Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Party Loyalty
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, April 24, 2006

Are you now, or have you ever been, a supporter of the Wrong Party? This is frightening...
The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.
This requires a lot more explanation. I think we can all agree that political purges are not desirable. If partisan leaks and job performance are a problem in our bureaucracy, then the answer is to punish the leaks and poor job performance, not the political affiliation. That way lies a "commissar for nationalities".

Perhaps this is more inoccuous than it appears right now, but I think it's worth looking into. Meanwhile, if this doesn't bother you — if you're more interested in combating partisan democrats — then consider the precedent. Do you want future administrations to have to replace entire bureaucracies because previous administrations had cherry-picked their own loyalists? That's a vicious circle.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
On the other hand, if the CIA is more interested in fighting GWB than OBL and AQ then what is the point of it?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I agree that this is a bad precedent. What’s worse is that on some level it appears to be valid at the moment. The whole situation is a disgrace.
 
Written By: Monica
URL: http://
That’s the way it used to be. Almost every federal job, down to local postmaster was a political appointee subject to selection and removal by the President.

Our current Civil Service regime removes those political constraints on government employees in exchange for non-participation (on the job) in politics. This was an important reform from the Progressive Era in American politics and was helpful in undermining political machines and much corruption and graft.

Every cure has its costs. Now we see Civil Service employees becoming an internal cabal in themselves, especially when they unionize.

If a Civil Service employee dabbles in partisian politics in a work-related way, then they are breaking our contract. Elected officials have a duty to expunge those that won’t stick to their duties and restrain their ambitions.
 
Written By: Whitehall
URL: http://
Thanks Jon,

You continue to be one of the few voices of sanity and caution on the right when it comes to blindly following the Bush line.

By now, I expect you’re getting the cold shoulder from the ideologues, many of whom seem incapable of imagining a world (2009) without Bush in the White House. They continually fail, when cheerleading his openly partisan course, to ask the obvious question - "Would I be just as happy if a Dem could follow on and do this too?"

Regards, Cernig @ Newshog
 
Written By: Cernig
URL: http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com
Monica, I agree that it sets a poor precedent. People should have the freedom to think what they want. What they do however is regulated by the oaths that they themselves sign. If you can’t do the job, don’t sign the oath. If you don’t want to do what is asked and consider it illegal then there is a process for whistleblowers at CIA and it does not involve going to the press. As an employee of IG, McCarthy has no excuse not to know what it was.

Whitehall, I agree, the same risk applies to each of us here on this forum.

We don’t even know if the WaPo is not spreading spin.

Consider that Mary McCarthy feed this story to Dana Priest at WaPo. EU investigators are concluding that there was nothing to the secret prisons story that she got her pulitzer for. McCarthy has been exposed and turfed and so it is starting to look like an elaborate mole trap. So the situation for WaPo is not lost on it. They have a journalist winning the highest prize for a story that can be considered dubious and that reporter is now part of a trap for moles. They can smell their blood in the water. What do you think they would do? This sounds like a good first step.

As to political connections being discussed. Who first opened the topic on Mary McCarthy political connections? It was the NYT and they got the numbers wrong (too low).
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Cernig, what you and your left side of the sphere colleagues never seem to understand is that Jon is not on the right. He is a Libertarian or rather a Neo-libertarian. There are more than two sides as there is more than black and white.

There is a difference.

And unlike the left this was never an echo chamber. We may disagree on this point but we agree on a lot of others. Disagreement is good! It brings out all the arguments. That never happens on any of the left wing blog I ever visit.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Given that the rest of the WaPo (who have tight affiliations with McCarthy) article is a brazen attempt to throw crap against a wall and see what sticks(I mean, really. Every freaking line is a heavily editorialized "Let’s see what evils we can imply about BushCo!")...

If the "senior intelligence officers" (probably the ones who are griping to Pincus, Kamen, Kurtz, Morse, Shackleford, Jean-Louis, Smith, and Linzer; possibly even the only "senior intelligence official" being McCarthy herself) are being questioned because they might have "political affiliations" with groups like International ANSWER or the like, isn’t that something that needs to be found out and, if appropriate, acted upon?
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
Do you want future administrations to have to replace entire bureaucracies because previous administrations had cherry-picked their own loyalists? That’s a vicious circle.

Actually, I’ve been saying that’s going to have to happen for awhile now. It’s probably better for the country than the undeclared insurgency going on in CIA and State.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And PS-

Nevermind the "partisian" side of this, I like it because too many of these people become part of the permanent bureaucracy, and forget who they work for, and what their objective is. Maybe it would do some good to get some of these barnicle-encrusted lifers out the door
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark, I agree with you there.

I worked for a big company in the valley (38k employees - TLA) and I had a very senior technical position (one of this appointment ones you get by achievements and patents). It got so hidebound (over the years) by the careerists who played go along, get along political games that it became impossible to innovate anymore. My team came up with a very advanced technology that we could not get accepted because it was "Not the Way Things are DONE". I eventually quit to work for a startup.

You need to clean hose and break up the stultified ways of thinking. You know, like the ones that lead to 9/11. Spring cleaning is good for both houses and government.

So before someone bends my words, let me spell out what I think

1) turfing people for political affiliation -> BAAAAAD!
2) turfing people who what to get back at a sitting admin instead of the real enemy —> GOOOOOD!
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Yes Jon continues to WORRY ABOUT DUBYA... Of course as someone pointed out, IF the CIA and Dept. of State have determined to oppose Dubya, the elected offical, then I think this makes sense.

The Civil Service needs an object lesson, pour encourager les autres. I work in a politically oriented, non-partisan firm, we serve Rupublicans AND Democrats. We are expected to serve either set of clients well, to the best of our abilities, regardless of personal politcal preference. I have had the honour of serving Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats, I believe I have done my duty, and established an excellent working relationship with both sorts of client, even though I am a Conservative Republican. In my job interview I told the selection committee, "If I wanted to make good public policy, I’d have run for office." As it is, I don’t make policy I aid policy-makers. It’s what’s expected of me.

It’s what I expect of the FEDERAL Civil Service, as well. That being the point of the personal aside...IF Larry Wilkerson or McCarthy want to make policy they need to run for office. Otherwise, STFU and do your job. It seems that the Federal Civil Service views itself as a little better than it’s masters, and above discipline. So some it seems have decided that they don’t agree with Dubya on policy matters and will seek to oppose the President or his appointees. I think McCarthy is a nice example to others, do your job, or resign.... then run for office, join the Democratic/Republican Party, do whatever, but as long as you are covered by the Hatch Act, I expect you and the Nation expects you to serve, either party, faithfully.

To repeat, IF THE BUREAUCRATS ARE AGAINST YOU IT’S TIME TO SHOW THEM WHO’S BOSS. A lesson Hillary or Kerry might appreciate, when they come to office, or Jon when a Libertarian is President.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Of course you can always take the Clinton approach, when he "fired" each and every DOJ federal attorney when he became President in 1993.

I would have expected that any administration would make an effort to jettison each and every "political" appointee (i.e. Ms. McCarthy) within the first two years of the new administration. The Regean adage of "trust but verify" should be invoked only when there is no other choice.

On the other extreme of solutions, I have read of former intelligence officials that did not vote in order to maintain the appearance, if not the fact, of non-partisanship when performing their analysts duties (I’ve also personally met businessmen that did the same to make sure they didn’t offend any customers).

When major political figures, like John Kerry, indicate some admiration for the improper disclosure of classified information, a clear violation of both the statutes for the handling of classified information and the terms of employment for those handling this information, perhaps the corruption level has been raised to the point where it is time to check the political affiliations of "all" employees. On the other hand, I suspect Kerry would not show any such admiration if he had picked up a few more electoral votes in the past election. This sort of childish lack of respect for the law and the office of the President strikes me as making him, or anyone, unfit.

First and foremost, much as "Joe" in the previous post, the multitude of federal employees, not just the CIA and State, should be read the riot act in regard to political activities and the use of work related resources, this includes information, that are strictly verboten. Also, it should be made clear that the next person found violating these rules will wish they were sent to Abu Grahab instead. The federal statues, that cover Ms. McCarthy’s transgressions, allow to seizure of all resources derived and used to perform these activities; this could, most likely, include any possible future book. On second thought, perhaps this effort should start with Ms. McCarthy. I’m sure the Dept. of Public Debt would appreciate any efforts on her part.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
No, I’m not interested in combating "partisan democrats" within the CIA.

I’m interested in combatting disloyal Americans within the CIA.

I don’t care if they were Democrat, Republican, or anything else. They deserve to be fired for leaking info that harms our National Security.

But, one can argue that to find the leakers one needs to look at how involved in politics a person is. The logic being that people aren’t as likely to harm a President from their own party.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Although, one could also look at who appointed the person to get a clue, for those from or in appointed positions.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
I don’t think this is all that surprising. The only real difference between political purges here vs. those in other countries is that here, they aren’t typically accompanied by a blindfold and a cigarette.

Just kidding, mostly. I find it interesting that the White House wouldn’t already know the political affiliations of top intelligence officials. It suggests that there’s a fairly serious disconnect in communications between Langley and Washington. Granted the CIA is supposed to operate somewhat autonomously, but you’d think Bush would want to know which houses his top spooks like to haunt.
 
Written By: Brian Martinez
URL: http://cluebyfour.livejournal.com
What is that old adage? "Cover the story, don’t be the story." Well, the WaPo finds itself itself uncomfortably in the middle of it all.

Sure Brian, the whole WaPo story is probably a diversion ala NYT SOP.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I find it deeply disturbing that there are people who believe Mary McCarthy did the right/honorable thing. This behavior is not something anyone should be cheering. McCarthy was not elected. She has no right to make the decision to release ANY classified information, PERIOD. It makes it so much worse that she did this during a time of war. If she had a problem with a program, she could’ve easily gone thru the available channels, but she chose not to. Now it’s time to prosecute her and send her to jail.
 
Written By: Monica
URL: http://
This behavior is not something anyone should be cheering. McCarthy was not elected. She has no right to make the decision to release ANY classified information, PERIOD

THANK YOU! Again, if she saw something she felt was so wrong, there were appropriate procedures to follow, not just picking up the phone and talking to the press.

She is not the arbitor of national security policy. The CIA is not the arbitor of national security policy. The NYTimes or WaPo are not the arbitors of national security policy. Our President and Congress (even idiot leakers like Sen. Rockefeller) are the arbitors of national security policy.

Jail time for this one please.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Would I be just as happy if a Republican could follow on and do this too?"

I wonder what Cernig’s answer to this would be vis-a-vis the McCarthy misbehavior, as he’s clearly so meticulous about gender-neutral geese-basting.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
ack

Sorry, could swear I’d closed that.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
Well, Jon. Nice hornets nest you have here.

You can be very sure that if a Republican had done this in a Democratic Administration, that person would be terminated, prosecuted, and have a wonderful MSM tar and feather job.

What were 300 Republican FBI files doing in the Clinton White House? Gathering dust? I doubt it. The Dems did that once, I’m sure that they’ll do it again. I’m almost to the point of saying that the Republicans have no reason to play nice with the Democrats. The Democrats don’t play nice. I don’t care if the Republicans stoop to their level once the Democrats have established the lower level.
 
Written By: David R. Block
URL: http://
The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.
Hmm. A brief mention in the penultimate paragraph of a rather long article. And very ambiguous. Seems like it might be there to serve as fodder for rumor mongers and conspiracy theorists.

Think of two ways to interpret this:
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?"
Something like this may be Jon’s first interpretation.
or
"What if any affiliations do you have with [ANSWER, moveon.org, George Soros, or any political entity that is actively engaged in opposing GWB policies]?"
A very valid and important question, and one that I would HOPE gets asked.
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
Yes, equitus,

Political affiliation does not necessarily mean party. For all we know it’s about membership in far-left / far-right groups or Islamist groups.

I’m sure the CIA draws the line at freedom to join any old party or group somewhere...



 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I *do* think that bureaucrats should have to bow to the same pressure that workers in the private sector are supposed to be under (ie, you get things done one way or another, or you’re fired; you take risks or you never get anywhere).

I *do not* think that should have anytthing whatsoever to do with party affiliation. That’s creepy, no matter how you try to justify it. If you’re a Republican President and your bureaucrats can undermine you all day long while remaining prefectly competent in their work, you deserve it.

Let’s introduce real accountability, the productive kind. Not political games that create and reinforce ideological echo chambers that turn around in a heartbeat (and rob you of tons of experienced, capable people) when the other guy gets to be PotUS.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
damn the typos!
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
If you’re a Republican President and your bureaucrats can undermine you all day long while remaining prefectly competent in their work, you deserve it.
OrneryWP, that borders on the lunatic....Here’s the fundamental underlying philosophy...ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEIR APPOINTEES MAKE POLICY. The State Department, the Department of the Army, the Central Intelligence Agency can recommend policy, but at the end of the day, the President and his/her appointees select from the options or designate the options for action! When a bureaucrat forgets this and begins to udnermine the elected leadership they have crossed an line. They were not elected, ergo they do not have the policy-making perogative.

As I said in a previous post, "If I wanted to make GOOD public policy; I’d have run for office." I didn’t choose to, Rush Limbaugh didn’t choose to, Ms McCarthy didn’t choose to. Therefore, whilst all three of us may have our policy "Druthers" it is up to the President, be it Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John F Kerry or Hillary Clinton to choose what the thrust of US policy will be. The voters hold the President accountable, not me not Limbaugh, not Ms McCarthy and therefore we uphold THEIR decisions, not undermine them. When Ms McCarthy cares to make herself accountable to the public-at-large, then she can make policy and criticize policy.

I can only assume that you are a Democrat or a Libertarian, i.e., someone out of power... I believe your position on this will change when your party, if ti ever does comes to power. Let’s see how YOU like it if the folks in charge of executing your policy are fighting it, by means both fair and foul. And leaking information is ILLEGAL....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Like one or two others here, I think this has more to do with trying to trim down the list of probable leakers than outright mass firings on no more than party affiliation.
Now, that may or may not actually help them in their search, but that is something else.
 
Written By: anomdebus
URL: http://
If you’re a Republican President and your bureaucrats can undermine you all day long while remaining perfectly competent in their work, you deserve it.
OrneryWP, that borders on the lunatic....Here’s the fundamental underlying philosophy...ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEIR APPOINTEES MAKE POLICY.
First things first: cut down on the CAPSLOCK buddy, I can read just fine without it.
Second: it is generally not advisable to call your opponents’ arguments crazy right off the bat. You’re trying to be convincing, right? Well, I’m an open-minded guy, so try not to immediately put me on the defensive and you might just convince me of your argument. Tell me straightforwardly what’s wrong with my argument and let everyone come up with their own conclusions as to the character of my posts.

The State Department, the Department of the Army, the Central Intelligence Agency can recommend policy, but at the end of the day, the President and his/her appointees select from the options or designate the options for action!
Yep. And if the President and his appointees choose an option that creates greater risk and harm, and someone working for one of the agencies or departments serving him reports that, they shouldn’t fear for their job. When functionaries are promoted for loyalty rather than competence, you remove the one antidote to error within the government: criticism. I could write volumes on cases of enforced personal loyalty eroding the efficacy of policymaking.
When a bureaucrat forgets this and begins to udnermine the elected leadership they have crossed an line. They were not elected, ergo they do not have the policy-making perogative.
Until they have done something illegal, they shouldn’t be assumed guilty because of party identification. If merely being a Democrat serving a Republican is "crossing a line," we’re on the raod to throwing out tons of valuable, experienced people who have done nothing but serve their country faithfully.
As I said in a previous post, "If I wanted to make GOOD public policy; I’d have run for office." I didn’t choose to, Rush Limbaugh didn’t choose to, Ms McCarthy didn’t choose to. Therefore, whilst all three of us may have our policy "Druthers" it is up to the President, be it Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John F Kerry or Hillary Clinton to choose what the thrust of US policy will be. The voters hold the President accountable, not me not Limbaugh, not Ms McCarthy and therefore we uphold THEIR decisions, not undermine them. When Ms McCarthy cares to make herself accountable to the public-at-large, then she can make policy and criticize policy.
Ideally, there should be multiple layers of accountability, not just one rather blunt instrument (an expensive election every four years and maybe under extreme circumstances, an impeachment).

There needs to be accountability between the branches of government. Each individual functionary has a responsibility not to break the law even in the service of an elected official. Each individual functionary has a duty to be honest and, yes, to criticize. And where malfeasance is covered up, a good member of civilization will have an outlet for blowing the whistle on it. Ideally, they should be able to do this without resorting to something illegal, but any laws that endanger the society they govern are worth breaking.

Am I saying that all these leakers did things the right way? No. Unless I’m misinformed, there are ways of sounding the alarm within the system, without blowing the lid to the public.
But the prospect of tossing out people whose political dissent may be purely personal and does not rise above the level of voting and the like... that’s something with which no one should be comfortable.
I can only assume that you are a Democrat or a Libertarian, i.e., someone out of power...
My own identity is immaterial to this discussion. I can be a neolibertarian and still be 100% correct — and to illustrate, further, that your characterization is incorrect as well as inappropriate, the vast majority of my votes are for Republicans; I even voted for Bush in ’04 (among the evils of several lessers, he was the least unattractive option).
I believe your position on this will change when your party, if ti ever does comes to power. Let’s see how YOU like it if the folks in charge of executing your policy are fighting it, by means both fair and foul.
Actually, it’s never more important to me than when my own guys are in power that they be kept honest by a strong opposition. Without criticism, "my" policymakers may overlook something; they may get too comfortable in their position of power and — as they’re only human — do something unethical and/or cut corners. If and when that happens, I want them to be maximally accountable to me and, yes, to my perennial political opponents.
Otherwise, how do I know "my guys" are the right guys? How can my fellow citizens come to trust my brand of policymaker if "my guys" make a habit of avoiding accountability?

In addition, I get the best insights and form the best-informed opinions when I face my opponents’ point of view regularly; I get intellectually lazy and sloppy when I spend all my time surrounded by people who agree with me.
As far as I can tell, this is a common trait of my fellow man. Politicians are no special exception, even the politicians of whom I greatly approve.

Finally, as far as I’m concerned, the only "foul" means of fighting policy are those created by asymmetrical accountability.
And leaking information is ILLEGAL....
In my original post, I made it clear that only functionaries who remained "perfectly competent in their work" in the meantime should be secure in their jobs.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
OrneryWP
In my original post, I made it clear that only functionaries who remained "perfectly competent in their work" in the meantime should be secure in their jobs.

VIOLATING THE LAW IS NOT REMAINING PERFECTLY COMPETENT IN THEIR WORK...HOPE YO LIKED THE CAPS LOCK, AND YES YOU’RE POSTING VERGES ON THE STUPID.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Hah, Captain Joe is all about how this blog is such a marvel of reasonable disagreement, and yet everyone on here has nothing to say except snark and stomach bile (thanks, Joe, for the all-caps Exhibit A) about a deeply important issue.

Let me be the one here to tap you on the shoulder and let you know that you are viewing this issue through a deeply distorted prism - a selective viewpoint bordering on the surreal.

So you’re frightened by the very idea of a government bureaucrat leaking classified information are you? So, the fact that secret prisons exist somewhere in Europe has done exactly what damage to our national security, how? It’s not like the WaPo published blueprints. They simply cast a big shiny light on the fact that they exist. What it did was make our nation and this Administration look bad. And both of these deserve to look bad, because of what we have done- i.e., create secret prisons and drop people into them to never be seen again.

All of this fair and balanced analysis, and not one person has even brought up the simple and obvious truth that dropping people into secret prisons to dissapear violates, among other things, the U.S. Constitution, the UN charter and several conventions that we have signed and ratified, various US laws, and basic human decency. It’s illegal, and it’s wrong, and it is tactically indistinguishable from the tactics of a Baathist state.

Damn right, Mary Mccarthy deserves applause. Leaking an illegal act is never illegal in itself - it is done in accordance with the human instinct for fair play and honesty. The very idea is logically absurd. If you think the secret prisons don’t violate the Constitution, US signed treaties (law of the land under the constitution), or US law then by all means bring her to court. I’d love that. When she was set free on this exact grounds, maybe a few of you with a conscience would look inside yourselves and shut the fluff up about sedition.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
There are no liberatarians on this website. No serious libertarian can ever be in favor of unlimited government rights to drop people into prisons whose existence isn’t even disclosed. That’s as flagrant a violation of the principle of limited government as can be created in a thought experiment.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
There are no liberatarians on this website. No serious libertarian can ever be in favor of unlimited government rights to drop people into prisons whose existence isn’t even disclosed.
I won’t speak for people who comment here, but I do oppose "unlimited government rights to drop people into prisons whose existence isn’t even disclosed". And I own the website. And wrote this post.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Glasnost,
Your argument is flawed.
Mary Mccarthy deserves applause. Leaking an illegal act is never illegal in itself -
First, you assume that the act she leaked is illegal. Secondly, leaking IS ILLEGAL (SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS-NOT REALLY). See it’s the law, McCarthy could NOT tell Priest. IF she thought an illegal act had occurred I understand her options were; 1) Report to the Executive Branch or TO REPORT TO CONGRESS. Sorry she broke the law, QED. Yes LEAKING IS ILLEGAL.
it is done in accordance with the human instinct for fair play and honesty. The very idea is logically absurd.
You’re correct, you ARE BEING ABSURD... McCarthy had a duty to report, her concerns and to appropriate authorities. And no, we don’t operate from the principle of human fair play and honesty, we operate by law, Glasnost, because your "honesty and fair play" may not be mine. Instead, we expect you to obey the law. You and Ornery seem to operate in the world were the STAFF or anyone has the veto right over government action. They don’t, just because YOU don’t like something or believe in it, doesn’t give you the right to leak it to the Press and sabotage it. It doesn’t work that way. The President is held accountable to and by the voters, as is Congress.
If you think the secret prisons don’t violate the Constitution, US signed treaties (law of the land under the constitution), or US law then by all means bring her to court. I’d love that. When she was set free on this exact grounds, maybe a few of you with a conscience would look inside yourselves and shut the fluff up about sedition.
Do secret prisons violate the US Constitution Glasnost? Would you care to quote the article or paragraph? Are secret prisons in violation of international law? Are Al-Qaeda members as illegal combatants to be accorded any or all of the Geneva Accord protections? Certainly they aren’t covered by the US Constitution. You ASSUME that they are being tortued, don’t you? Neither you nor McCarthy have any knowledge of this. What both of you have assumed is that it happened and so SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. Well NO, Glasnost something didn’t have to be done... that’s the whole point about professional duty. In absence of any evidence of illegality McCarthy had the professional and LEGAL obligation to keep her mouth shut. It’s what makes things work. EVERYONE does not get to have a veto on policy, unless you can find THAT in your Constitution, right next to the section on secret prisons...

Lastly I’m pleased to see that YOU know what "serious" Libertarians do or don’t believe. It is a revelation... but then of course, YOU or McCarthy KNOW many things not obvious to others, don’t you?

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
VIOLATING THE LAW IS NOT REMAINING PERFECTLY COMPETENT IN THEIR WORK...HOPE YO LIKED THE CAPS LOCK, AND YES YOU’RE POSTING VERGES ON THE STUPID.
Pst. I agree that violating the law is not remaining perfectly competent in one’s work. I never said otherwise.
Now re-read what I said, taking this into account.
Are you feeling a bit sheepish now for your CAPSLOCK screaming? Or are you still having some problems with your reading comprehension?

I especially love the irony of you saying:
YES YOU’RE POSTING VERGES ON THE STUPID.
Always good for a chuckle.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider