What He Said
By John Cole June 14th, 2010
Sometimes I can’t improve on a comment:
This is rich: an op-ed in today’s Times advises the Obama administration to be less partisan and more ethical in its political dealings. It’s written by Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer for the Bush administration from 2005 to 2007.I’m guessing that was a part time job.
Rimshot.
The jokes, they write themselves. And yet by the end of the week this will somehow have become CW in Washington.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:38 am
David Gregory’s ears are burning.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:46 am
More like a figurehead position though different people have different “ethics”. I can’t begin to understand any “ethics” which includes “just” warfare. I guess this means I can never hold office or return to the Catholic Church, in whose thorny bosom I was raised. C’est dommage.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I’m honestly perplexed that anyone from the spectacular ethical failure known as the Bush administration would have the gall to be critical of Obama’s ethics measures.
I guess the GOP lack of shame drips from the top to the bottom, like trickle-down theory but real.
.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:55 am
ethical malfeasance in the defense of Republicanism is no sin.
June 14th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Shamelessness is the LEAST of the character flaws of brain donors like Painter. Those eight years were enough for Bush Jr. to leave the White House with an approval rating no higher than Nixon’s.
Nixon’s from August 1974.
This, despite the majority of the press’ major outlets doing their best to keep Dubya’s positives accentuated.
June 14th, 2010 at 10:11 am
@JGabriel: You nailed it, all right, but I’d even say his job must have been more like a Chicago Streets and San nepotism gig, one of those deals where he didn’t show up for work or actually do anything other than sit at home and collect a paycheck.
June 14th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I’m worried that if I read that, the universe might collapse on itself and my brain my finally die. Jesus Christ, what’s next? An essay on how to be less of a polemicist from Ann Coulter? An article from George Bush on the importance of studying hard and thoroughly reading textbooks?
June 14th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Why are these people allowed to walk the street without getting pelted with rotten vegetables let alone get space in the NYT? WTF? Is there no political crime in this country that one can be complicit in where people will shun you? Bunch of fucking whores.
June 14th, 2010 at 10:58 am
@Waynski:
To be fair, it’s the editorial side, not the news side, but still, your point is taken. What’s even more incredible is that the editorial chief, Sam Rosenfeld, was quoted as saying conservatives regularly lie in print, which makes it hard to hire someone of that bent. He’s editing the most valuable piece of real estate in journalism, so it’s not as if he has no control over this.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:06 am
I just laughed out loud when I saw that he was an ethics lawyer for the Bush administration.
Why read his piece? He has absolutely no credibility.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:14 am
@Brian J: I’m not interested in being fair anymore. I was sympathetic to the argument of looking forward and not back with regard to pursuing war crimes that would probably implicate Bush and Cheney, but I was wrong to be sympathetic. This type of thing is the consequence of not going after the people that were repsonsible directly or indirectly for US war crimes. They think they’re off the hook so they rise to speak with some modicum of authority when what they should be doing is time or hiding behind their attorneys. As I wrote on another thread, they should all at least be shunned and ridiculed. I hope David Gregory rots in fucking hell. That’s a little off topic but it felt good.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:25 am
@JGabriel:
if you don’t mind, I am emailing your comment to Professor Painter. His email address:
rpainter@umn.edu
June 14th, 2010 at 11:32 am
@Waynski:
I meant that we should be fair to the reporters and straight news people, which, as far as I can tell, have no say in what is published on the opinion pages. Feel free to bash the editorial chiefs until you are blue in the face. They deserve almost all of what comes to them.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:35 am
@Brian J: Except that at the NYT, the reporters are often the worst offenders, especially with respect to writing stories based on zombie memes of CW.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:48 am
@Brian J: Yeah, dude, I gotchya. Just went off a bit. Wasn’t directed at you. It was a more visceral screw these fucking people rant. Hope I didn’t offend, but I still hope David Gregory rots in bloody hell.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:48 am
This is actually totally reasonable, I don’t know what you people are complaining about. Think of it this way…let’s say I develop a small drug problem. It’s not yet having a large detrimental impact on my life, but there are times that I’m blowing off my son’s baseball game to spend a little time with a bent spoon.
If Courtney Love tells me I have a problem, that’s a good reason for me to sit up and take stock of my situation, right?
June 14th, 2010 at 11:58 am
@jwb:
Depends on which reporters you are talking about, but I see what you are saying. That’s why the hiring of Nate Silver makes me hopeful. That, and the fact that the paper seems to switch people around a lot.
@Waynski:
You didn’t offend me at all. It takes a lot to offend me, and you didn’t come anywhere close. I’ve found that the best way to deal with these people is to ignore them. I don’t watch the Sunday shows, nor do I pay attention to Fox News. I refuse to give them my attention and thus advertising dollars. My blood pressure is surely a lot lower because of this.
June 14th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Yeesh. I was bored enough to actually read the column, and even setting aside the fact that he worked for the Bush administration, it was terrible. The column went something like this:
1) Even though the Sestak job offer wasn’t bad in any way, it was still bad.
2) Here are some vague and unenforceable things we should codify into law.
3) Even though such a law wouldn’t help anything, it will reduce incidents such as the Sestak job offer.
God. Aren’t lawyers in general supposed to be able to make a coherent argument?
June 14th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
@Brian J: I’m with you on the Sunday shows, but I can’t help myself sometimes. I’ll watch until I start yelling at the television. This is generally when the wife mercifully intervenes and cuts me off.
June 14th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Chief White House ethics lawyer for the Bush administration from 2005 to 2007
Now there’s a stellar position to put on your resume. I’m trying to think of what other jobs might sound equally impressive:
Boris Yeltsin temperance enforcer
BP Chief Safety Officer
Steve Jobs humility coach
Dick Cheney transparency officer
GW Bush personal librarian
June 14th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Heckuva job, Richie!
June 14th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
@Silver: Yeah, but in this case she’s calling you a drug addict for tripling your dosage of ibuprofen as she sits over her big mound of cocaine and fiddles with her nostrils.
June 14th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
It was a red-letter day for the Gray Lady today—this unintentional laugh riot right next to old Douhat’s article about the rise of the “pro-life” conservative woman in politics.
Oh, and it’s not “trickle-down”, it’s “trickle on” in my experience.
I really have no idea why I read the NYT Op-Ed any more—starting my day in despair is not a good way to go.
June 14th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
You know, just because the Bush Administration didn’t listen to him doesn’t mean he doesn’t know his stuff. Maybe he said something because with Obama he could make a difference.
June 14th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
@Joseph Nobles:
Please put the industrial strength narcotic down. Step away from it.
June 14th, 2010 at 5:04 pm