Monica Goodling

[wHATcOLOR]

its pretty plain to see that i don't regularly keep my finger on the pulse of politics, but this story is bothering me.

so we've got an underqualified conservative christian 33 year old in charge of firing and hiring career US attorneys for the department of justice. she got her law degree at regent, which is a christian school founded by pat robertson. she has all of 6 months of prosecutorial experience, and she's given this kind of power?

she got immunity for her testimony and played the "i'm just a girl" card, basically saying "whoops, i see now that i broke the law, but i didn't mean to. i regret it" bs!

she just had the attorneys fired, no discussions regarding performance or opportunities for improvement provided, and the firings were not done in person.

with hiring, she asked political questions in interviews, violating the law, and making decisions based on politics.

here's a quote Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions. I regret these mistakes.

In conclusion, I would like to give the Committee a better sense of who I am. The person that I read about on the Internet and in the newspaper is not me.

At heart, I am a fairly quiet girl who tries to do the right thing and tries to treat people kindly along the way. I always know I wanted to grow up and do something to serve or help other people. I went to public schools growing up but chose Christian universities, in part, because of the value they placed on service. http://www.yorkdispatch.com/nationworld/ci_5970805

way to play the gender card too. who uses the term "girl" when being professional unless they're trying to deliberately load the statement.

here's another quote i found:
"Were there any laws that you could have broken by taking political considerations into account on some occasions?" Representative Bobby Scott asked her.
"The best I can say is that I know I took political considerations into account on some occasions," Goodling responded.
"Was that legal?"
"Sir, I'm not able to answer that question," Goodling said. "I know I crossed the line."
"What line? Legal?"
"I crossed the line of the civil service rules," Goodling said.
"Rules? Laws?" Scott asked.

so to summarize, we've got a sniveling little christian brat, all of 33, from a shitty school who's disregarding numerous federal laws to make decisions (that she really out to have no right making) based on politics. and then she gets immunity and basically says she didn't mean to do it! i'm just a quiet little girl! oh no!

and it's not like this is an isolated thing, it fits a pattern in the administration.


here's some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_M._Goodling (here's a gem from there: On May 7, 2007, National Journal's Inside Washington column reported that it was Goodling who ordered drapes to be placed over the partially nude Art Deco statues (Spirit of Justice) in the Justice Department's Great Hall during Ashcroft's tenure as Attorney General. At the time, the department spent $8,000 on blue drapes to hide the two giant, aluminum statues, according to spokesman Shane Hix. The coverings were removed in 2005.)
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6026657
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=78&sid=1101284

[Debaser]

She also admitted to republicans employing caging tactic for 2004 election. Tim Griffin just resigned over it.

[wHATcOLOR]

lol



"gee whiz. i really didn't mean it. shucks." ¯\(º_o)/¯

not sure why the pic doesn't work -- http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...00x275shkl.jpg


how smug

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR

so to summarize, we've got a sniveling little christian brat, all of 33, from a shitty school who's disregarding numerous federal laws to make decisions (that she really out to have no right making) based on politics. and then she gets immunity and basically says she didn't mean to do it! i'm just a quiet little girl! oh no!

I've kinda been out of the loop on the whole politics thing for the past couple weeks, so I don't know much about this chick, as such I'm a little confused here. Its one thing to say the girl was underqualified for the job and was in over her head. That's indictment enough. But you seem to be trying to say that even though everyone knows she had power that exceeded her education and experience that she somehow can't say so in her own defense. That hardly seems fair.

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I've kinda been out of the loop on the whole politics thing for the past couple weeks, so I don't know much about this chick, as such I'm a little confused here. Its one thing to say the girl was underqualified for the job and was in over her head. That's indictment enough. But you seem to be trying to say that even though everyone knows she had power that exceeded her education and experience that she somehow can't say so in her own defense. That hardly seems fair.

Does it change the fact she did something she knew was wrong? She wasnt having a mental breakdown. Or being held at gunpoint.

Its not like, she was hired to lift 300lb weights, and just wasnt fit for purpose.

No, its just another indication that you are scum.

[GlasgowKiss]

I felt a bit guilty about flat out calling you scum because you obviously cant help being the way you are and I was going to delete all that and just add you to my ignore list.

But, ya know, i cant.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

Does it change the fact she did something she knew was wrong? She wasnt having a mental breakdown. Or being held at gunpoint.

Its not like, she was hired to lift 300lb weights, and just wasnt fit for purpose.

Where does it say she knew what she was doing was wrong when she did it? Like I said, I'm not really familiar with this story at the moment, but from what's in this thread all I can see is that she only knows she did wrong now, after the fact. I'm just saying at first glance its hard to see how its obvious that she knew the illegality of her actions at the same time that everyone's saying how clearly unqualified and in over her head she was. Fucking up is what unqualified people do.

I'm not saying she shouldn't be held accountable if she broke the law. Obviously she should have known better. But I think its fair to assume from at least what I've read in this thread that its entirely possible she didn't know better, and if that's the case then I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to say so.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

I felt a bit guilty about flat out calling you scum because you obviously cant help being the way you are and I was going to delete all that and just add you to my ignore list.

But, ya know, i cant.

Its okay I guess. The potshots reflect worse on you than they do on me.

[Debaser]

Stewart distills it nicely. Must watch:
download link


oh yeah, she also basically revealed Gonzalez tampering with a witness in an investigation.

[Debaser]

Unfortunately the mainstream media is unable to grasp the gravity and illegality of caging.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Its okay I guess. The potshots reflect worse on you than they do on me.

Why would i try hard again? I obviously hit you where it hurts once, and thats more than most land on you.

[sleeper]

i really do wonder why it is you feel so compelled to argue these points (id say "defend these people"). theres something so totally suspicious about this given that youve rationalized it before as being simply about quashing bullshit arguments. the fact that you consistently attempt to quash bullshit arguments in one highly partisan direction certainly represents a curious inconsistency in your position.

i mean the point youre arguing now is, sorry to say, pretty worthless. its not constructive in any way i can see, its just like some reflexive defense of anything targeted at a conservative (or launched by a liberal). i think you should kind of see the bigger picture some more, or at least change your tune about what it is your arguments are trying to accomplish

[GlasgowKiss]

Hmm

[wHATcOLOR]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I've kinda been out of the loop on the whole politics thing for the past couple weeks, so I don't know much about this chick, as such I'm a little confused here. Its one thing to say the girl was underqualified for the job and was in over her head. That's indictment enough. But you seem to be trying to say that even though everyone knows she had power that exceeded her education and experience that she somehow can't say so in her own defense. That hardly seems fair.

i guess i'm saying that she's only admitting the responsibilities exceeded her education/experience because she got caught. she likely would have gladly continued, happy with the power, and not admitted any such thing if it had not been exposed

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by sleeper

i really do wonder why it is you feel so compelled to argue these points (id say "defend these people"). theres something so totally suspicious about this given that youve rationalized it before as being simply about quashing bullshit arguments. the fact that you consistently attempt to quash bullshit arguments in one highly partisan direction certainly represents a curious inconsistency in your position.

i mean the point youre arguing now is, sorry to say, pretty worthless. its not constructive in any way i can see, its just like some reflexive defense of anything targeted at a conservative (or launched by a liberal). i think you should kind of see the bigger picture some more, or at least change your tune about what it is your arguments are trying to accomplish

I just thought that based on my limited knowledge of the issues surrounding this Goodling woman, it seemed to me that the treatment of her in this thread was a little less than evenhanded, that's all. If it seems like I do that more for conservatives than for liberals, then that's probably because evenhanded treatment of liberals is not generally a big issue on this board.

[ravenguy2000]

Pretty much everything that comes out of this woman's mouth makes my stomach churn.

There's dumbfounding incompetence in virtually every single aspect of everything this administration touches.

Seriously, I have a hard time thinking of one thing the federal government in general hasn't touched that hasn't gone to complete shit in the past 7 years.

I'd like to think it would be depressing to be a complete failure at virtually everything but these people are all too dumb/self-righteous/self-interested/evil etc. to really know any better, I'm guessing.

[Debaser]

Well republicans like to run on the ideology that government is bad, that it doesn't work...they get elected...and then prove it.

[wHATcOLOR]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Unfortunately the mainstream media is unable to grasp the gravity and illegality of caging.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594

woah, i didn't know what that was

Originally Posted by that link

But what's 'caging' and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer McNulty put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin's involvement in it? Because it's a felony. And a big one.

Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and --- you got to love this --- American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation --- and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.

what a dirty trick

[Debaser]

http://2004.georgewbush.org/deadletteroffice/

actual internal emails (whose authenticity confirmed by the GOP on camera when asked by BBC) to and from republican operatives mistakenly CC'd to an anti-bush parody site, georgewbush.org.

sifting thru them you will find actual address list spreadsheets to coordinate voter caging (they actually even use the term 'caging', they don't even try to be coy, or maybe unaware of the illegality of it). Newt Gingrich's strategy memo for them is interesting, too.

************
http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/05/...l-greg-palast/

[wHATcOLOR]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Stewart distills it nicely. Must watch:
download link


oh yeah, she also basically revealed Gonzalez tampering with a witness in an investigation.

that was tight

[wally]

As much of this is not an issue, her voice annoys the shit out of me.

[Starla]

this is why women need to stay home and know their roles - like having babies and cooking dinner

[Effloresce]

It is truly disturbing that someone with such a closed-minded view of the world (hello, Regent University), AND such an obvious lack of experience was given so much power.

[talk show host]

Originally Posted by To Starla

this is why women need to stay home and know their roles - like having babies and cooking dinner

let the REAL debate begin once more

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by To Starla

this is why women need to stay home and know their roles - like having babies and cooking dinner

You know what I find sexist? The idea that looking after children and cooking isn't a job. This is how buisness justify denying women maternity leave after all.

And of course, this is what the thread is about right? The supression of women. Way to bring out the real issue to starla.

[talk show host]

See? Told you so...

[Effloresce]

You guys are pretty gullible.

You don't really think To Starla is like that, do you?

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by Effloresce

You guys are pretty gullible.

You don't really think To Starla is like that, do you?

She has made it pretty clear over and over again that she enjoys her modest motherly role you suck up fuck. The only question now is whether she hates me more than she finds you creepy as to how she responds to this.

[ravenguy2000]

only eff knows her true nature

what a sensitive guy, he must be a good listener

[Effloresce]

Damn, you fall for it every time. It's ok, I did too.

And she's said numerous times that she doesn't find me creepy. Besides, I haven't talked to her about anything since like February.