Speaking of head-hunting
(apropos previous story, below)
Democrats seek "no confidence" vote on Gonzales
As previously covered here, I don't see the firing of the US Attorneys, itself, as an affair worthy of even 10% of the coverage it's received over the past several months.
That said, the fact that the Senate is working to craft and pass a "no confidence vote" on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' tenure in his present office strikes me as far less silly than does the World Bank's dogged (and successful) pursuit of Paul Wolfowitz.
The initial response to the Democrats' concern over the firing of political appointees for (gasp!) political reasons was completely mishandled. Obfuscation, bluster, and confusion were the order of the day. None of this was required, and instead the response should have been to tell the Democrats to get stuffed, as it is the president's prerogative to fire any of his appointees, without regard for the sensitivities of Democrats looking to make political hay out of thin air.
However, once the AG's office acted as though they needed to explain the events, bordering on covering up the facts, it seemed clear that the AG wasn't qualified to handle his office. Subsequent events haven't been kind to his position, because each has seemed to provide yet another opportunity for him to demonstrate his cackhandedness in office.
Among those subsequent events, the May 14 resignation of Paul McNulty, Deputy AG, and the testimony on Tuesday, May 15, of James Comey, describing the attempts by Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales to get John Ashcroft, then in intensive care, to approve of an administration spying proposal.
Using only NPR as a signpost, have a look at the recent progression of this story:
- May 10, 2007 Despite Furor, Gonzales Likely to Stick Around
- May 11, 2007 Gonzales Gets Gentler Reception in House Visit
- May 14, 2007 Deputy U.S. Attorney General McNulty Resigns
- May 15, 2007 Gonzales: McNulty Played 'Central' Role in Firings
Gonzales himself has recently opined that it looked like he'd weathered the storm, even while, in a complete reversal of form for anyone in the Bush administration, he took responsibility for the firings, sort of, -ish.
I continue to believe that nothing wrong was done in the termination of the US Attorneys. Far more important, though, is the focus on how the aftermath-that-shouldn't-have-been was handled, and Gonzales has repeatedly shown himself to be a tone deaf stumbler during his defense.
Such a set of skills seems ill-suited to the highest levels of the Justice Department, and the Democrats (plus either 6 or 11 Republicans, depending on how you count, so far) seem likely to get their vote of no confidence passed, symbolic as it might be. Better still to hope for Gonzales' resignation as a result, though, as a friend pointed out to me yesterday, how hard might it be to get confirmation for a replacement?
[wik] For the record, all the ninnies calling for a wave of impeachments should also get stuffed. Focus on the problem at hand, rather than the problems you want to be at hand, sez me.
[alsø wik] Specter indicates that the pressure may be working. For once, I hope Specter is right. He hasn't been worth much since he created the Wall of Sound, and isn't even competent to hire a decent combination of chauffeur/murder trial witness.
§ 2 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]


The AG is approved by
The AG is approved by Congress - right?
I believe the Democrats just want the chance to beat the Hell out of a Bush appointee at a confirmation hearing. That is why Bush quickly replaced Rumsfield after the election and will not fire Gonzales or any member of his cabinet for the rest of his term.
I cringe when I think about
I cringe when I think about another Supreme court vacancy.