Meanwhile, back at the Looney Bin...

[Yonivore]

...otherwise known at the Senate Judiciary Committee, the love-fest between Senate Democrats and Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey drifted onto the rocks this week, as Mukasey declined to join in the Judiciary Committee's bash-Bush agenda.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media's appallingly bad coverage of the committee hearing continued. Here is how the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101801120.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR) began its story, which was headlined "Mukasey Endorses Expansive Presidential Authority":


Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey suggested today that the president could ignore federal surveillance law if it infringes on his constitutional authority as commander in chief.
This is a non-controversial proposition. Of course the President can ignore a law that infringes on his constitutional authority, just as Congress can ignore an executive order that infringes on its powers. The Post continues:


Under sharp questioning about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Mukasey said there may be occasions when the president's wartime powers would supersede legal requirements to obtain a warrant to conduct wiretaps.

In such a case, Mukasey said, "the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law. . . . The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution."
Judge Mukasey tried to give the Senate committee a lesson in constitutional law--the branches of government are equal, and therefore Congress can't take away the President's powers--but it was pearls before swine. Dim bulb Patrick Leahy didn't get the point:


Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled by your answer. I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through."
There you have it! The Constitution: it's a loophole!

The conversation turned to "torture," and the Senators wanted Judge Mukasey to denounce waterboarding:

Mukasey also demurred when he was repeatedly asked whether a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding constitutes unlawful torture.

The point is significant, because "torture" is illegal. So it becomes important to define "torture." The Democrats are desperate to classify waterboarding as "torture," because that would make it improper.

Personally, I think waterboarding is the most appropriate method of interrogating terrorists. It is nearly always effective; it takes only a few minutes; and it is physically harmless. It doesn't hurt the terrorist a bit, but it scares him into talking. That seems like the perfect way to interrogate terrorist suspects. But, if you want to contrast "waterboarding" with "torture," take a look at al Qaeda's torture manual, which explains how to scoop out eyeballs with spoons, use electric drills to maximum effect, etc.

The Associated Press (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SBUJQ81&show_article=) had more on waterboarding:


"I'm hoping that you can at least look at this one technique and say that clearly constitutes torture, it should not be the policy of the United States to engage in waterboarding," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D- Ill.

"It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else," Mukasey answered.

During terse questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mukasey said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done.

"If it's torture?" Whitehouse responded incredulously. "That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't."
Left unaddressed by the Democrats, as always, is how we are supposed to get information from captured terrorists. If anything that a terrorist suspect finds inconvenient or unpleasant constitutes "torture," even if it lasts for only a few minutes and does no physical harm, interrogation is essentially impossible. It will be interesting to see whether this interpretation of the law is adopted by the Hillary Clinton administration, should it inherit responsibility for keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks.

[ChumpDumper]

It's hilarious that you take the time to edit other people's blogs to make them look like you wrote them.

You really don't have a thought in your head you could call your own.

[ChumpDumper]

The Constitution: It's a Loophole!

The love-fest between Senate Democrats and Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey drifted onto the rocks today, as Mukasey declined to join in the Judiciary Committee's bash-Bush agenda. Meanwhile, the mainstream media's appallingly bad coverage of the committee hearing continued. Here is how the Washington Post began its story, which was headlined "Mukasey Endorses Expansive Presidential Authority":

Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey suggested today that the president could ignore federal surveillance law if it infringes on his constitutional authority as commander in chief.

This is a non-controversial proposition. Of course the President can ignore a law that infringes on his constitutional authority, just as Congress can ignore an executive order that infringes on its powers. The Post continues:

Under sharp questioning about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Mukasey said there may be occasions when the president's wartime powers would supersede legal requirements to obtain a warrant to conduct wiretaps.

In such a case, Mukasey said, "the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law. . . . The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution."

Judge Mukasey tried to give the Senate committee a lesson in constitutional law--the branches of government are equal, and therefore Congress can't take away the President's powers--but it was pearls before swine. Dim bulb Patrick Leahy didn't get the point:

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled by your answer. I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through."

There you have it! The Constitution: it's a loophole!

The conversation turned to "torture," and the Senators wanted Judge Mukasey to denounce waterboarding:

Mukasey also demurred when he was repeatedly asked whether a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding constitutes unlawful torture.

The point is significant, because "torture" is illegal. So it becomes important to define "torture." The Democrats are desperate to classify waterboarding as "torture," because that would make it improper. As I've written before, I think waterboarding is the most appropriate method of interrogating terrorists. It is nearly always effective; it takes only a few minutes; and it is physically harmless. It doesn't hurt the terrorist a bit, but it scares him into talking. That seems like the perfect way to interrogate terrorist suspects. If you want to contrast "waterboarding" with "torture," take a look at al Qaeda's torture manual, which explains how to scoop out eyeballs with spoons, use electric drills to maximum effect, etc.

The Associated Press had more on waterboarding:

"I'm hoping that you can at least look at this one technique and say that clearly constitutes torture, it should not be the policy of the United States to engage in waterboarding," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D- Ill.

"It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else," Mukasey answered.

During terse questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mukasey said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done.

"If it's torture?" Whitehouse responded incredulously. "That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't."

Left unaddressed by the Democrats, as always, is how we are supposed to get information from captured terrorists. If anything that a terrorist suspect finds inconvenient or unpleasant constitutes "torture," even if it lasts for only a few minutes and does no physical harm, interrogation is essentially impossible. It will be interesting to see whether this interpretation of the law is adopted by the Hillary Clinton administration, should it inherit responsibility for keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018794.php

[Nbadan]

Let's see if Yoni still supports the power of one, the Federalists, once Clinton or another liberal is in office...I have a feeling we'll be hearing a lot of 'states rights' and smaller government whinning......

...just like the Republicans are all of the sudden against all these earmarks again....nevermind they went up 10-fold while they were in control....

:rolleyes

[PixelPusher]

There you have it! The Constitution: it's a loophole!

The loophole is in the excuse "for national security purposes" that a "emergency powers" president can trot out during this endless "national war-on-terror emergency".

Don't worry, the blogs will explain it to you once Hillary is President.

[Yonivore]

Let's see if Yoni still supports the power of one, the Federalists, once Clinton or another liberal is in office...I have a feeling we'll be hearing a lot of 'states rights' and smaller government whinning......
You'll hear me talk about state's rights and smaller government now. What we're talking about is the legislative branch of the federal government usurping the executive's constitutional powers.

State's rights infringements have mostly been instituted by the legislative branch as well. I'm not sure where the President's war powers impacts state's rights.


...just like the Republicans are all of the sudden against all these earmarks again....nevermind they went up 10-fold while they were in control....
I'm opposed to earmarks now and then. What's your point Nbadan?

[George Gervin's Afro]

...otherwise known at the Senate Judiciary Committee, the love-fest between Senate Democrats and Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey drifted onto the rocks this week, as Mukasey declined to join in the Judiciary Committee's bash-Bush agenda.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media's appallingly bad coverage of the committee hearing continued. Here is how the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101801120.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR) began its story, which was headlined "Mukasey Endorses Expansive Presidential Authority":


This is a non-controversial proposition. Of course the President can ignore a law that infringes on his constitutional authority, just as Congress can ignore an executive order that infringes on its powers. The Post continues:


Judge Mukasey tried to give the Senate committee a lesson in constitutional law--the branches of government are equal, and therefore Congress can't take away the President's powers--but it was pearls before swine. Dim bulb Patrick Leahy didn't get the point:


There you have it! The Constitution: it's a loophole!

The conversation turned to "torture," and the Senators wanted Judge Mukasey to denounce waterboarding:

Mukasey also demurred when he was repeatedly asked whether a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding constitutes unlawful torture.

The point is significant, because "torture" is illegal. So it becomes important to define "torture." The Democrats are desperate to classify waterboarding as "torture," because that would make it improper.

Personally, I think waterboarding is the most appropriate method of interrogating terrorists. It is nearly always effective; it takes only a few minutes; and it is physically harmless. It doesn't hurt the terrorist a bit, but it scares him into talking. That seems like the perfect way to interrogate terrorist suspects. But, if you want to contrast "waterboarding" with "torture," take a look at al Qaeda's torture manual, which explains how to scoop out eyeballs with spoons, use electric drills to maximum effect, etc.

The Associated Press (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SBUJQ81&show_article=) had more on waterboarding:


Left unaddressed by the Democrats, as always, is how we are supposed to get information from captured terrorists. If anything that a terrorist suspect finds inconvenient or unpleasant constitutes "torture," even if it lasts for only a few minutes and does no physical harm, interrogation is essentially impossible. It will be interesting to see whether this interpretation of the law is adopted by the Hillary Clinton administration, should it inherit responsibility for keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks.


I can't wait to hear from you after Hillary wins in 2008... you and the talk radio lynch mob will attack her before she even takes ofiice... my humble prediction..

[ChumpDumper]

I can't wait to see what you rip off from powerlineblog after Hillary wins in 2008.

[Yonivore]

I can't wait to hear from you after Hillary wins in 2008... you and the talk radio lynch mob will attack her before she even takes ofiice... my humble prediction..
There's quite a bit to attack...and, we're not waiting for her to take office.

[ChumpDumper]

But of course you will support all the powers she will inherit from Bush.

[spurster]

I thought Yoni was a libertarian.

[Yonivore]

I thought Yoni was a libertarian.
And, you'd be right. Why would attacking Hillary Clinton be reserved for Republicans alone?

[George Gervin's Afro]

But of course you will support all the powers she will inherit from Bush.


I want Yoni on the record for this one..

[George Gervin's Afro]

There's quite a bit to attack...and, we're not waiting for her to take office.


This sums up nicely how close minded you and your ilk are. Your not even going to wait for her to get into office. I have no problem with people voicing their criticisms but it becomes blinded when you won't allow them to get into office before you do.

[xrayzebra]

This sums up nicely how close minded you and your ilk are. Your not even going to wait for her to get into office. I have no problem with people voicing their criticisms but it becomes blinded when you won't allow them to get into office before you do.

Yeah, she is such a pillar of the community, isn't she?
Even in the face of the "dish washer" donations, the
Postman donations and support from Media Matters and
MoveOn.org, which are suppose to be non-political, you
think she is the greatest thing since peanut butter and
double beds. And shouldn't be criticized.

And wire tapping for her is no problem. She doesn't
need a law to allow it, she will just do it. You know like the FBI files, who no one can recall who obtained them or hired the guy that was in possession of them. With the
support of her dimm-o-crap law makers. No problemo.

Like they say, she will make history is she does get
elected. She will be the first Woman to sit behind the
President's desk, instead of under it. Yeah baby.

Just like old times, her and Bill can have their sleepovers
at the White-house with their separate bedrooms and
the Secret Service to watch over things, so they aren't
interrupted.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I want Yoni on the record for this one..
As do I... so does the president get to run rough shod over the constitution if she is a democrat Yoni?

[clambake]

ray,what if it comes down to hillary and rudy?

are you going to vote for the values candidate?

[George Gervin's Afro]

ray,what if it comes down to hillary and rudy?

are you going to vote for the values candidate?


oh lord now your going to have ray formulate a critical thought on his own. hush doesn't come onuntil tomorrow..

[xrayzebra]

ray,what if it comes down to hillary and rudy?

are you going to vote for the values candidate?

You know the answer to that question. And I know
who you will vote for.

[xrayzebra]

oh lord now your going to have ray formulate a critical thought on his own. hush doesn't come onuntil tomorrow..

Poor GGA. I can always depend on a childish and
predictable response from him. Now let's hear it from
the Chump. I know you two are joined at the hip and
can move without each other.

[clambake]

so your not interested in values anymore?

[xrayzebra]

so your not interested in values anymore?

Most certainly. Aren't you?

I guess I should call you the Three Musketeers! Seems
like you all run together.

Clam
Chump
GGA

What a trio. Rush just doesn't know what he is up
against with you against him, does he?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Poor GGA. I can always depend on a childish and
predictable response from him. N :rolleyes ow let's hear it from
the Chump. I know you two are joined at the hip and
can move without each other.




Like they say, she will make history is she does get
elected. She will be the first Woman to sit behind the
President's desk, instead of under it. Yeah baby.

childish remarks??? :lol

oh ray your a hoot..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Most certainly. Aren't you?

I guess I should call you the Three Musketeers! Seems
like you all run together.

Clam
Chump
GGA

What a trio. Rush just doesn't know what he is up
against with you against him, does he?


hush never debates anyone on his show specifically thosehe continually critcizes.. what 20 yrs and not one debate...I wonder why that is Ray??


Hush the soundbite shadow boxer..he dances left, shakes right, ducks right...hush then takes the punch and the soundbite never had a chance..

[clambake]

Most certainly. Aren't you?

I guess I should call you the Three Musketeers! Seems
like you all run together.

Clam
Chump
GGA

What a trio. Rush just doesn't know what he is up
against with you against him, does he?

do you ever have a thought that doesn't morph into a Rush wet dream?

I asked you if you no longer valued values.

[xrayzebra]

^^I answered your question.

But then you knew the answer before you ask the question.

[George Gervin's Afro]

do you ever have a thought that doesn't morph into a Rush wet dream?

I asked you if you no longer valued values.


I guess yo could say that neither of us needs an entertainer to tell us how to think...

[Wild Cobra]

I thought Yoni was a libertarian.And, you'd be right. Why would attacking Hillary Clinton be reserved for Republicans alone?
Most the libertarians I know hate Hillary as much as the repiblicans! She is an 'authoritarian' and that is opposite of 'libertarian' views. As opposite and liberal vs. conservative!

[Wild Cobra]

As do I... so does the president get to run rough shod over the constitution if she is a democrat Yoni?
I'll answer that part. The president must abide by the constitution. He does not have to abide by laws that tie his hands from his Executive Powers or as Commander in Chief. The fourth amendment protect from UNREASONABLE search and seizure!

[Yonivore]

I want Yoni on the record for this one..
Well, first, I don't believe she'll ever be President of the United States but if, through some electoral calamity, that should happen, she'll be entitled to, obligated to and responsible for all the Constitutional powers of the executive branch of this government.

Clear enough for you George?

[Wild Cobra]

But of course you will support all the powers she will inherit from Bush.
You concern is a key reason why any patriotic and informed citizen will vote against her.

[Yonivore]

This sums up nicely how close minded you and your ilk are. Your not even going to wait for her to get into office. I have no problem with people voicing their criticisms but it becomes blinded when you won't allow them to get into office before you do.
So, we should just allow someone we believe will work to destroy the country, with her socialist agenda, and who is an alleged criminal, to get into office before we criticize her?

What the fuck for?

[Yonivore]

As do I... so does the president get to run rough shod over the constitution if she is a democrat Yoni?
Tell me where President Bush has run "roughshod" over the Constitution.

[exstatic]

Wiretapping without a warrant when a secret court that allows post tap warrants is available qualifies....

[Yonivore]

Wiretapping without a warrant when a secret court that allows post tap warrants is available qualifies....
Actually, the Constitutional question over whether FISA supercedes the President's war powers is still up in the air. There's been no finding upholding your view.

Warrantless wire taps of the enemy, regardless of where they may be located or whether or not their communication travels into, out of, or through the United States, has never required a warrant in past presidencies.

But, if it helps, I be fine with a President Hillary Clinton authorizing warrantless wiretaps on suspected terrorists and on people talking to suspected terrorists, no matter where the are.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, the Constitutional question over whether FISA supercedes the President's war powers is still up in the air. There's been no finding upholding your view.

Warrantless wire taps of the enemy, regardless of where they may be located or whether or not their communication travels into, out of, or through the United States, has never required a warrant in past presidencies.

But, if it helps, I be fine with a President Hillary Clinton authorizing warrantless wiretaps on suspected terrorists and on people talking to suspected terrorists, no matter where the are.
Well said, but I'd like to add that a warrant is an order to take actions, not permission. Just look in any legal dictionary. The president does not need permission, and especially be ordered to do something. He has constitutional authority, and the question should be how much of it can he delegate.

[Wild Cobra]

rofl at these 2 constitutional scholars
Wow... It's very clear cut. Ever read the constitution?

[spurster]

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Ok, scholars which one applies to Congress and which one applies to the President.

[exstatic]

Line one is congress, and line two is the prez.

[Wild Cobra]

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"

Basic government. Not the executive branch.



"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Yes, that is a responsibility of the 'executor'. He still has the power to ignore them as needed to fulfill the highest laws. The constitution.



Ok, scholars which one applies to Congress and which one applies to the President.

The first is a power of congress from Article 1, the second lies in Article 2, dealing with the president.

Laws for basic government and the military are done by congress.

The president is expected to "faithfully" see that laws are enforced. A deeper look at the word "faithfully" from a 19th century dictionary:


faithfully

In a faithful manner; loyally; sincerely; honestly; truthfully.


fathful

2. Firmly adhering to duty; of true fidelity; loyal; true to allegiance; constant in the performance of duty or services; loyal and firm in fidelity; constant; exact in attending to commands; as, a faithful servant; a faithful subject; a faithful husband or wife.

Well, I don't see any implication of following the letter of the law. More so that it is how the 'executor' believes it should apply. "Firmly adhering to duty" and "true to allegiance," to me means he must favor expedience over laws that bind.

The president is responsible for protecting this nation.

The fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable search and seizure. There is nothing unreasonable about checking upon people who are linked to terrorists.

There is no law that congress can make to keep the president from faithfully doing as he thinks is necessary to keep our freedoms secured. They must amend the constitution to make it binding.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, we should just allow someone we believe will work to destroy the country, with her socialist agenda, and who is an alleged criminal, to get into office before we criticize her?

What the fuck for?


So 'you believe' she will? That's it?

How about a former alcoholic and drug user? Would that qualify as alleged criminal? What about someone with DWI's?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Actually, the Constitutional question over whether FISA supercedes the President's war powers is still up in the air. There's been no finding upholding your view.

Warrantless wire taps of the enemy, regardless of where they may be located or whether or not their communication travels into, out of, or through the United States, has never required a warrant in past presidencies.

But, if it helps, I be fine with a President Hillary Clinton authorizing warrantless wiretaps on suspected terrorists and on people talking to suspected terrorists, no matter where the are.

Dude...what enemy? When was the last time this nation has declared war? President Bush can't just conjure up some rhetorical flourish "the war on terror" and use his "war powers" which up until now have been well contained as they were intended to (the president gets to control the armed forces, be the commander in chief.... it doesn't mean all the things bush wants it to mean)

and some other things to consider:

Torture

indefinite detention of US citizens (see Padilla, Jose)

signing statements (i know yoni would have a fit if a democrat pulled that shit)

an overall aggressive interpretation of war powers

classifies every inconsequential document he wants to citing national security (remember the Saudi links that were classified in the 9/11 report)

His unprecedented assertions of executive privilege

and his aggressive politicization of federal agencies (especially the justice department)


alright....go plagiarize some blogs, i eagerly await your response in defense of your dear leader

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, the Constitutional question over whether FISA supercedes the President's war powers is still up in the air.I have yet to see a case presented where the FISA procedure would actually need to be circumvented.

[spurster]

Basic government. Not the executive branch.

And I thought the Executive Branch was part of the government. Something about the three branches of the US government (four if you count Cheney). Silly me.

[Yonivore]

So 'you believe' she will? That's it?
Yeah, and what other justification do I need to attack her at every opportunity? Why should she get a pass until she's in office?

That'd be pretty stupid, no?


How about a former alcoholic and drug user? Would that qualify as alleged criminal? What about someone with DWI's?
All raised during the President's election bid and, yet, he was still elected. Cry me a river.

[Yonivore]

Dude...what enemy?
If you're that clueless, what's the point in even getting to the finer points of separation of power?


When was the last time this nation has declared war? President Bush can't just conjure up some rhetorical flourish "the war on terror" and use his "war powers" which up until now have been well contained as they were intended to (the president gets to control the armed forces, be the commander in chief.... it doesn't mean all the things bush wants it to mean)
I guess you missed that whole, Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, passed by Congress in 2002. I suggest you read it, you'll find the President was pretty much given just the power you suggest he has grabbed -- by Congress. Many of your heroes voted in favor of that AUMF.

They're in control now, why not rescind the AUMF?

I'll tell you why. They know there's an enemy out there and all this nonsense is political mumbo jumbo. They have no intention of taking away the president's prerogative in this war...they just want to bitch about it to dupes like you.


and some other things to consider:

Torture
Al Qaeda does it. No proof we've engaged in it.


indefinite detention of US citizens (see Padilla, Jose)
May he burn in hell where he belongs.


signing statements (i know yoni would have a fit if a democrat pulled that shit)
Clinton used them. So did many other Presidents. I don't recall "having a fit."

All the signing statements declare is that the president will rely on his constitutional power where the law and it conflict. Would you rather he veto?


an overall aggressive interpretation of war powers
And, thank God for that!


classifies every inconsequential document he wants to citing national security (remember the Saudi links that were classified in the 9/11 report)
No, I don't.


His unprecedented assertions of executive privilege
Not unprecendented. Clinton tried to claim executive privilege to keep the nation from learning of his crimes and dalliances. At least in this case, the president is actually trying to preserve national security.


and his aggressive politicization of federal agencies (especially the justice department)
Janet Reno.


alright....go plagiarize some blogs, i eagerly await your response in defense of your dear leader
No plagiarism necessary on this one.

[Wild Cobra]

Dude...what enemy? When was the last time this nation has declared war?

Where does the constitution say that a war must be formally declared?



President Bush can't just conjure up some rhetorical flourish "the war on terror" and use his "war powers" which up until now have been well contained as they were intended to (the president gets to control the armed forces, be the commander in chief.... it doesn't mean all the things bush wants it to mean)

I wasn't aware he conjured it up. Interesting. I assume the whole 9/11 incident was an illusion?

Conjurers, illusionists... What's next?

Gary Gygax for president?




and some other things to consider:

Torture

What torture? You have to change the definition to claim any torture has happened.



indefinite detention of US citizens (see Padilla, Jose)

I thought all prisoners of war were held captive until the war was over. Isn't that the historical standard?



signing statements (i know yoni would have a fit if a democrat pulled that shit)

Now I may be wrong about this. I only looked at one signing statement. It was nothing more than the president affirming he did not have to follow the law passed by congress. They do not supercede him!



an overall aggressive interpretation of war powers

Not by my assessment.



classifies every inconsequential document he wants to citing national security (remember the Saudi links that were classified in the 9/11 report)

Who are you t say what should and shouldn't be classified?



His unprecedented assertions of executive privilege

LOL... Nothing unprecedented about it.



and his aggressive politicization of federal agencies (especially the justice department)

I thought political appointments were always political. Am I wrong? What am I missing?