Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« Do you blog like a girl? | Main | Baby Boomers less fit than parents »

April 19, 2007

Feingold questions Gonzales

Senator Russ Feingold, originally uploaded by Lindsay Beyerstein.

This picture was taken last year at Cardozo Law School in New York City where Russ Feingold swore he would investigate Alberto Gonzales when the Democrats won a majority in Congress.

The big day has finally arrived. Here is the transcript of Feingold cross-examining Gonzales.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Feingold questions Gonzales :


Likewise, there's the itty bitter matter of the Democrats supporting abortion on demand, gays in the military, gay adoption, evolution, and pluralism; having a sizable secular faction that wants to completely separate church and state; and trying to crack down on fringe religious sects

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that for many black people those policy concerns are of lesser importance than the fact that Republicans are historically anti-civil rights. That tends to hit a bit closer to home.

You *really* have to be against gay marriage to decide that being in the anti-gay marriage camp is worth being in the camp that makes charicatures of your people and wants to gut your rights.

You can't blame people for taking things that directly affect them personally.

Yes, it's kinda hard to leverage one's interest in a party that at best thinks you're stupid and shiftless and at worst hates your fucking guts.

And speaking of voting one's interest, which voter block bought in to all of the following hook, line and sinker?

- Peace before honor
- Morning in America/Bear in the woods
- Thousand points of light
- Compassionate conservatism/Stay the Course

Hmmm. I say it's Whitey's track record that doesn't look so hot.

You forgot to include that vicious atheist Jimmy Carter, who kicked off his '76 campaign in Lyons with veiled references to the Edict of Septimius Severus.

Well, Carter was an Evangelist, just like Bush appointed more minorities to high government positions than any previous President. That doesn't make Bush strong on race, although, to be fair, he courted Hispanics pretty well until he decided to fellate the base by requiring illegal immigrants to pay $3,500 to be legalized. Evaluating Carter by the religious right's criteria is pretty hard considering that the religious right only became a major force in the Republican Party in the 1980s, but I'm fairly certain he wasn't as pro-life or anti-gay or anti-atheist as Dobson and Falwell and Graham would like.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that for many black people those policy concerns are of lesser importance than the fact that Republicans are historically anti-civil rights. That tends to hit a bit closer to home.

I suppose so... although the black leadership acts very similarly to the fundamentalist leadership, there are far more fundamentalists who vote Democratic than blacks who vote Republican. But many of the same mechanisms apply here, too: many Evangelists still perceive Democrats as the party of the 1960s, the counterculture, and future shock, so they vote Republican. Abortion and gay rights alone aren't enough to motivate the number of people who vote Republican and answer "Moral values" when asked about their most important issue - they're just the forms of a broader culture war that can be easily turned into policy positions.

No one drove me away Swampy, I have a life and had beer to drink. Thirsty Thursday rules over a blog site! Good comments all around though.

B is right that few (besides frauds like Limbaugh) are crying racism over Gonzales' downfall, and he is right that it's because he isn't a Democrat.

If he were a Democrat, most of the criticism aimed at him would be from Republicans. Much of it would be loaded with code words, and some of it (from the Freepy-crawlers, for instance) would be truly foul.

So: The reason Gonzales is not playing the race card is simply because the people opposing his reign of fraud and torture aren't, either.

Interesting discussion but only one on the topic (thanks for the links, Sven - some are right on the money).

Gonzalez's responses to Feingold are appropriate for an underling who started last week, and has no knowledge or responsibility. He claims to simultaneously not know what's going on, not engage in oversight, be unaware of the facts, and be very confident in what is office has put out (including what they have repudiated). Feingold is helping him demonstrate that either a) Gonzalez is a bad liar, b) Gonzalez is lazy and incompetent, or c) all of the above.
My own vote is for c


The Dark Side huh? Do you know how to read? Apparently not. Nor are you a frequenter here or you would know that I am no supporter of Bush, Gonzalez, Rove or the Neo-con elite. So before you hurl your barbs, you better be f'n careful!

Anywho, I love how this got all twisted around. My main and only point was/is that blacks are treating like sacred cows and we cannot even joke about them anymore, while a Hispanic like Gonzalez, a Republican, can be be attacked and not one of the loud mouth stumpers for minority justice chime in and defend our only minority AG ever. But if he were black, they would be EVEYRWHERE calling any of his detractors racist, even if he were as big a fuck up as Gonzalez.

And let me say this, I understand that no one has lobbed racist attacks at Gonzalez, I never implied or said they have. But remember JC Watts from Oklahoma? He was called an Uncle Tom and a sellout repeatedly. Why was that OK? Is that not racist? I am repeatedly called "white boy" by ghetto latinos who have no education and are much more ethnic than I am, is that not racist? The left is filled with as many hypocrites as the right is with racist assholes. You on the left just fail to admit it.

Oh dear. This has been a very bad week, indeed.

I am repeatedly called "white boy" by ghetto latinos who have no education and are much more ethnic than I am, is that not racist?

Those damn leftist ghetto latinos are going to be the death of this country.

I have been following the Georgia Thompson part of the US Attorneys story at, though perhaps not as diligently as I might have. It was news to me that, as Gonzalez testified, "the charging decision was made in consultation with a then-Democratic state attorney general and a Democratic local prosecutor." Are they as worthy of contempt as Biskupic?

Feingold's statement that "I'm not alleging that there were political considerations here" was also interesting to me. I wonder what he really believes.

Over at talkingpointsmemo some commenters have wondered if the case against Thompson was so thin then why did the jury convict? That's still a puzzler for me. Doesn't seem to reflect well on either the jury or Thompson's counsel or the US District Court judge.

The comments to this entry are closed.