another one. We're not supposed to that. We're supposed to present a united front against oppression. You know, because we're all supposed to be one consciousness and not act out of free agency and will.

Yahhh. Riiiiight.


liza's picture

| | | | | | |
Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Poll

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 5 users and 2241 guests online.

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

How do we know? I mean, what you're saying is fine. But how do we know that that's actually the law? I mean there are a lot of people who absolutely in very good faith would say that isn't competing harm. They would say that the competing right for the life of the fetus is more important than the possibility of the mother having children in the future herself. See, there are people in good faith on both sides of this argument. And so how do we know that ... your competing harms defense is going to do for this particular woman what a health exception would do?


— Justice Stephen Breyer


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify