Just three weeks ago, as candidate for District Attorney, Sandra Doorley promised voters she'd keep politics out of the DA's office.
Today, as the very first action for her new administration, Doorley fired five veteran prosecutors who were either Republicans or were friendly toward her opponent in the election, Bill Taylor. Among them they had nearly 50 years of experience.
At least this action keeps one promise: to carry on the tradition of outgoing DA Mike Green. Green infamously prostituted his office to politics, buying a federal judgeship with political prosecutions of two innocent men, James Smith and Andrew Moore. Both prosecutions were laughed out of court, one by a judge, the other by a jury. But they gave a complicit daily newspaper the pretext for headlines Democrats needed before the 2009 elections.
Green's successor keeps the tradition very much alive and today christens the new administration with the same rancid stench of corruption as the old one.
Anyone with more information about today's purge is invited to contact us at:
40 comments:
Shock, horror! New DA hires new staff!
Frankly, I have no way to evaluate whether these were politically motivated, personally motivated, motivated by good management, etc. But it's pretty common for a new leader to put in a new team. Presumably Taylor would have done something similar, if he had been elected.
Now, now, Rotters: you of all people know this isn't about hiring new staff, it's about firing experienced staff. And for political reasons, by someone who promised to keep politics out of the office.
Let's not forget the DA's office is also losing Doug Randall as well.
Green and Doorley always invoke Howard Relin's name. But for all of his faults - and he had several - Relin really did run his office in an apolitical fashion. Dan Doyle and Sean Hanna were just two of the prominent Republican attorneys in his office. And he prosecuted a Democratic operative for falsely ascribing to petition signatures.
It's a shame what that office has become.
It is interesting to note that Channel 10 is running a story about "outrage" due to recent firings in the DA's office. In the past, it has been my opinion that Channel 10 is almost as biased against local Republicans as the Democrat & Chronicle is.
Rottenchester, are you being serious with that excuse? Very disappointing since you are usually more sincere with your posts.
First, Doorley is not District Attorney yet so her firing these people who worked for Mike Green and under her for years for no reason is not the same as new electeds bringing in their own people. These WERE HER PEOPLE. If they were doing a bad job, why didn't Green get rid of them before? No, they didn't overtly support Doorley and apparently if you don't in the new District Attorney's Office, you lose your job.
Second, she claimed all throughout the election that politics wasn't going to play a role in her office if she won. And she claimed that these firings were not politically motivated. However she said in news reports that she fired them because she needs people you are loyal to her. That my friend is her absolutely saying that she fired these people specifically because they didn't support her political campaign.
Lastly, if Taylor won and let people go, Democrats and the local press would be attacking him daily. Doorley, despite the media "mentioning" this is giving her a free pass for no other reason other than she's a Democrat and they get free rides around here. Democrats and the media better NEVER chastise Republicans EVER for doing anything remotely similar to this.
Your whitewashing of this leads me to believe that you're simply regurgitating the very same Democrat talking points we've already seen from them on this.
You used to be better than this.
I simply cannot get too worked up over this. this is the way the world works. The winner gets to pick his/her team and get rid of people he/she doesn't like or trust.
Maybe Bill Taylor would have done it differently. Maybe it would be a better world if it were done differently. but this is the way of the world.
It may not be a wise decision to get rid of veteran prosecutors, but I can't begrudge the winner of the election from picking her own team.
Geez, anonymous #4, as soon as I espouse an opinion with which you disagree, I've lost all credibility? Donnez moi un break.
Look, I'm not Sandra Doorley's biggest supporter. In general, I think prosecutors have too much power no matter which party they're part of. Those of you who are upset over the way that Robutrad was handled by the DA's office might want to start asking questions about the power of prosecutors rather than the politicization of the prosecutor's office. Our legislators are constantly enacting tough laws that allow prosecutors wide discretion, to the cheers of almost all Republicans and some Democrats. Maybe Republicans should listen to Dr Paul a little more than Mr. Limbaugh if they're worried about prosecutorial power.
But back to Doorley She's an elected official, and if she makes any changes in her staff, the other party has the right to try to make those personnel changes into a campaign issue. Philbrick is doing that by defining "firing experienced staff" as "not keeping politics out of the DA's office". But he's smart enough to know that the proof in the pudding isn't who she's fired, but who she hires.
When and if Doorley replaces her chiefs with political operatives, then let's talk politicization. I trust that Philbrick will keep us informed on that score. But all he has reported so far on that score is a rumor, not a fact.
Anonymous 8:17 --
Agree with most of what you say, but not that Rottenchester is "whitewashing" this or anything else, or that he "regurgitates Democrat talking points."
Rottenchester's opinions are original and his own, which is what makes him one of our favorite commenters on this site.
When Rotters weighs in, it sets everybody else to thinking.
Rottenchester,
First, I agree that I can't get too worked up about Doorley firing people. that's the way the world works. It does seem to demonstrate why nobody who knows her endorsed her (law enforcement, former DAs, D&C, etc). My guess is that she's simply a partisan hack and not a nice person. That's just a guess though.
Next you say:
"Our legislators are constantly enacting tough laws that allow prosecutors wide discretion, to the cheers of almost all Republicans and some Democrats."
Last time I checked, the democrats have controlled the assembly for decades and the governor's mansion intermittently and almost 1/2 the state senate.
so, love how you define that as "all republicans and some democrats" cheering for whatever it is you are vaguely lambasting. Statistically, it is more dems cheering for it then republicans every time. At least in NY.
Also, you must not listen to Limbaugh much - even though you wish to demonize him. I'm not a huge Limbaugh follower, but can't recall ever hearing him railing on about criminalizing this or criminalizing that - or even giving prosecutors more power. Indeed, I have heard him talk about taking away gov't power (including prosecutors' power) - something all conservatives stand behind but few democrats do. Seems odd that your argument would actually be a conservative argument but you try and pretend it is a liberal one. Strange.
The DA's office should be loyal to the law and to see to the fact that criminals are prosecuted to the fullest extent of that law. They do NOT need to be loyal to Sandra Doorley. But in Mike Green's office and now in her office--they could care less about the victims.
Doorley also used her appeal as the first woman DA. Which is such hogwash because she is a two face hypocrite. She isn't for woman. She isn't for victims.
"as soon as I espouse an opinion with which you disagree, I've lost all credibility?"
First, I never said nor implied that. If you feel you have lost all credibility then that's on you and please clarify that that is your belief and not mine.
Second, you comment that "it's pretty common for a new leader to put in a new team" is exactly what Joe Morelle said which, for him, is intended to make it look like Doorley is doing nothing sleazy.
She fired people because they did not support her in her campaign not because they were poor workers. Period. But she is claiming just the opposite. Did she reference poor performance reviews or request their demotion or firings prior to her election?
If you understand politics you know exactly what is going on here.
Suggesting anything else is whitewashing. Trying to make it look like this is what occurs elsewhere is in fact simply spewing Joe Morelle's talking points.
That's my opinion.
Monkeytoe, I agree that Democrats have also supported laws that increase prosecutorial advantage, but I'll give you a concrete example of Republican-proposed and enacted laws that have led to full jails and out-of-control prosecutors: the Rockefeller drug laws which are the foundation of the war on drugs in NY. The war on drugs is one of the most freedom-depriving "wars" that we've endured as a state and a nation. I think that a lot of Democrats and conservative Republicans in the Buckley mold can agree with WFB that we should end that war and in doing so reclaim some of our freedom.
As for the Limbaugh/Paul difference, Rush (I believe) is still -- hypocritically -- for drug prohibition, as well as the death penalty, while Dr. Paul opposes both. Like Paul, I'm probably for the death penalty in theory, but a huge amount of data on the practice of the ultimate penalty, especially in the benighted South, has led me to share his belief that it just can't be administered justly and should be abolished.
Anonymous, first let me remind you what you said:
"Your whitewashing of this leads me to believe that you're simply regurgitating the very same Democrat talking points we've already seen from them on this.
You used to be better than this."
That seems to indicate that I've lost credibility. Saying that I only regurgitated talking points indicates that I've lost all credibility. Use your words carefully.
Second, it probably astonishes me more than it does you, but once in a while when Joe Morelle opens his mouth, the truth comes out. Saying that she has the right to pick her own team is a simple fact, no matter who said it. If it isn't true, show me who does have the right, or prove that those jobs have some kind of civil service protection. Unfortunately for your argument, you can't. It's the height of ad hominem to assume that a simple truth is false only because someone you don't like says it.
And, as I said at the start, I still have no way to know if those firings were politically motivated, or if they are good management. Think about it for a minute: If your trusted deputies campaigned against you in the last election, how can you trust their loyalty? And don't you need loyal employees to be effective? I mean loyal in the non-political, regular day-in day-out sense. Aren't those deputies at least a bit culpable since they chose to back one candidate rather than just stay neutral?
That all said, the evidence that those people campaigned against Doorley isn't clear. Philbrick says they're registered Republicans (I believe that) and they were "friendly" to Taylor (I don't know what that means). Maybe Doorley's shake up is due to a different vision of how the office should be run. And the proof of that will be in the pudding. If we see ineffective prosecution and political witch-hunts, then we'll know that she fired the wrong people.
I am a former employee that knew and worked with sandy and therefore I voted for bill Taylor. I am not sure if the firings were political but maybe just because she is not a smart administrator. Let's see... Let's get rid of 49 years of experience in one fell swoop and let the burden fall the the shoulders of everyone else who is already overworked. I could write an entire novel on everything that is wrong with that Place... Promotions based on time at office rather than experience and talent, bosses sleeping with subordinates and interns, affairs, etc etc etc it's like a bad soap opera. I feel bad for the few good prosecutors because
Rotten,
The dems could have run on and attempted, maybe even succeeded, to get the drug laws overturned and haven't. So any argument that such things are
"republican" is silly at best. And, I'm pretty sure that the dems controlled the assembly when those laws were passed.
Even more humorous is the fact that Rockafeller was a liberal republican - not a conservative. It is liberalism that leads to desire to control everyone and everything through gov't, not conservatism. See Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the national socialists.
Second, let's look at things liberals actually do - such as speech codes on college campuses - liberal's everstanding use of attempting to shut down teh speech of anyone they disagree with through protest, shouting, etc. The impulse to reduce freedom and librerty is a leftist, not rightist, trait. Indeed, the whole point of conservatism is less gov't. that is not to say that some republicans fail to understand this and try to do stupid things with gov't - but that just goes to prove the point - we should want gov't to have less power and less influence in our lives such that such people don't have the opportunity to try and do stupid things with gov't.
Next, as to "supporting criminalization of drugs" - really? that's your "argument"? That' ridiculous. Close to 70% of americans support criminalization of drugs (not counting marijuana, which even I support legalizing). And, supporting criminilization of drugs and supporting the tactics of the drug war are 2 very different things. I think most people think the "drug war" in how it is waged is foolish (another, amonst the ample facts, demonstrating why we should never entrust gov't to "solve" all of our problems).
You can argue about what the sentancing laws should be - and I'd probably agree with you on most of it. But, you can claim that with just about any crime. by making something a crime, you are taking away liberty. criminalizing anything does that. But, criminal law is one of the legitimate functions of gov't. I don't agree with all criminal laws, but at least that is a legitinate function of gov't - unlike say forcing people to buy this or that health care insurance and re-distributing wealth. Or deciding to reward your campaign contributors by giving them millions of dollars for their silly businesses that you know will fail - such as Solyndra. Or having your gov't give guns to criminals so they can kill border agents and then claim we need stronger gun laws. These are real attempts to take away liberty and freedom and grow the gov't to the point where it controls us completely.
the death penalty argument is old and useless to engage here in terms of whether it is right or not. But, supporting the death penalty is hardly the stuff of depriving liberty in the way you mean. the death penaly only occurs after trial and multiple appeals. It can hardly be claimed to be the type of liberty depriving activity that we are speaking of - warrantless searches, prosecutorial abuse.
Socializing medicine, ordering americans to buy products, regulating business until it leaves, and, by the way, continuing all of those "constitutional destroying" bush war on terror policies, As Obama has done, demonstrates that the left never cared about any of that - thy simply used such things to gain power. If the left were serious about any of that stuff - that they were marching in protest against just 4 years ago, none of them would vote for Obama.
The answer is simple. Sandra Doorley wants to be a judge. She has not abandoned that goal. She fired 5 DA's with Republican ties so that she (and her boss Morelle) can systematically extinguish potential opponents for when she doesn't just pretend to run for judge like earlier this year. Look at who was fired. They are highly regarded, attractive, seasoned prosecutors. They are threats to her.
You probably make a good point about her vying to be judge, after all, the one eyed man among the blind is king. She got rid of anyone with any talent and has left a frat house of barely-legal attorneys whose main concern is where happy hour is. As a defense attorney, it makes my job easier when my ADA is hungover, unprepared, and untrained in the law. But as a citizen of the community and father of three young children, it concerns me that Ms. Doorley fired prosecutors of which I felt were the best and most qualified in the office and who I could have an intelligent conversation about a case with. The rest of the office seems to just be judge's kids who probably wouldn't have been hired in the first place if it wasn't for politics.
I think you are all looking to deep for motive here.
The simplest answer is usually correct. I would posit that Doorley is a highly partisan individual who cannot separate party affiliation from anything and that is why she fired republicans. Plain and simple - she's a partisan hack.
She's probably the type of person who actually believes that everyone not a democrat is evil and stupid.
Monkeytoe, if only you knew all the corruption going on in that office, the things that Sandy keeps hidden from the public regarding her "best team for the community," and some of the real reasons behind the firings. Sandy is not a good person, and she has a staff of not good people. Her "vision" scares me. Who she let go and who she kept scares me. This county is getting less and less safe. I am scared for my kids. Anyone know what property prices in Wayne County are like? I've got a nice house in Penfield that may be on the market soon. Any takers?
Anonymous at December 8, 2011 11:35 PM,
I don't think my guess - that Doorly is a partisan political hack who cannot separate her partisanship from the job - doesn't fit with your description. Most people who are that partisan - beyond all reason - tend to be pretty crappy people.
When you are that partisan you actually believe that "the other side" is evil and you rationalize that anything you do is o.k. b/c you are fighting "evil". I am extremely conservative, but I am not partisan (i.e., I vote GOP mostly b/c it aligns more with me, but I don't put party above all and can see and admit when the GOP does stupid or dishonest things, and I don't think all dems are evil and would never evaluate a person's character or fitness for a job based on political affiliation).
If you are the same commentator who said that you are a public defense attorney, I will simply note that I heard all of the same kind of stuff when Green took over. I have friends in the PD's office, and they always rail away against how terrible the DA's office is and how everything they do is political. I've been hearing that for about 7 years or so now. Whether Doorley is really a piss poor DA or not, we will see. But, I probably will take anything a PD has to say about it with a very large grain of salt.
All the criminals and felons go free in Sandra Doorley's office. Look at the actual arrest records vs. the indictments and you will see what's really going on in that corrupt office.
I hate that I find myself defending Doorley here, but some stuff just isn't accurate.
"Look at the actual arrest records vs. the indictments and you will see what's really going on in that corrupt office."
I'm not sure what this means. Are you claiming that after an indictment is issued, the police never arrest the indicted person?
Or, did you mean to say check the arrest records against convictions? If so, give us some kind of analysis of why you believe Monroe County DA's statistics are worse than any other county's. There will always be a lot more arrests than convictions, due to bad arrests, plea deals that don't involve felony convictions, or yes - dropping the ball on prosecutions. I am in the legal community and have never heard that the Monroe County DA's office does a bad job or is worse than any other DA's office. Perhaps Doorley will bring its competency down. We will have to wait and see.
If you are claiming that the DAs are getting paid off to drop cases - offer some proof. That's a pretty big accusation.
The DAs office doesn't get paid to drop cases. They do often no bill indictments on purpose. They are just overworked and under experienced. That's what tends to happen when people get hired and fired for political reasons... You don't get the best qualified staff to serve the cimmunity, you get a group of lazy, spoiled brats. I don't think the comment from December 9 meant to imply they were getting paid off? Did you? I interpreted it as when you hire and fire and retain bad employees all for political reasons rather than talent and experience, you end up with the mess of a DAs office that we have. I'm also in the legal community and while many of the ADAs are pleasant enough, many are just silly kids with important parents. Needless to say, it's kind of a no brainier to set cases down for trial. I can't even count the number of times I have won a trial simply because the Prosecutor was unprepared to go forward.
"I'm also in the legal community and while many of the ADAs are pleasant enough, many are just silly kids with important parents."
Really? I find that very hard to believe. It's not like being an ADA is a glamorous or even well paying job. It is extremely long hours for low pay and takes years and years to move up to important cases. I would think these big important parents would get their kids better jobs. Hell, City and County attorneys make a lot more money than ADAs and work much less hours - why aren't these big-time parents getting their kids political positions there?
Regardless, the young, inexperienced ADA at that level - misdemeanors - is actually pretty common in every ADA office. That is b/c every ADA office is low paid and overworked. and usually has high turnover That is the name of the job. It has nothing to do with Doorley personally.
Also, I don't think hiring decisions on that level are made on political grounds. Sure, the decision to promote someone to felony-murder cases, etc. might have political calculations, but I can't believe that hiring some 2nd year lawyer as an entry-level ADA to cover town court for speeding tickets, etc. is made based on party affiliation.
I have not heard of many felony cases that the DA's office loses on those grounds (unprepared inexperienced ADAs) - I'd like to see some stats to back up such a claim. Indeed, knowing several Public Defenders - they rarely outright win cases. A win is usually getting convicted of a lessor included offense rather than the main charge. That is the nature of criminal law work, the DA's office success rate is extremely high - pretty much anywhere you go.
People are commenting as if criminals have been getting off left and right in Monroe County for years, as if convictions haven't been happening. That's nonsense. In fact, the PD's biggest complaint under Green was that Green was to much of a hard*ss and wasn't giving the sweet plea deals that his predecessor used to give out. Which belies the argument that the DA's office was suddenly just letting all the criminals walk free. The argument I constantly heard was that Greene wanted more convictions with longer sentences for political reasons and therefore wasn't "seeking justice" for the crimes charged. People can't have it both ways.
I'll wait to see how things go under Doorley. I have not heard much good about her to be sure and this batch of firings doesn't bode well. But I think some of the claims made here are ridiculous.
And yes, I did read the Dec 9 anonymous message as implying that the DA's office was getting paid to drop cases. I'm not sure how else you read it. Basing promotions, etc. on political affiliation or loyalty to the DA is not "corruption". We may find it unethical or bad management. But "corruption" implies criminal behavior. Mismanagement is not "corruption."
Monkeytoe,
First, I don't know why you are defending Doorley. Clearly she is a liberal, just like Nelson Rockefeller and Pol Pot, and is out to destroy the prosecutors office. As you said:
"It is liberalism that leads to desire to control everyone and everything through gov't, not conservatism. See Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the national socialists."
By your own argument, there's no real difference between Sandra Doorley and Adolph Hitler (noted national socialist) so why are you defending her? As soon as you call someone a liberal, you don't need any facts. She's a liberal, liberals do bad things, QED.
Rottenchester,
First, I note you cannot dispute that history is on my side. Second, please note I said it leads to wanting teh gov't to exert control over every aspect of everyone's life - which is fairly true. Trans fats? Smoking? endless regulation? It is the philosophy that believes that for our own good gov't should run things - to make us better people. Healthier. Richer. All by the gov't deciding how we act and spend and engage in commerce.
I never said that all liberals are evil. But whatever. You started with that argument against republicans. Doesn't it suck when someone points out your worldview (i.e., republicans want to have total control over everything) historically is more accurate to liberalism? Does it make you question your philosophy?
I'm sorry if facts hurt. But you can't have your own facts. You try, what with all republicans cheer for the gov't taking more liberty away and other such asinine and ahistorical statements. Then cry when someone calls you on it. Too typical.
I can engage in a fun and honest debate. But I only chose to do so with someone on the other side that is honest. You started from the dishonest debate tactic 101 (you are all controlled by limbaugh and cheer when liberty is squashed) and now you want to complain?
Monkeytoe, I thought that any intelligent person would know that Hitler and Stalin's ideology was slightly divergent, and therefore any comparison between them and modern-day liberalism should be mocked just because there's so little in common between the two that comparing them, together, to liberalism is nothing more than a meaningless slur.
And mock it I did. I just assumed my denial was implicit in the mockery. So, for the record, I deny that Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin were liberals. Perhaps that's radical revisionism to you, but, then again, I don't know how to reason with someone who could put the regulation of trans-fats on the same footing as mass genocide.
Back to Doorley: I honestly found it funny that when it finally dawned on you that the people criticizing her office in this thread were going way over the top, you decided to try to rein them in. And I thought it interesting that someone who could trot out such a fact-free argument about liberals, Pol Pot and Hitler could try to insist on facts when it comes to the liberal DA. I was just trying to point out the contradiction there.
Anyway, since you've taken your toys and gone home, I wish you a heartfelt and honest fare-thee-well. On the way out, you might want to think about why it is that you need to pollute this argument with references to Hitler to make your point.
Rottenchesster,
To argue that present day liberalism doesn't share roots with the progressives of the 1920s and 1930s, who shared much with both national socialism and international socialism (i.e., different strains of socialism) is to ignore history and be completely dishonest. Eugenics - which Planned Parenthood founder founded Planned Parenthood to facilitate, was a prime idea pursued by progressives of that era (and the type of idea that clearly led to Hitler's final solution) and much of the modern day welfare state was created by those progressives taking much from Hitler's Germany before WWII. I could go so far as to point out that liberal lion Ted Kennedy would rather work with the USSR than Reagan - as demonstrated by a letter he wrote asking the USSR to help him undermine Reagan so Reagan would not be re-elected. To try and claim their is no relationship between modern day American liberalism and national socialism or socialism is so far from true as to be completely laughable. But most modern liberals rarely worry about history or facts.
You are being completely dishonest to attempt to completely read that history out of liberalism. If you want to claim no relation, then you have to disown the modern welfare state and much modern liberal philosophical underpinnings.
So, you either have no knowledge of history or you are dishonest. it can only be one or the other. The facts re on my side.
And I never said that trans-fat regulation and mass murder are the same - you said that. Typical dishonest argument technique by a liberal.
I said that the urge to control other people is part of liberalism, and pointed out such types of regulation as evidence. I pointed out that historically every time leftists gain total control of gov'ts, they always devolve into totalitarianism - Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao. It is a completely factual argument that you cannot refute unless you are dishonest. the closest thing to a "right wing" (i.e., conservative) gov't there has ever been is probably Pinochet, and that is stretching it a little.
That does not mean that all liberals want totalitarianism or want to commit mass murder, and I never said that. It does however mean that liberalism has at its core the belief that gov't should control people's lives. Which means less liberty. Liberals believe in gov't above all else. Otherwise, a new and bigger gov't program would not be the liberal response to everything.
but, whatever. You can throw out your silly "republicans cheer when libety is killed" lines and then cry a river when someone points out that you don't know what you are talking about.
Again, you are a typical liberal. You argue without knowledge and debate without logic.
"Monkeytoe, I thought that any intelligent person would know that Hitler and Stalin's ideology was slightly divergent"
The only real divergence was between having a militant nationalism as part of the socialism (national socialism) or believing in international socialism (USSR).
I know that as a liberal, you would attempt to argue that fascism was not a left-wing ideology, but the facts, again, are not on your side. Socialism is left wing, even if incorporates nationalism into it. Just because the USSR and Nazi Germany did not get along (neither did the USSR and communist China), does not mean that both weren't leftist ideologies.
The funny thing is, modern day liberals don't care so much about being compared to communists. Sure, they get fired up when you point out that Fascism is a leftist ideology, but they don't get too upset when you point out the similar thinking to communism. But in fact the USSR killed millions of its own people purposefully as did communist China. but, b/c the left in the west covered for both at the time (see, e.g., leftists Pulitzer-winning Duranty of the NY Times who claimed that the Ukrainian starvation was not true) most Americans still don't realize just how horrific communism was.
Monkeytoe, you've shown us how Hitler, Stalin, Planned Parenthood, Pol Pot and trans fats are relevant to the firings in the DA's office. Unfortunately, I think you forgot the significance of the Franco-Prussian War and the Treaty of Amiens. Do you have any comment on that?
Rotten,
1. If you actually read my posts, you'll see that I stated, from my very first post, that the firings are no big deal and indeed defended Doorley somewhat;
2. I did not change the topic from firings - you did. I was responding to this: Our legislators are constantly enacting tough laws that allow prosecutors wide discretion, to the cheers of almost all Republicans and some Democrats. Maybe Republicans should listen to Dr Paul a little more than Mr. Limbaugh if they're worried about prosecutorial power.
I merely was pointing out that liberalism as an ideology/philosophy is much more likely, based on what its beliefs and goals are and based upon its historical underpinnings, to do things to expand gov't power and reduce liberty.
3. I never stated nor implied that the firings by Doorley or trans-fat regulation is the "same thing" as hitler or other atrocities. Again, I was having a discussion about the underlying beliefs of liberalism (once again, in response to your off-topic assertion that republicans always cheer giving prosecutors power).
In an attempt to simplify the argument I was attempting to make through an extremely summarized historical analysis, if one believes that the gov't can make everyone's life better and make society better, you have to implicitly believe gov't should have the power to do so. And, to do so, gov't has to change behaviors and actions of actual people. Thus, it follows that gov't must control more aspects of people's lives and decisions. Otherwise, gov't will not be able to achieve those lofty goals of remaking society into some kind of utopia. thus, liberals - whether they admit it to themselves or not - have to believe in less liberty and more gov't control. that is the only way you get to the end society liberals dream of.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the basic mistake that liberals are making is the idea that human nature can be changed through gov't power or that the gov't can remake society at all. Conservatives believe that people will generally be happiest if allowed to act upon their own devices and believe that almost every intervention by the gov't is not only doomed to failure, but will likely have disastrous unforeseen consequences (a la the dependency cycle of welfare). Now, I did admit that there are some republicans, and even some conservatives, who fail to grasp the "limited gov't" idea and seek to extend gov't. But, as I said earlier, that reinforces the point that we should be limiting, not extending, gov't power so as not to entice politicians and others into even more power grabs.
If you cannot see that my arguments were about philosophical history and ideological approaches to liberty rather than accusing liberals of all being hitler, then I don't know how else to put it.
Perhaps I attempted to go to deep in response to what you intended to be a throw away "republicans bad, democrats good" line.
"If you cannot see that my arguments were about philosophical history and ideological approaches to liberty rather than accusing liberals of all being hitler, then I don't know how else to put it. "
The reason I can't see your comments like that is because the simple fact is that they aren't some kind of disinterested philosophical interpretation of history. Instead, you are using a bunch of word salad to engage in two simple logical fallacies.
1. Red Herring
What liberals are or aren't in some world-historical sense is irrelevant to this conversation. You're dragging it in to avoid discussing the question I raised, which is whether Republican policies have led to extra prosecutorial powers. My contention is that the answer is yes, my evidence is the Rockefeller drug laws, and your response was that "Rockefeller was a liberal", and then you went from there to Pol Pot and Hitler. Calling him a liberal is simple ad hominem as I'll explain below. Bringing in Pol Pot and the rest (as well as trans fats) is an irrelevant diversion or red herring.
2. Argument ad hominem, a.k.a. name-calling
The simplest form of ad hominem you used is "Rockefeller was a liberal". How does that give me any information about whether his drug laws were a good or bad idea? The simple answer is that it doesn't -- it's simply an attempt to avoid argument by calling Rockefeller a name. The rest of your historical mumbo-jumbo is an attempt to shore up the notion that being a liberal is a bad thing, since that's what Nelson Rockefeller was. That's why it's fair to characterize them in their simplest form, e.g., "Liberals = Hitler", because that's all they are, name-calling in the guise of historical argument.
Note, btw, that it's not name-calling to say that Republicans should listen to Ron Paul rather than Rush Limbaugh - it's using those two guys as stand-ins for libertarian Republicanism and mainstream conservative Republicanism. I agree with Ron Paul's positions on civil liberties, btw, which is another reason your "liberals are bad" approach is pointless: it's needlessly reductive.
So, with all due respect to you and your simian appendages, diversionary name calling isn't relevant to a discussion about the DA's office, and the fact that you think it is not just name-calling red herrings but a philosophical discussion just shows that you don't understand some really basic logical fallacies that most people learn in Freshman logic.
Rotten,
Wow, you won't even admit you changed the subject and that I responded to it. You won't admit that I was never saying anything bad about the firings. You won't admit that my comments all were responding to yours.
Instead you offer red herring and name calling all while pointing the finger at me for the same. It's an interesting "logic" - I'll give you that.
You claim to have used Limbaugh and Paul as stand ins for libertarianism versus conservatism. No you did not. You used Limbaugh in the typical liberal fashion, as a boogeyman and for the claim that all conservatives are mindless and do whatever he says. That is why you phrased it as "you should listen more to Paul and less to Limbaugh." (and by the way, you put arguments into Limbaugh's mouth that he hasn't made - because he is your boogeyman and you think he must believe things you think are bad)
You use Limbaugh in this fashion because you see, we don't have our own thoughts, just what Limbaugh says. And, I'm glad you like Paul. Are you for going back to the gold standard too? the problem with a liberal saying they are "libertarian" is that they are only libertarian in sexual matters and perhaps with regard to drug laws. With regard to commerce, people contracting, 2nd amendment, etc., liberals are very much in favor of as much gov't intervention as possible. That is not remotely libertarian. You can't pick and chose in what spheres you want more gov't and which less and claim some form of libertarianism.
Putting aside whether or not Rockefeller was liberal by today's standards for republican and democrat, I argued that it does not matter b/c the dems controlled the assembly in 1979, when those laws were passed. So much for "more" republicans cheering. There are far more assemblyman than state senators and the single governor. So what was your point again?
Regardless,claiming republicans more than dems "cheer" when new criminal laws are passed is silly. We both know one can go through the criminal laws and find as many democrat sponsored laws expanding prosecutor power as republican sponsored laws. And, I agreed with you regarding the war on drugs and I agree that prosecutors generally have too much power.
Do republicans support more proprietorial power? Sure on some issues. Just as dems do. the real question is what issues. We can all agree expanding prosecutor power is generally bad. But to claim it is a republican "thing" and dems are largely innocent of it is incredibly dishonest.
Again, I guess you can't understand it, but I was pointing out that liberalism is inherently more likely to want to reduce liberty - which is in fact in direct response to your point about "all republicans cheering" expansions of proprietorial power. How you don't believe that it is a response to your claim is baffling.
So, I'm sure you'll post more snark in response. And I'm sure you'll believe that your snark won the day. The comments will stand and other people can draw their own conclusions.
One last thought.
That's why it's fair to characterize them in their simplest form, e.g., "Liberals = Hitler", because that's all they are, name-calling in the guise of historical argument.
While I don't agree with your description of what I argued at all, I'll point out that the above quote perfectly captures your argument that all republicans cheer for expansion of proprietorial powers because Rockefeller passed drug laws.
I agree with Ron Paul's positions on civil liberties,
I know, I can't stop myself but I laugh when I see the things you write.
So, you agree we have the freedom of association - including the right to exclude anyone for any reason? Or, are you in favor of all of the discrimination laws as written?
You believe in freedom of contract without gov't interference? meaning a lot less regulation of business?
You believe in the 2nd amendment - that we should be able to purchase firearms without a background check and without a license?
You believe in freedom to use property as we see fit? Meaning again, a lot less gov't regulation. I could allow smoking in my bar or my restaurant if I want.
If you answered "no" to any of the above, you don't agree with Paul on civil liberties. You agree with Paul on things you agree with Paul on. You pick and chose where you think the gov't should have power and control.
I'm guessing that you believe civil liberties means only search warrants, abortion, same-sex marriage and drug laws.
Monkeytoe,
Relax.
Lucy, Why? If I am wrong, point out where. If you ever read Rottenchester's work on Fighting 29th or his old Rottenchester blog, he and his cohorts were always quick to claim republicans and conservatives were racist, homophobic, etc., etc. Name calling is the left's sole form of argumentation. Pointing out the history of their movement and the dishonesty of their debate tactics is somehow off-limits? I thought this was a conservative blog. Anyway, it is too bad that your moderation policies are what they are - only putting in comments many hours after posting, making true dialogue impossible. I guess I don't need to bother with your blog any longer. I was hoping for a nice conservative local blog, but don't find it here. So, as far as you are concerned, I will relax.
Didn't mean to offend. Your comments are welcome here. The last batch just seemed, maye only to me, maybe a little frantic and a little repetitive.
There's usually a lead time before comments are posted here. It's just because we don't check in for comments except maybe once or twice a day at most. The blog isn't a full time job for any of us who contribute to it.
Monkeytoe, the most frequent commenter on the Fighting 29th was a Southern Tier lifelong Republican and self-described conservative, and another frequent commenter was an Ontario County Republican and self-described conservative who was active in the party. Why would that be if the blog was as you portrayed it?
Monkeytoe, as to your December 12 post... Please check the facts before you find something hard to believe. The turnover rate in Monroe County is much higher and faster than other counties, the ADA's younger and less experienced, their parents more politically connected, more cases lost due to unpreparedness. I cannot speak as the New York City, I can only speak as to the other Counties outside the city. I can tell you that becoming an ADA is a lucrative job, not because of the pay or hours, but because of the prestige and power that comes with the "badge." It's a job that many DA's, Judges, politicians, etc. have started out in... its the beginning of a career path...
Post a Comment