The weakest among us, also the laziest are normally the ones who prefer the strong leaders. I’m unfair, there are also those among us who aspire to become such a leader themselves.

That replacing attorneys to quell the whitewater investigation thing…how did that work out? Glad it was so effective in stopping a senseless waste of time money and attention since it essentially amounted to nothing. (Nothing at all as regards the Clintons)

You’re at Stage 2, I believe.

There is no scandal in firing someone who serves at the pleasure of the president. Period. You are right inpointing out this in your article, yet you do seem to harp on this non-issue a little too much.

Regarding the replacements, we have a seperation of powers. Those who make laws, those who execute them, and those who apply them. The old standard of having the judiciary appoint the lay-over is fair battleground for the different brances of government. Is it only OK to favor a strong executive, like FDR and his violations of civil liberties, when it is a (d) next to the executives name?

Jefferson violated his powers, according to his enemies, when he bought LA. In so doing, and winning that political battle, he defined the powers of the executive and seperated it more from congress. Jefferson was one of the proponents of a weak executive as well.

Personally, I am glad that those who do not serve life sentences and prosecute federal law are not confirmed by the Senate. The Senate boggs down too much of the procedure of our nation, and moves too slowly on legislation. I am a fan of a powerful executive, and have no problem with any executive exercising their peroogative.

Wow, Jim, you win today’s idiot’s prize. As I explain in the post above that you didn’t bother to read, it is STANDARD PRACTICE for an incoming president to appoint all new US attorneys. When a new president takes office he USUALLY asks for the resignations of all US attorneys appointed by his predecessor, then appoints new ones, who serve four-year terms. This was standard practice for a long time before Clinton became president.

When George W. Bush became president all of Clinton’s US attorneys resigned, and Bush appointed new ones. Let me repeat that: WHEN GEORGE W. BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT ALL OF CLINTON’S US ATTORNEYS RESIGNED, AND BUSH APPOINTED NEW ONES. You can check it out. Nobody made a big deal over this because it was the standard thing to do.

In any event — when the Clinton Administration asked for the resignations of the Bush I attorneys, which was entirely normal and expected, the Right-Wing PROPAGANDA Machine went into overdrive ginning up a phony controversy to whip up drooling idiots such as yourself into an anti-Clinton frenzy. And it worked like a charm.

PS — be advised you are in violation of Commenting Rule #8 — commenting on one of my posts without reading it. That’s a perilous thing to do, Jim, because such commenters end up looking like fools. And it earns you a spot in the twit filter.