Perhaps having realized that routine replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys at the start of a president's term is not equal to firing eight attorneys for clearly partisan reasons, thet MRC folks are trying to incorporate a new talking point: Clinton replaced all the attorneys to thwart an investigation of Democratic congressman Dan Rostenkowski. Justin McCarthy brings it up in a March 15 NewsBusters post.
This would be a valid talking point had Rostenkowski not been indicted. In fact, he was -- in 1994, by a Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney. He was also convicted and imprisoned, another fact that seems to have escaped McCarthy.
Ken Shepherd similarly references it in another March 15 NewsBusters post -- then goes on to try and reframe the 93-versus-8 argument. In attacking CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen for calling that argument "apples and oranges" because "every new administration expects holdovers to submit letters of resignation and generally accepts most if not all of them," Shepherd responds:
But, no one is arguing that point. What is at issue, however, is the manner in which the media failed to find controversy in the unprecedented way Reno handled resignation.
Actually, that is exactly the point his MRC bretheren have tried to make. Very few, if any, of the posts by NewsBusters and MRC writers who make the 93-versus-8 comparison admit that, as we've noted, Reagan and Bush also replaced the entire staff of federal prosecutors. Further, none of these posts -- including Shepherd's -- ever mention the specific details of the firing of those eight attorneys that would explain why they have become so controversial.
If MRC employees are going to dredge up 14-year-old Clinton assertions as fact, shouldn't they also try to acknowledge all the facts in the brand-new Bush case as well?