The situation would not be as bad if the press could be accused merely of "selective amnesia." They are not competent to operate a computer and put out stories, if they are unaware of prior firings of ALL the US Attorneys.
And if they are aware of that, and do not report it, they are liars acting on their biases, to protect the likes of Senators Reid and Shumer from the consequences of their own, blatant hypocrisy.
As often happens, a FReeper was on this subject before any part of the lamestream media picked it up.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Prosecutors, Hypocrisy and Harry Reid"
The ironic thing is that I knew absolutely nothing about this whole "scandal" until March 14th, and the Marston article was one of the FIRST things I found while trying to refute another FReepers' claim that U.S. Attorneys haven't been fired before for political reasons. The other thing I noted in
this post was that Nixon
sacked Robert Morgantahu for (likely very good) political reasons, too. Any NYC conservative knows that Bob Morgenthau outright refused to enforce the NY death penalty law when it was reenacted during Pataki's tenure. If he did anything insubordinate like that while serving under Nixon, it would be good cause for removal.
One of the reasons why the Carter and Nixon USA firings haven't been news is because the
Congressional Research Service's report on "U.S. Attorneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-Year Terms" didn't look into USAs who were forced out before 1981. And the scope of the research is also a bit misleading, since most of the Clinton USAs left office AFTER their 4-year terms expired.
If the press were honest, they'd be looking into the circumstances of those USAs who left while Clinton was in office. I'd be willing to bet that a few were forced to leave before they wanted to make way for others or because they weren't properly implementing Clinton's policies or more nefarious reasons. That's simply the nature of politics.