Although I agree with you on the foolishness of conservatives demanding that Gonzalez quit, I also think we're _already_ paying for his mistakes in most of the ways you identify; we're not paying because he resigned, but because he screwed up in the first place. (I.e. all the things you say will happen because he resigned, were already happening before he resigned.)

This way, instead of having the AG spend all his time defending himself (mostly ineptly), Congress will have to spend its time harassing a former AG, giving the real AG that much more time to work.

And we do have a real AG -- Bush already named the interim. I don't have any reason to suppose he'd be confirmed. In fact, I suspect he won't even be nominated (why not nominate someone else, and let congress fight over that, while the interim guy does the real job?).

Hmm, I think you violated two of your principles:

1. Never first always final; and
2. Always optimistic.

Just because you were right before (conservatives shouldn't storm for a resignation) doesn't mean Bush/Gonzalez is wrong now. Think about the actual situation now.

And think about how to pull something better out of what we've got. In this case, it's to name an interim AG (avoiding the words "recess appointment") and start nominating candidates for the Senate to look foolish rejecting. Repeat until successful.

Gonzales screwed up?? Oh please, I have been listening to back stabbing self serving conservatives whine about this man from the word go.

As if they are perfect. As if they never screw up. Hey, I have an idea, let's give the job to Michelle Malkin. I am sure that aside from running her mouth she could run the Justice Department like a champ. After all she knows everything. And then there is Laura and Charles Krauthammer and Rich Lowry and all the conservatives who went after Gonzales for the same reason they went after Miers, he was not one of them.

The only reason he was defending himself all the time was because the Democrats knew they could get away with it. They never even bothered to bring in Ashcroft for the same reason they did not bring any real charges against Gonzales, there is nothting there. They also knew that conservatives would be more than willing to stab Bush in the back so they took advantage of that and went after someone they did not like.

Democrats I can understand doing this, but without the help of several prominent people on the right they would not have been able to pull it off. Shame on them.

Wtanksleyjr:

And think about how to pull something better out of what we've got. In this case, it's to name an interim AG (avoiding the words "recess appointment") and start nominating candidates for the Senate to look foolish rejecting. Repeat until successful.

W, I think you're barking up the wrong dog here. First of all, let's look at the mechanics: All the Democrats have to do to reject nominees is vote them down in committee. It never even comes to the Senate floor, nobody gets to make any speeches... and the chairman -- Pat Leahy, by the way, since the AG nominee is heard by the J-Com -- can rule that the hearings will be closed-door, if they think the nominee is good and will make the Dems look foolish.

You must understand this: There will be no Oliver North style Senate grilling that we can turn to our advantage with the right candidate. The Democrats can, if they choose, simply reject a candidate in committee and in secret.

Second, while Bush can appoint an interim AG or recess-appoint an AG, the lack of confirmation -- and the certain knowledge that he could not be confirmed -- will emasculate the nominee. This job, like any other, depends upon hegemony... "perceived fitness to rule."

The biggest complaint about Gonzales is that he isn't "running" the Justice Department well enough; in other words, his deputies and assistants and assistant deputies and junior subalterns down the chain are not following his orders, not stepping up to the plate with their own suggestions, not paying much attention to his existence.

That is exactly what happens with the situation we're in now:

• A department whose rank and file are much more liberal than the administration;
• Congressional oversight that is much more liberal than the administration;
• Democrats on a tear;
• And, as soon as Gonzales leaves, a person sitting in the big chair who was not even, could not even be, confirmed.

The situation post-Gonzales is likely to be significantly worse for us that it has been since Gonzales was confirmed.

And again, Gonzales did not do anything to earn your ire; it's just a gift from the conservatives because he's more liberal than they. Everything Gonzales did, he did at the orders of the president: Blame Bush for the firings, blame Bush for the comprehensive immigration reform bill, credit Bush (or blame him) both for what is being done to stop terrorism in this country and also what isn't being done that should be.

It's not Condoleezza Rice's decision how to approach the Palestinians; she implements the president's policy. It's not Rumsfeld's fault that we didn't initiate a counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq until this year; the Commander in Chief listened to a number of generals and made that call himself. And it's not Alberto Gonzales' doing that we haven't had the DoJ policies that Ann Coulter would have designed; it's the fault of Gonzales' boss, who sets the priorities, the theme, and the direction.

W., this is not a good thing or even a neutral thing: I'm very angry at Gonzales for punking out, leaving the president surrounded and undefended. In that sense, this one element is certainly Gonzales' doing; but he was surely helped out the door by a bunch of angry conservatives who cannot see beyond the end of their noses.

As for what we can do, there are times when the best one can offer is damage control. I believe we're in that situation today. Conservatives crowing now will be howling in outrage in a couple weeks, when Bush doesn't try to nominate Ed Meese or Priscilla Owen for the job.

I think what we need is for Bush to try a few conservatives, let the Democrats reject them, then make a recess appointment of a simple DoJ "soldier" who won't give us anything new... but is enough of a drone not to let the Democrats profit too greatly from this resignation.

Dafydd

I don't camp out on the conservative dial, but I haven't heard any conservatives calling for Gonzales to quit because he's not implementing a hard-right ideology. Nor do I hear any conservatives "crowing" today; the furthest I've heard in that direction is "too bad but serves him right."

I don't see an ideological split here. The Republicans who wanted him gone, from what I heard, were more in line with Ed Morrissey: Gonzales was embarrassingly unable to provide a straight narrative that stopped the Democrats from running a witch hunt. (Hah, sez I).

If I'm missing something let me know.

We know full well why the BUSH administration has liberal policies.

BTW I wanted him to stand fast. There's no benefit to the United States to have falsely accused officials "spare the country" a knock-down fight with slanderers.

Yell:

Oh please, conservatives from Gingrich to Rich Lowry to Malkin to Krauthammer have been agitating for this for weeks and for one reason, they don't think the guy is one of them. It is obvious. And what is more, it is not the first time they have gone after another Republican, in fact going after other Republicans it is a regular thing with these people.

They seem to think that Gonzales was supposed to spend all his time playing their little games and covering his butt and kissing theirs instead of spending on some unimportant Attorney General stuff.

Everything Gonzales did, he did at the orders of the president: Blame Bush for the firings,

That's fine -- I don't have a problem with anything Gonzalez did _except_ for his frequent "misstatements" about the firings. Claiming publicly to have fired someone for lack of performance is _really_ serious; not being able to back it up at all is jaw-dropping.

The bloggers I read didn't call for his resignation because he isn't conservative; they called for it because NOT asking for a resignation indicates some kind of approval for what he did.

And no, I didn't support calling for his resignation -- mainly because I knew the liberals would do a sufficient job of the asking, and I think it looks ugly to have that kind of headhunting. Well, also because I agree with you that finding an effective replacement will be (probably) impossible.

But I repeat -- Gonzalez is DOWN. He gunned himself down a while ago, and all your arguments of what might happen now that he's resigned simply describe what was already the case before he resigned. The resignation changes nothing -- except now the Senate has to fight a battle on ground that the president gets to choose. Yes, they can hold closed hearings -- but they can't force the president to keep the nominations secret, or to not advertise them. Do that a few times and see how popular the Senate is.

And meanwhile, we have someone running the Justice Department who's no less effective than Gonzalez (I hope), and who, unlike Gonzalez, will deserve no criticism.

Wtanksleyjr:

I didn't mean the hearings would be secret; just closed. That is, the Democrats will happily announce that the vote went against so-and-so in committee... but there will be no Oliver North moment, where the American people can see the great nominee knocking the Democrats about like ninepins.

And of course Bush will extoll his great nominee. So what? If you think it will hurt the Democrats -- most of whom live in safe, Democratic districts that also hate Bush -- to bump off Bush's nominees, no matter who they are... then you don't remember recent history: recall the Democrats knocking off Clinton's Attorney-General nominees Zoë Baird and Kimba Wood?

I think you also don't understand the depths of partisanship in which America is now mired. This is mostly the fault of the Democrats, who fell into BDS even before Bush was elected (I have a long memory, and I recall what was said about Bush by lefties I know back in 1999). Nevertheless, it's there.

An Oliver North can change that; North's great contribution during the Iran-Contra hearings was that people like Sachi, who started out watching the hearing hating Reagan and hating North, were so captivated, moved, and persuaded by North of the essential rightness of selling arms to Hashemi Rafsanjani in order to fund the Contras (even when Sachi was a liberal, she always had a visceral hatred of Communists)... that they turned around and found themselves on Reagan's and North's side.

Alas, the Democrats are not utter fools; they learned from their mistake, and they will never again allow someone like North to get face time on national TV, being grilled by Leahy, Levin, Schumer, Clinton, and that lot. (Even the newsies have learned; they actually thought that their allies in the Senate were wiping the floor with North -- until the polls started coming out; by then, it was too late.)

So the scenario is this: Bush nominates someone really good and conservative (I hope he won't just kow-tow to Ted Kennedy and Pinky Reid); he announces with much fanfare, but the drive-by media gives him only a five-second soundbite.

After a month or so, the Senate convenes hearings. The hearings are not televised live; instead, the Senate -- at direction of the chairman -- gives the networks only a couple of snippets, each showing the nominee fumbling some question.

Then the committee votes the nominee down in a party-line vote. There is brief mention on the news shows and in the newspaper. Talk radio fulminates that this was a wonderful nominee and the Democrats turned him down purely to hurt Bush. The anchors on TV say he was irredeemably tainted by his connection with (fill in the blank).

Those on the Right support him; those on the Left denounce him. To the big bulk in the middle, it's he said/he said, and they don't know who is right (because they're deliberately not given enough information by the conspiracy between the Democrats and the elite media).

Those in the middle shrug and move on; Bush's respect among Republicans on the Hill drops (because they see him being bearded in the Senate); and more Republicans begin to defect to what they see as the winning side -- not switching parties but trying to get in good with the Democrats so the latter can toss them some crumbs in the form of earmarks.

Eventually, enough Republicans defect on the war that the Democrats are able to pull off another Vietnam.

George W. Bush must find a way to break this cycle, or that is how it's going to end: not with a bang but with the whimper of whipped GOP dogs. Bush needs someone who knows how to work the Senate, the news cycle, new media (particularly YouTube), and who can spin a counter-meme: that the Democrats are imperiling the nation by playing reindeer games with the office of Attorney General, a vital link in our ability to fight global terrorism.

I don't know that he has any such person, but he'd better get one quick -- or else he's going to be pecked to death by ducks.

Dafydd

If you think it will hurt the Democrats -- most of whom live in safe, Democratic districts that also hate Bush -- to bump off Bush's nominees, no matter who they are...

No, it won't hurt the safe ones to bump off a nominee or ten. They'll be in strong with their base. It'll hurt the ones who aren't in a safe district -- the Democrat's new majority.

George W. Bush must find a way to break this cycle, or that is how it's going to end

That's my point: he's just done the first thing to break the cycle. As long as Gonzalez was in all the things you were describing had to continue; nobody could speak in favor of Gonzalez essentially committing slander by falsely accusing the USAs of incompetence, so the Democrats insane obsession couldn't be refuted. Now the insanity will become public, since they'll have to show the same devotion to destroying some good nominees.

Bush needs someone who knows how to work the Senate, the news cycle, new media (particularly YouTube), and who can spin a counter-meme

Here you're 100% right. I don't know who that is, but I can tell you for sure that it's not Gonzalez. Getting rid of Gonzalez will not obstruct his search for such competent people. (BTW, I assume you've sent your resume in? The White House could use a little cold blood.)

Two questions advocating for the Devil!

1) Isn't John Bolton a lawyer?

2) What happens if Mr. Bush (bless his Democrat-baiting soul!) puts forward a string of nominees unacceptable to the Dems? (Bolton, Bork, Gingrich...)

Ah! what a happy happy time awaits us boy scouts who will attempt to unknot those twisted Democrats!

eliXelx:

2) What happens if Mr. Bush (bless his Democrat-baiting soul!) puts forward a string of nominees unacceptable to the Dems? (Bolton, Bork, Gingrich...)

Then we would have no Attorney General for the remainder of Bush's term; just an acting AG who may or may not be able to run the Department of Justice. And depending on the quality of the nominees, it may actually hurt Republican chances in 2008.

Bush must nominate people whose qualifications are absolutely gold-standard, people who can (and should) be hotly defended by the entire administration and the entire GOP caucus in the Senate.

That creates the biggest dilemma for the Democrats... who probably will still bounce them, demanding Bush pick from Chuck Schumer's short list; but it will be harder for them to justify their actions if the nominees they reject in committee are incredibly well qualified... which does not include Bolton, Gingrich, or Bork (those simply look like juvenile provocations that will exasperate the electorate).

Ted Olson is good, but you know he's going to get rejected:

• He was the top guy in the "Arkansas Project," which dug up lots of dirt on Bill Clinton during the 1990s (Pat Leahy tried to spike Olson's nomination as Soliciter General over this);
• He was one of the attorneys representing President Bush in Bush v. Gore.

This is a good example, but it may be the only one, of a potential AG nominee who would provoke mindless rage from Democrats -- but a rage that cannot be justified to voters, thus making the Democrats look petulant and vindictive.

Dafydd

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!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)