Interesting observation

I finished shoveling, without having a coronary event. I actually own a snow blower. I share it with my neighbor. It is in his garage. He is not home. Great planning on my part. I shoveled, and shoveled. Tomorrow is going to suck for my back.

Media Matters has an interesting observation about Patrick Fitzgerald. He was appointed by Bush in 2001 and confirmed by Congress unanimously. The Washington Post has implied that he is partisan. How is he partisan? Is it because he is prosecuting a Republican? If he were prosecuting a Democrat, would he be a Republican Partisan?

Perhaps we should compare the prosecution tactics of Patrick Fitzgerald to Kenneth Star. How many partisan leaks have come out of the Grand Jury under Patrick Fitzgerald? What was Star appointed to investigate? What was Fitzgerald appointed to investigate? Can you imagine Fitzgerald morphing his investigation, of the Plame outing, to investigating Jack Abramoff's discussions with Karl Rove? How about how the President sold his stock in an oil company 30 days before it went bankrupt, how about how he sold a minor interest in a baseball team for far more than the other partners that had larger interests? Star morphed his investigation around Clinton's financial dealings, partners, Hillary's financial dealings, etc, etc. He really just fished, on the taxpayer dollar, for four years, and found nothing. He finally got the President on lying under oath in a deposition, that had been financed by conservative Rutherford Institute , as a fishing expedition into Clinton's personal life, designed to embarrass the President. They got the womanizing Clinton in a compromising situation. Then Star stepped in to finish it off.

Now the WaPo has the audacity to imply Fitzgerald is partisan. Give me a break. He does not even register a blip on the Partisan-o-meter.