March 26, 2007

The Worst Political Advice Tom Bevan Has Ever Offered...

Hatched by Dafydd

...Is this:

Bob Novak reports today that a good source told him "the president never will ask Gonzales to resign."

If that's true, Gonzales should do the president a favor and submit his resignation. Staying on is only going to be a further drag and distraction for the administration. It may be unpalatable to some Republicans for a Bush cabinet member to "sacrifice" himself to the blood-thirsty Democrats. But, quite frankly, they didn't take Gonzales' scalp as much as he gave it to them by bungling the matter and then not being fully candid about his role.

Yeah. That would sure help matters. Here are the two possible Democratic responses to a Gonzales resignation:

  • They might take the gesture as reaching out, hands across the aisle, a heartfelt attempt by President Bush to be more bipartisan.

    Accordingly, the Democrats would drop their demand to coerce testimony from Karl Rove and Harriet Miers (and their deputies), scale back the investigations of the Bush administration, drop talk of impeaching Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney... and in general, start acting like a responsible opposition party.

    They would work together with the administration to resolve the nation's problems and win the war in Iraq

  • .

  • Or they might seize upon the sacrifice as the admission of abject surrender -- and go on a bloodthirsty spree that would reenact the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572. The streets of D.C. would run red with the blood of Bushies.

    Nobody that Bush nominated to replace Gonzales would even be given a confirmation hearing, let alone a vote.

    Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer would instruct the president that he is to name David Boies as the new Attorney General, and the new White House Counsel will be David Iglesias; Erwin Chemerinsky is to be named Special Counsel to investigate the Bush administration for everything.

    Bush would spend the remaining year-plus of his administration in misery and isolation, vainly staving off indictments, impeachments, and imprisonments.

I wonder which road the Democrats would follow?

To paraphrase a popular country song, I know what Tom was feeling, but what was he thinking?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 26, 2007, at the time of 10:43 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:


The following hissed in response by: Tomy

Right on!

Four years ago the administration reached across the aisle and got its hand chewed off:

Joe Wilson's NYT article "What I Didn't Find in Africa" raised questions regarding Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address (SOUA), and specifically questioned the following sentence:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

In response to the Wilson Article, administration officials offered an apology. In essence, they said that Bush's words were true but should not have been in the SOUA. This apology however was never adequately explained, and the Democrats smelled blood. They seized on the apology and turned it into evidence of Bush Lies and Treason.

In retrospect the apology was a mistake and the lesson is: Do Not Feed The Animals.

The above hissed in response by: Tomy [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 26, 2007 3:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

Sarcastic rhetorical questions ill become you, although they do produce chuckles. You know very well what the Democrats would do, at least if they thought they could get away with it. I wouldn't even be surprised if they tried option two knowing it would backfire. Their hatred of all things Bush often overcomes their common sense. Think of the number of times they have called for certain actions, and the second Bush decided that their ideas had merit and adopted those positions, they immediately changed their positions and were suddenly against what they had been advocating only days before. They would be funny were it not for the harm done to the country. Yes I know, I'm not supposed to question their patriotism. And really, I'm not questioning their patriotism, but rather their judgment and intelligence. How they can think that much of what they have said about the War on Terror does not aid and assist the enemy is something that I cannot understand. I am left wondering how much better things might have gone in Iraq, and worldwide for that matter, had the Democrats stood behind the war and not spent all their time trying to portray it as illegal and immoral? Such divisions within can only encourage the enemy. They see that if they can only hang on they will win. It is much easier to keep trying as long as there is a glimmer of hope that you will succeed. It is truly sad that the party of Harry Truman, or FDR, or JFK has fallen so far. I long for the days when I could vote for Democrats in good conscience, like I did from LBJ through Carter. One term of Cater finally convinced me I was wrong, and that the values I had thought I was supporting no longer existed in the Democrats. There are still a few I support, but their numbers keep declining. And I honestly don't like many of the Republicans, but when it comes to casting a vote, it is a matter of the lesser of two evils.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 26, 2007 5:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

Spot on analysis! You are the best, Dafydd!

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 26, 2007 10:14 PM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

Your option two is the most obvious stance of the Dems. What is so shamefull about this and several other recent episodes is the propensity of conservative commentators to want to throw over the Adminitsration at the earliest opportunity.

Is it just a drive to have their candidates`views front and center or such a desire for purity that they have to beat the Democrats to the punch with any critiques of Democrats.

I believe it was these commentators that drove the move away from Republicans at the last election. A bit of backbone may have meant a Republic Senate and less of a Democratic Congress.

The above hissed in response by: Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 27, 2007 4:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Davod


The second paragraph should have read: beat the Democrats to the punch with any critiques of Republicans.

The above hissed in response by: Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 27, 2007 4:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Steelhand

Of course Gonzales has been pretty bad, and one of Bush's poorer choices. And there is a long list to choose from. But the timing would be horrible, and Gonzales has to stick it out as Bush has to stick with him.

Furthermore, the Pres. need to get in front of this issue with a "full support" statement that is unequivocal.

Unfortunately, my Pres. is looking like the lamest of lame ducks.

The above hissed in response by: Steelhand [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 27, 2007 4:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mikey

I'm not home and I can't reach my reference books, but Parliament went after one of Charles I's advisors and finally, to drop the heat, Charles fired the man.

Who was then arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. This finally precipitated the English Civil War as Charles realized that he was in mortal danger. Parliament was going to go after every person around him - including the queen and his children - exile, sequester, or execute every follower or friend of the king, and have him as their puppet.

He decided to fight. He lost, but if he hadn't fought he would have lost anyway. Similarly, Bush ought to take this lesson to heart and not through Gonzales to the wolves. They can't make him do that and if they want to fight on this front let them - make them work for their victory, trench by trench by trench. Every week the senate stays mired in this fight is another week closer to the election and the end.

The above hissed in response by: Mikey [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 27, 2007 12:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terry Gain

Sacrifice AG and the Dems appetites will only be whetted to manufacture another "scandal". They should be told that hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys is a presidential perogative and they should shove off and devote their time to finding more ways to encourage the insurgency in Iraq.

The above hissed in response by: Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 27, 2007 2:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: MarkD

Yes, and his last official act should be to pardon them.

Pardon whom, you ask? Why the Democrats in Congress. Their actions are treason, and Bush is 10 times the man any of them will ever be.

The above hissed in response by: MarkD [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 27, 2007 2:55 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved