Showing posts with label ruben navarette. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ruben navarette. Show all posts
Thursday, April 19, 2007
That was a pretty bad forecast. Ruben Navaratte, an editorial writer for CNN and San Diego Union-Tribune comes close in getting things very wrong soon enough for it to be mocked instantaneously.
Today Navarette strings a beauty together.
For some conservatives, principle lost out to practicality. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich recently said the firings had wrecked Gonzales' credibility and that the administration would be better served by "a new team at the Justice Department."
Perfect. Liberals have spent more than a month slinging mud at Gonzales, and now weak-kneed conservatives are giving in and saying that maybe the attorney general should go because: "Look, he's covered in mud!"
As it happens, some of that mud has come from the get-Gonzales faction of the Fourth Estate.
Recently, The Washington Post reported that Gonzales had "retreated from public view ... in an intensive effort to save his job, spending hours practicing testimony and phoning lawmakers for support in preparation for pivotal appearances in the Senate."
Time out. The Washington Post and the rest of the media have repeatedly insisted that Thursday's testimony is "make or break" for Gonzales. If so, why wouldn't he prepare for it?
Let me see here. Alberto Gonzales is doing a terrible job according to his critics. To respond to that criticism, he spent a month ignoring his work and preparing for his testimony, where he is just required to be truthful. He said 'I don't recall' 55 times this morning, even in cases where any reasonable person would have a recollection.
Navarette is one of the last remaining kool-aid drinkers left. To suggest that an attorney general needs a month to prepare for Patrick Leahy asking him 7 minutes worth of questions as a defense of Alberto Gonzales really isn't the great protective wall that Navarette seems to think. One of Navarette's final points buttresses his inanity.
Come again? One of the most common arguments you hear from Gonzales' critics is that he can't be effective on the job while this cloud hangs overhead. So shouldn't lifting the cloud be his No. 1 priority? And when he tries to do that, they blast him.
No, his job is to do his job. It's the attorney general. It's kind of important that the job is done. Alberto Gonzales serves the american people as the chief law enforcement officer. If Alberto needed another 5 months to prepared (which seems to be the case after today's session), should we wait for your buddy, and put the rest of the AG's work on hold until then?
Monday, March 26, 2007
CNN shows more balance, by again letting conservatives talk about the attorney scandal. This is balanced by silence from the left. In other words, it's the same old, same old.
In today's episode of 'Rubin Navarette is a clueless tool', he suggests that there finally might be a scandal in the US attorney buzz. It appears that it wasn't handled well politically by Abu G. and the gang at Justice. They did nothing wrong of course, other than bad PR work in the past few weeks.
Last week, I tried to defend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against an assembling mob that, when it comes to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, is long on animosity but short on facts.
In response to the commentary, I was flooded with angry e-mail from condescending liberals. (I know. Is there any other kind?) You see, while those on the left say they want to give people like me every possible right, apparently this doesn't include the right to think for ourselves.
Perhaps liberals condescend to you for a reason Ruben? Have you ever considered that for a fact. I rarely saw liberals condescend to Bill Buckley, or to Barry Goldwater, who many of us disagreed with politically, but we respected the fact that they did have fine minds. Maybe it is just you, sweetness.
Navarette is offended that these liberals emailed him stating that he suggested that to replace Gonzales was a sign of ulterior motives.
Scores of readers claimed that I had written that the only reason Gonzales is in trouble is because he is Hispanic and that, for this reason alone, he should get a pass on any wrongdoing.
I don't believe either of those things. And reading over the piece, I can't find where I said otherwise. Maybe you'll have better luck.
So, I took a look at Navarette's last column. I have no idea why people would even dare suggest Ruben was suggesting it was racism behind the people who were attacking Gonzales. Do you see any hints of it in the following?
In the flap over the ousted U.S. attorneys, Alberto Gonzales has been hoisted up as a political piñata.
The nation's first Hispanic attorney general is being pressured to resign by -- pick 'em -- Democrats trying to make hay, an elite media that long opposed him, civil libertarians who condemn administration policy on detainees and wiretaps, conservatives who think Gonzales is too liberal, and liberals who think he's too conservative.
Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.
Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.
Where would we get such a fucking crazy idea that you were accusing us of race baiting from reading that drivel Ruben? Again, this column is short on substance. Why was hispanic David Iglesias fired? Do they hate hispanics or something in the Bush administration is that it? Did his name seem a bit too brown? What gives? Obviously that can be the only motive they had for firing this Republican prosecutor, member of the Bush administration with an exemplary record.
To get back to my thesis here... Ruben Navarette is a total prick.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
