(Genuine) Conservatives Say: Gonzales Must Go

posted by John Nichols on 04/02/2007 @ 11:51am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (40)

Subscribe Now

Memo to Fox Fanatics and All Other Defenders of Alberto Gonzales: Your Partisanship is Showing.

Fox News and its talk radio echoes, led by Rush Limbaugh, are among the staunchest defenders of the scandal-plagued Attorney General.

But that defense is not based on conservative values or ideas. Rather, it is a "my-president-right-or-wrong" rallying around an embattled Bush administration. This is old-school, maximum-leader politics, of a sort that places loyalty to a man over loyalty to the truth or to the Republic.

According to Fox's Bill O'Reilly, "(The) U.S. attorney thing is absurd, a fabricated event designed to hurt the president and make it easier for the Democrats to consolidate their power and elect a president in 2008."

Fox's Sean Hannity says the whole scandal is a production of "the mainstream liberal media."

Apart from the trouble O'Reilly and Hannity have determining whether Gonzales' problems are a Democratic scheme or a media production, they are at least on point when it comes to repeating the official line from the White House. That line holds that someone other than Alberto Gonzales is to blame for Alberto Gonzales' problems.

But that's not what genuine conservatives are saying.

The Fox personalities and their buddies on the AM dial may be reading talking points. But they are not reading conservative talking points. Some of the most right-wing members of the House and Senate -- led by New Hampshire Senator John Sununu (Lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 93.2)-- have called on the attorney general to step down.

In recent days, key rank-and-file Republicans in the House have begun calling for Gonzales to leave. These members form the political backbone of the conservative movement.

They feel betrayed by Gonzales -- and, though they will not always say so publicly, by a Bush administration that has treats Congress will so little respect that it would dismiss the Attorney General's lies as matters demanding nothing more than "clarification."

Consider the comments of Nebraska Republican Lee Terry.

Terry had been a Gonzales defender. But after the attorney general tried to claim on Friday that he had been aware his staff was drawing up plans for the firings -- even though top Justice Department aides are testifying that Gonzales was actively engaged in the process -- Terry said, "I trusted him before, but I can't now."

Before Gonzales began mounting a "defense" that actually make him appear to be more guilty of abusing his authority and lying to Congress, Terry explains, "My views were that this was Democrat posturing and a witch hunt."

Now, Terry says, "My trust in him in that position has taken a hit because of these contradictory statements by him."

The bottom line from the Republican congressman on Gonzales: "Frankly, until these statements came out that contradicted his first statement, I was backing him, saying that he shouldn't resign. Now I think that he should."

Terry has a 90 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, making him one of the most ideologically right-wing members of the House. In fact, he was often rated as more conservative than former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, before DeLay's exit on ethics charges.

So is the Gonzales controversy a Democratic fantasy or a liberal media pipedream. Or is this the most serious scandal involving a sitting attorney general since Republican President Warren Harding's man at the Justice Department, Attorney General Harry "Teapot Dome" Daugherty, was forced from office in 1924, after a Republican-controlled Senate began to pummel him?

If only there was an authoritative conservative voice that could sort things out. Why, here's the latest editorial from the nation's most widely circulated and respected conservative journal of opinion, The National Review:

Time to Go

By The Editors

The story of the eight fired U.S. attorneys has been relentlessly overhyped. We do not know that any of them was fired because the administration put its political interests ahead of his or her prosecutorial judgment. Sen. Dick Durbin's recent insinuation that the attorneys who were not fired had kept their jobs by compromising their prosecutions was outrageous.

If congressional Democrats are wrong to bluster, however, they are within their rights to investigate. They may yet turn up enough evidence to prove that some of the firings were improper violations of political norms.

We do not need more evidence, however, to reach a conclusion about the suitability of Alberto Gonzales for the leadership of the Department of Justice. While we defended him from some of the outlandish charges made during his confirmation hearings, we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability. Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence.

His claim not to have been involved in the firings suggests that he was either deceptive or inexcusably detached from the operations of his own department. His deputy, Paul McNulty, insulted the fired prosecutors by claiming that they had been asked to resign for "performance-related issues." But many of them received good reviews, and none of them said he was told about any disappointment with his performance. If Justice wanted to clear them out to make way for new blood, or to find attorneys who shared their prosecutorial priorities, that would have been perfectly legitimate. By saying what he did, McNulty guaranteed that the fired attorneys would lash out in the press. Gonzales's latest tactic has been to concede that improper motives may have played a role in the firings, but to blame his underlings for any misconduct and to pledge to get to the bottom of it.

What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. All that now keeps him in office, save the friendship of the president, is the conviction of many Republicans that removing him would embolden the Democrats. It is an overblown fear. The Democrats will pursue scandals, real or invented, whether or not Gonzales stays. But they have an especially inviting target in Gonzales. He cannot defend the administration and its policies even when they deserve defense. Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start.

Reasonable observers might differ with some of the points made by The National Review. But one thing is clear: The debate over whether Gonzales should stay is no longer a left-versus-right dispute.

Honest conservatives want Alberto Gonzales to step down.

Only on-bended-knee apologists for the Bush administration's most wretched excesses are now defending the Attorney General.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (40)

The nuts are crackin'! So much nicer sound than that squeaky old hamster wheel....

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/02/2007 @ 11:56am
While we defended him from some of the outlandish charges made during his confirmation hearings, we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability. Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence.

What!??? Nah, can't be. He was the Best Man for the job. He is loyal, committed, resolved, thinks the GC is "quaint".

Just keep them lies repeating, the sheep will buy it. It's ALL a leftwing conspiracy of Bush hatred.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/02/2007 @ 12:11pm
When this crony has been disposed, Bush will have a hard time appointing another loyalist. As this position cannot go unfilled, it will be fascinating to watch the new AG struggle to maintain the fiction that the adminstration's actions over the past five years were legal and proper.

Posted by MyParadigm at 04/02/2007 @ 12:16pm
Mypara,

If you think Bush will nominate an attny Gen that is even close to being as hostile to the Pres as Madeline Albright was to Clinton.....I don't think so!

Posted by freedomplease at 04/02/2007 @ 12:21pm
What if Gonzales DOESN'T quit?....what's next?

Of course that's depending on what happens in two weeks at the Congressional Hearing...and the two weeks after that, and how the scandal continues.

But what if he DOESN'T quit? If his critics are serious...then "THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT" is the ONLY way to go...but that raises a problem, a political one.

What do they impeach him FOR...specifically? Got to be "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors"...so which IN DETAIL, guys.

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2007 @ 12:26pm
Free, you mean Reno, right? You know, the other dyke.

ooops

Posted by MyParadigm at 04/02/2007 @ 12:30pm
Free, you mean Reno, right? You know, the other dyke.

ooops

Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/02/2007 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person

what an enlightened view. shame on you.

Albright attended school in Switzerland and Denver, and later majored in political science on a scholarship at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. She became a U.S. citizen in 1957. After Wellesley graduation in May 1959, she married Chicago newspaper journalist Joseph Medill Patterson Albright, whom she had met working a summer job with the Denver Post. They had three daughters, twins Anne and Alice, and Katie. When the twins were born six weeks prematurely, Albright took a course in Russian as a distraction. By the end of their hospital stay, she was fluent in the language. While raising her family, she earned a Ph.D. in Public Law and Government from Columbia University.[citation needed][4] The couple divorced in 1982.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/02/2007 @ 12:56pm
Yes, I was looking for the retract-stupid-post function that's not there. Apologies.

Posted by MyParadigm at 04/02/2007 @ 1:03pm
"'Honest conservatives' want Alberto Gonzales to step down."

Kind of oxymoron for this administration and congressional cohorts wouldn't you say? We are starting to get some honesty from the conservatives because they are recognizing the tide is turning and the election cycle is fast approaching. Self interested honesty is about the best we are going to get, so I will be happy to take it, but all this newfound enlightened conscience of the conservatives after 6 years of sitting on their hands reeks of "too little - too late."

Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2007 @ 1:09pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/02/2007 @ 1:03pm | ignore this person

yes, we've all had that feeling.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/02/2007 @ 1:20pm
Posted by MASK 04/02/2007 @ 12:26pm

Without advocvating whether it should be sought here, impeachment of Gonzales would have to be under "high crimes and misdemeanors." I would say the Attorney General would qualify as a "civil officer of the United States" The specifics could be for obstruction of justice (in the case of removing USAs investigating Republicans), making false statements to Congress, or more generally, abuse of power (using the Justice Department to acheive political ends for the GOP prior to the 2006 election).

Posted by Hman23 at 04/02/2007 @ 1:37pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/02/2007 @ 1:09pm

I believe the point here is that the Crony Club at 1600 is not really conservative.

No one can argue the point about their (lack of) honesty.

Posted by drhammer at 04/02/2007 @ 1:45pm
["honest conservatives" is a k]ind of oxymoron for this administration and congressional cohorts wouldn't you say?

sted by ONEVOTE 04/02/2007 @ 1:09pm

Yes, I would say that. However, Mr. Nichols is talking about genuine conservatives, not the Bushies.

Genuine conservations believe in small government, civil liberties, the rule of law and accountability. The Bushies have expanded government, willfully violated the Fourth and Sixth Amendments and, in some cases, Habeas Corpus, violated at will international treaties and conventions to which the United States is a party, attempted to arrange for US Attorneys to be appointed on a permanent basis without Senate approval and avoided oversight for years while billions of taxpayer dollars went missing in Iraq.

A genuine conservative would not approve of that. The Bush regime is not conservative. It is right wing and radical.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/02/2007 @ 2:09pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 04/02/2007 @ 1:45pm | ignore this person Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/02/2007 @ 2:09pm | ignore this person

Ah yes....the genuine or true conservative. No argument guys, these impostors in office are not true conservatives. If you know any true conservatives running in the next presidential election, let me know, I would like to consider them for my vote.

Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2007 @ 2:23pm
P.S.:

Would you classify Mitch McConnell as a "true conservative"? Seems like he may be jumping on the out with Alberto wagon.

Posted by OneVote at 04/02/2007 @ 2:26pm
The specifics could be for obstruction of justice (in the case of removing USAs investigating Republicans), making false statements to Congress, or more generally, abuse of power (using the Justice Department to acheive political ends for the GOP prior to the 2006 election).

Posted by HMAN23 04/02/2007 @ 1:37pm

HMAN, I know this'll get played as "MASK defending Gonzo", but I'm not....merely pointing out the flaws as I see them in that.

1. "obstruction of justice" in firing the USAs would apply if it can be proven that their cases were demonstrably harmed...and that there were NO cases of USAs REMAINING on the job investigating Repubs AND that ALL the ones fired were in the process of investigating Repubs....otherwise, I see a good defense attorney (and Gonzales will have the best) shooting holes in the "conspiracy".

2. DID Gonzales "make false statements to Congress"? Last I heard, he may contradict his PRESS CONFERENCES. But if he perjuried himself to Congress already....why the NEW hearing with him on the 15th???

3. "abuse of power (using the Justice Department to acheive political ends for the GOP prior to the 2006 election)"? Again, have to be demonstrably proven...and nobody in Congress has even RAISED that charge yet. And what specifics would that be? It's GOT to be something substantial and not just "Well, he helped a guy who helped a guy who helped keep voters out of the voting booths in Missouri" or something like that.

All of those might have enough POLITICAL implications to drive the guy's (AG AG) approvals or standing in Congress into the toilet...but gonna be tough to get 67 Senators to agree as criminal. (especially since you'll need SEVENTEEN Repubs, likely...if Joe the Schmoe is dubious).

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2007 @ 2:45pm
Mypara,

I did have a mental breakdown. Retract the statement that I made as I did confuse Reno / Albright, but it is not fair to say that Reno was openly hostile to Clinton (although I maintain that Albright was, but the is not germaine to this topic).

Will have more coffee before first posts in the future.

Posted by freedomplease at 04/02/2007 @ 2:51pm
Posted by MASK 04/02/2007 @ 2:45pm

I led with my disclaimer for a reason. I am not so sure an impeachment case against Gonzales would be airtight by any means.

1. I agree with your first part, but not the second. You would not have to show an absence of obstruction in other situations where they could have obstructed - or some sort of unanimity in the decisions. Once case of removing an USA to thwart one investigation, if shown, would be enough.

2. Gonzales' false statements concern his false testimony on the NSA issue.

3. "Abuse of power" has been grounds before, and sure it can be a bit hazy. Whether it fits here is obviously debatable. I think a good case can be made that what Gonzales allowed to happen/approved was a perversion of the independence of the justice system. The Department of Justice is not meant to act as the attack dog (or cover tool as the case may be) for the political party in power come election time. I agree many in Congress seem to have been focusing on the "Gonzales lied" angle as of late; I think Gonzales' lack of candor is important but not as serious as the underlying conduct. I think it is an important issue, and sadly, using supposedly independent bodies in the government to achieve political ends is par for the course for this administration.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/02/2007 @ 3:23pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/02/2007 @ 3:23pm

Again, just a thought, but has anybody considered the "Briar Patch-Brer Rabbit" "Strategery"?

That the WH may be PUSHING for Congress to impeach Gonzales, so that it wastes time on that throughout this year, then giving the Republicans the opportunity to run on "See! See! Besides trying to cut the funds to our brave soldiers...they just wanted to engage in witch hunts!!!" in 2008?

Almost a ...Rovian idea, no?

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2007 @ 3:57pm
Posted by MASK 04/02/2007 @ 3:57pm

Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!

Oh, if Johnny does this then little Suzy can say that, and if Sally says that than Billy may just do this.

Such bullshit!!!!!

This political hack dickhead so OBVIOUSLY abused and misused his office (defending torture, domestic spying, politically motivated firing, circumvention of Congress) that only those with huge republican ramrods up their backsides will defend him.

All of your bullshit arguing and political wrangling solves NOTHING. We need to hold ALL of them accountable for these rampant abuses of power, not enable them with the same bullshit lawyer jargon that is used to justify war, torture, consolidation of power, erosion of the Bill of Rights, etc.

Here's a quote from the movie, A Time to Kill. "Can you see her? Her raped, beaten, broken body soaked in their urine, soaked in their semen, soaked in her blood, left to die. Can you see her? I want you to picture that little girl. Now imagine she's white.

Now, imagine bush is a democrat. I know 95% of these corupt bastards, who say have the balls to claim nothing unethical or illegal happened, would be breaking their necks to impeach the whole lot of them.

Posted by IndyMinded at 04/02/2007 @ 4:25pm
Posted by INDYMINDED 04/02/2007 @ 4:25pm

Indy, calm down.

I wasn't defending Gonzales (said so originally), I was noting the POLITICAL problems that would come about by trying to impeach him....HMAN as well.

And if he doesn't quit...then THAT is the only option for Democrats if they want to get rid of the guy.

But it IS a political process (as we all remember) and if the politics aren't right, the process won't work. Again, takes 67 Senators to remove an official from office....take out Johnson (who's still out) and maybe Lieberman (who's a Bush guy) and that means 49 Democrats. That means a possible EIGHTEEN Republicans who would have to vote against Gonzales.

Facts, cold and hard...and I'm just relating them.

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2007 @ 4:34pm
Sorry, just so disappointed our country right now.

"But it IS a political process" Posted by MASK 04/02/2007 @ 4:34pm

I don't think it's "political". It all boils down to corruption. On both sides of course. I would really love to see compromise, discussion with people in "the oppostition" and a true "political process" unfold; but I'm afraid that all we have now are a bunch of people who are covered in shit, each claiming their side doesn't stink. Both sides are corrupt, so when there is a crisis, both sides must calculated, strategize, and spew propaganda instead of FIX IT.

A leader, someone with truth and true public service at heart, does not hedge, or hem or haw.....they act.

My point is that we let the argument be framed over the minutia instead of the big picture. Is it right for the AG to get rid of the USAs for political reasons? Even if you think it is, do we want someone stupid or arrogant enough who would replace those USAs that are working on prosecuting members of their own political party or those who finance said political parties? It's just wrong and there should be consequences so that the next people in the white house can't do the same crap.

These people have no respect for us.

Posted by IndyMinded at 04/02/2007 @ 4:54pm
Mask:

First of all, when you say you're just pointing out flaws as you see them, I believe that is what you are doing.

Now to your points.

1. "obstruction of justice" in firing the USAs would apply if it can be proven that their cases were demonstrably harmed...and that there were NO cases of USAs REMAINING on the job investigating Repubs AND that ALL the ones fired were in the process of investigating Repubs....

I agree with you on this. There are two points that should be made. First, if we are talking about impeaching Gonzales, then the standard of proof is clear and convincing, something more than the preponderance of evidence required in a civil case and less than the beyond a reasonable doubt required in a criminal case. Second, there is some evidence to show that was exactly what happened in at least some cases. Carol Lam was investigating Dusty Foggo in the Duke Cunningham matter, and since he was a top official at the CIA, that was a very sensitive matter. David Iglecias refused to bow to political pressure, improperly brought, to speed up a case against Democrats that he was preparing.

2. DID Gonzales "make false statements to Congress"? Last I heard, he may contradict his PRESS CONFERENCES. But if he perjuried himself to Congress already....why the NEW hearing with him on the 15th???

Gonzales himself has told the truth three different ways so far. Not only is what he said under oath contradicted by some of his other public statements, but it is a variance with Mr. Sampson's testimony and with the emails between DoJ and White House staff. The Committee should be very interested in having him explain these seeming contradictions and Mr. Gonzales should be very interested in clearing up misunderstandings. Of course, he runs the risk of making more contradictions and opening himself to perjury charges both in an impeachment resolution and in criminal proceedings.

If Gonzales clears up the matter, then he escapes impeachment (at least for perjury) and criminal proceedings. However, just the fact that the Committee has to have him back to clear up the issue is reason enough to suggest he resign. If Gonzales ever could have been trusted to give a straight story, he can't now.

3. "abuse of power (using the Justice Department to achieve political ends for the GOP prior to the 2006 election)"? Again, have to be demonstrably proven...and nobody in Congress has even RAISED that charge yet. And what specifics would that be? It's GOT to be something substantial and not just "Well, he helped a guy who helped a guy who helped keep voters out of the voting booths in Missouri" or something like that.

Abuse of power, to me at least, means those things that are not violations of any act of Congress or even arguably in compliance with an act of Congress, but we still don't want members of the executive branch doing them. The second article of impeachment against President Nixon is full of examples of such behavior. Please see the discussion on the last three pages of Getting Serious About the "I" Word.

There may be a good reason for the Attorney General to have the right to appoint interim US Attorneys indefinitely without Seante approval, but just to replace some qualified USAs with political hacks is not among them. If Tim Griffen is any hint of the kind of people that would have replaced the USAs, then the reason they wanted to get around the confirmation process is because confirmation of people like that would be doubtful to say the least.

To me, this is an abuse of power and no less of one than sicking the IRS or the FBI on the president's "political enemies" to see how many can be thrown in the slammer.

This is something that gnaws on the very spirit of constitutional government with checks and balances. I agree with you that it is more serious than the possible perjury charges, even if no one should go to prison over it.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/02/2007 @ 4:56pm
Gonzalez doesn't even amount to a crony - he is a stoodge for this pResident.

And his law degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/02/2007 @ 5:13pm
"See! See! Besides trying to cut the funds to our brave soldiers...they just wanted to engage in witch hunts!!!" in 2008?

Almost a ...Rovian idea, no?

Posted by MASK 04/02/2007 @ 3:57pm

Mask, I know you have a stake in this part of the game: you have been warning over and over for a long time that the Democrats are going to have to do more than "legislating than investigating" before 2008. Many in the MSM are taking this approach too, most notably Mr. Stengel during his shameful gigglefest on Hardball. Stengel, like you, seems to profess knowledge of "what the American people" want in this area. However, he has no basis for this, and your prediction has not bore fruit (as of yet). Polling indicates clearly the opposite: MOST support investigating the administration - not that they have any frustration with those investigating Dems with an ax to grind.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/02/2007 @ 5:16pm
Nice post by Jack Rabbit. However, I still cannot agree with Mask that the following must be proven:

and that there were NO cases of USAs REMAINING on the job investigating Repubs AND that ALL the ones fired were in the process of investigating Repubs....

Maybe I am being too technical, but although the alternative to this might be circumstantial evidence raised by Gonzales' defense, those prosecuting impeachment would NOT have to show this affirmatively.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/02/2007 @ 5:26pm
Nice post by Jack Rabbit. However, I still cannot agree with Mask that the following must be proven:

and that there were NO cases of USAs REMAINING on the job investigating Repubs AND that ALL the ones fired were in the process of investigating Repubs....

Maybe I am being too technical, but although the alternative to this might be circumstantial evidence raised by Gonzales' defense, those prosecuting impeachment would NOT have to show this affirmatively.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/02/2007 @ 5:27pm
Until we see all the rnc emails, we will never know, they have hid their corruption via those servers!!!!!

Posted by was at 04/02/2007 @ 7:46pm
Say goodnight, Alberto.

Goodnight Alberto.

I think we might just be seeing a new Attorney General soon. He will step down. Bush will never publicly support it, but I would imagine there is some behind the scenes pressure mounting for him to leave.

It's Rumsfeld redux!

Posted by hhemwm at 04/02/2007 @ 9:58pm
I have a nomination for a new AG:

Ed Meese!

Or how about Robert Bork?!!!

Posted by hhemwm at 04/02/2007 @ 9:59pm
It's a shame that John Mitchell and Dick Kleindienst are no longer with us; they know a little something about obstructing justice. . . .

Posted by hhemwm at 04/02/2007 @ 10:00pm
I say what a great way for Alberto to get out of town while the getting is good. Step down finally after getting everyone riled up about the attorney's. Most likely the democrats in the house and senate will forget about those illegal wiretaps you and Georgy boy authorized? Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. I'm hoping for the later. In fact I think I'll remind my reps right now!

Posted by Roller2010 at 04/03/2007 @ 12:31am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/02/2007 @ 11:59pm

still can't read too well, eh caca? but you probably don't know what a "genuine conservative is", them being an endangered species.

Sununu

Terry

Specter

National review, even though they are neo cons. Are you saying National Review is a foeming at the mouth progressive magazine? Bill Buckley a lefty? You are a nutjob, through and through. A sheep.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/03/2007 @ 08:15am
NRO- we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability.

Fine leadership by gonzo, eh? Or does leadership in your tiny little mind consist of mouthing platitudes and pithy slogans?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/03/2007 @ 08:17am
WRONG! Just the usual foaming at the mouth secular progressives that post at the nation are saying that.

Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/02/2007 @ 11:59pm

Rio, Rio, Rio,

Do you even read what you're ranting against? It's almost funny to watch you spout ignorance.

This quote from the article you are supposedly responding to:

While we defended him from some of the outlandish charges made during his confirmation hearings, we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability. Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence.

His claim not to have been involved in the firings suggests that he was either deceptive or inexcusably detached from the operations of his own department.

What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. All that now keeps him in office, save the friendship of the president, is the conviction of many Republicans that removing him would embolden the Democrats. It is an overblown fear. The Democrats will pursue scandals, real or invented, whether or not Gonzales stays. But they have an especially inviting target in Gonzales. He cannot defend the administration and its policies even when they deserve defense. Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start.

The National Review

And this quote, again from the article you were supposedly referring to:

Some of the most right-wing members of the House and Senate -- led by New Hampshire Senator John Sununu (Lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 93.2)-- have called on the attorney general to step down.

And this from your mothership - FOXNEWS

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman on Saturday urged Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, citing what he said were Gonzales' contradictory statements about his role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"I trusted him before, but I can't now," said five-term Rep. Lee Terry, whose district includes metropolitan Omaha.

FAUX NEWS [foxnews.com]

Posted by Turk33 at 04/03/2007 @ 10:50am
National review, even though they are neo cons. Are you saying National Review is a foeming at the mouth progressive magazine? Bill Buckley a lefty? You are a nutjob, through and through. A sheep. Posted by CRABWALK 04/03/2007 @ 08:15am

Don't expect Rio to actually read what is posted here! Besides, in his world, the only true conservative is a "Rio Conservative."

Posted by hhemwm at 04/03/2007 @ 11:10am
I am not sure Rio knows who Bill Buckley is, much less reads the National Review. But who needs to read when you already know all the answers. Just ask LvLiberty.

Posted by hhemwm at 04/03/2007 @ 11:13am
Posted by HHEMWM 04/03/2007 @ 11:13am

Buwahaha.

although, I think LUVSDEPOTS is more well read than RIo.

Buckley thinks the war was a mistake. He is now a socialist lefty traitor.

Neo-cons are funny.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/03/2007 @ 11:54am
Has anybody considered that RIO is just as nutty, if not just as monotonous as RESE?

Like RESE, he cut and pastes 3000 missives from fringe websites.

Like RESE, he answers NO direct questions.

Like RESE, he engages in no debate.

And like RESE, he has his Arch-Enemy who controls all and is the focus of all evil in the world...RESE--Jesuits...RIO--"Demoncrats".

Posted by Mask at 04/03/2007 @ 1:17pm
I'm a little disappointed with this blog entry by John Nichols in The Nation yesterday. First of all, why aren't liberal views ever good enough? Why are we always running across the aisle to buddy up to someone who's otherwise nothing but a right wing neanderthal, as if that really proves our point? What the hell do I care if Lee Terry, a certifiable wingnut, thinks Gonzalez should resign? How does that strengthen the argument? If anything, it makes the argument weaker, frankly-kind of like, if Lee Terry likes it, it must be a bad idea. Liberals-including Randi Rhodes, one of the most vocal of us-fell all themselves to point out that Pat Buchanan was against the invasion of Iraq. Since when does the views of Pat Buchanan engender any sympathy? How does agreeing with the viewpoint of a Jew-hating fascist legitimize anything? Look at the motives behind Buchanan's disdain for the war-racism and strident isolationism. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

The Nation falls into this trap in this piece, especially when they gleefully point out that the most fawning of right-wing institutions and my mortal enemy, The National Review, has called for Gonzalez to step down. Whoop dee-fucking-do. Remember, this is a magazine that continues to deny global warming exists, thinks unbridled free trade is the only answer, is obsessed with the idea that Hillary Clinton might be president, and has two links on it's current web site to articles accusing mainstream Islamists of promoting violence and blames racism on crimes in black neighborhoods. Yeah, these are people whose opinions matter a lot to me.

The NR has been taking this position for a while, accusing the Bush administration of cronyism and incompetence-especially in the cases of Scooter Libby and Gonzalez-in a piece that asked, "Can Anybody Here Play This Game?" a couple of weeks ago. But if you look beneath the surface, this is not the plaintive cry of a bruised conservative looking for a return to decorum and truthfulness in the halls of Justice (literally). Nope. The water-carrying editors of the National Review are less concerned that Gonzo is incompetent to run the Justice Deaprtment than they are he is incompetent to carry out his end of the Rove master plan of Permanent Republican Majority. They are less concerned that Scooter Libby is a sniveling criminal who vindictively outed a CIA operative (and not at all concerned that Cheney and Rove are sniveling criminals who vindictively outed a CIA operative) and more concerned that he was unable to do it without utterly embarrassing and exposing the Vice President's office. The bottom line message is, how can the great dictatorship be accomplished with these horses' asses running the show???

Politics does make strange bedfellows sometimes, but we need to be careful about selling our soul for a buck here. Our positions and ideals need not be compromised by looking for validation from the likes of Lee Terry and the National Review.

Posted by ldkrn1 at 04/03/2007 @ 5:30pm