Re: A Texas Affair?

To follow up on Jay's Dan Bartlett post: MSNBC kept talking over Bartlett (and I couldn't find the presser on CSPAN), so I really only got the gist of it but it sounded like the admin was taking the "they're political appointees, we can do what we want with them" line (From what I can tell, this is not necessarily a standard interpretation.) -- among others. Beyond being able to do what they want, the White House also had nothing to do with it. Besides, they deserved to be fired! Except Gonzales is happy to write a recommendation for Iglesias.

Dan will be on "Hardball" in a second, we'll see if David Gregory -- sitting in for Matthews -- can wring something besides spin from him. (Or at least if he can keep his spin straight.)

UPDATE: I thought I had some actual news here from the Hardball appearance, because it sure sounded like Bartlett was claiming the WH did not sign off on the firings -- even though, according to this (page 28), that exact phrase is used (thanks to my pal Mike for finding that):

"WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes"

GOTCHA! But, sadly, I tried to confirm Dan's Hardball exchange and he clarified:

Not sure if I was clear, but we've said all along we signed off on a final list, but did not help develop the list (add, subtract, etc.)

Some might think that all that back and forth between Sampson and WH sure looks like "helping to develop," but, again, Dan clarifies:

Keep[ing] updated on [their] progress and determining who and who isn't on the list is very different.

You know, we are supposed to send our editors an email every Thursday with a list of stories we're working on. I would be shocked if they didn't consider that "helping to develop." Perhaps things are different with the CEO President.