Quote:

No, that's not been true of US Attorneys in the past. I'm pretty sure by tradition they don't get replaced with each new election.



JRV is right. There is no such tradition, but it has happened before - sometimes in different ways than others. In 1972 Richard Nixon "requested" [read FORCED] every appointed official to resign after his re-election and, if they liked, re-apply for their jobs. There in fact was a bit of turn-over.

During the 12 years of Reagan/Bush I, there was a concerted effort to bring in "ideaologues" into the Justice Department. Clinton decided to exercise his right and clean house. However, many who were highly qualified were retained/rehired.

Part of this was the practice of reaching out to the Senate members of the States involved. So the KY Reagan appointee I know, who had a stellar record and had a Rep Senator as his "rabbi" never left his post. A small reasons that there was less furvor over Clinton's move was that many Senators regained their influence in "recommending" appointments. Under R/B I, they required that any loyalty be directly to the President so they often went over the Senators' heads.

The problem here isn't a question of Bush having the right to fire them, it's WHEN and WHY that are at issue. Even Republican Senators are concerned.

I always think that if an action is reasonable that the WHEN and WHY can be easily explained So, let's get those answers.


btw, Clinton, for whom I was an alternate NJ delegate in 1992, was no leftist ideologue. He appointed Republicans into every agency, passed NAFTA and executed a retard in Arkansas.
_________________________
Amo i Gemelli!! wink