Redstate

Since the Bush administration is inept in the message management/political counter punching aspect of governing. I fully expect them to mess this one up and do nothing. The Democrats will turn up as the victors, unless the White House stumbles into the right moves by accident.

I guess I am in a "resigned to message defeat" mood this morning. Give me another cup of coffee, and I may finally snap out of it.

I prefer optimism, but this one is not encouraging so far.

Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!

What he has to lose? From what I (a defense contractor in Tucson) see, not much.
- The press hates him already. That's not going to change.
- The Dems will investigate him and his Administration anyway. If not for the US attorneys issue, then for something else.
- Trial lawyers support the Dems already.
- Regardless of how this all falls out, Dubya goes back to Crawford in two years. No more reelections for him.

What does he have to gain? Again from what I see, at least something, and perhaps a great deal. Namely, he can recapture some of the initiative in the PR battle:
- The Dems are probably dumb enough to try and leverage a US-Attorney-firing fiasco into more opposition to the President's surge plans for Iraq. Great---let them try. Let them move further and further out on that branch. They're dumb enough to see this DOJ fiasco as another opening with which to go after the Iraq War effort. IMO, as American public opinion is running strongly enough against us not cutting and running on Petraeus and the Iraqis, that means Dubya is holding the saw. Keep on sliding out there, Nancy and Harry and Chuckie and Rahm-bo. Just a little bit farther...
- The American people will get to see more of Henry Waxman and Chuck Schumer, and I'll bet that many swing voters won't like what they see. Waxman and Schumer remind me of the political commissars who followed Soviet troops into newly-conquered towns. The kinds of folks who gathered up all the doctors and lawyers and priests and teachers, and then marched them off to the gulag. The kinds of folks who'd motivate me to send money to/walk precincts for candidates dedicated to kicking them and their kind OUT of office! We want them and their cold hearts and their show trials on TV, again and again and again.

The buzz will let the Bush 43 White House (if they can finally get their PR act together) grab some of the media spotlight. They can then focus that spotlight on the following:

1) The fact that US Attorneys are political appointees, who serve at the President's pleasure.
2) The fact that inattention to voting fraud violations precipitated at least some of the firings. That gives us an opening to talk about--- voter fraud! Loudly, and vigorously, and over and over and over and over again. And, what party benefits most from voter fraud in this country? THAT's right! Let's cement the image in America's mind that Dems silently think that voter fraud is OK if it serves the greater good--- Democrats winning elections. Do we have examples we can point to? Why, yes we do! GREAT! Let's flood the airwaves with them.
3) The fact that Dem Senators have pressured DOJ in the past. Rush has a great letter from Chuckie Schumer pressuring DOJ on the Plame issue. Let's follow Rush's advice---spread that letter, and the many others like it that DOJ surely has in its files (if Team DOJ Democrats hasn't shredded them yet)far and wide.

Erick's idea to fire Paul McNulty and crew gives Bush the opportunity to seize the DC media spotlight. And, from what I see here in Tucson, he's got plenty of good ground from which to fight. Of course, the problem with this Administration is that, so often, they choose not to fight. Instead they stand placidly while the Dems throw them into the ropes and pummel, pummel, pummel them.

Maybe, things can be different this time. Here's a chance to switch things around. If only the Bush 43 WH has the cajones to take it.

Sadly, I'm not holding my breath. But one can always hope.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

If nothing else it saves the next administration from having to.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The Spectator article makes no mention of career Democrats. Could Erick possibly name some names so we know who these people are?

Also, I don't think Margolis is a political appointee. It may be hard to fire him, especially considering his reputation and long service at the DOJ.

You're saying that

-- Gonzales himself signed off on firing Ryan because he didn't grasp its significance or understand that Ryan should have been kept

-- Gonzales can't be expected to take responsibility himself for said signing-off, because the inclusion of Ryan on the purge list was part of a preconceived, carefully orchestrated coup plot by his deputy

-- Smearing the dismissed USA's was also part of McNulty's coup plot (and that of his unnamed co-conspiring career-staff Democrats), despite the fact that it was McNulty himself who did the smearing in public. McNulty doesn't expect to be blamed for what he himself did, does expect Gonzales to be blamed for it, and expects to be elevated to AG in part because of it

Alternatively, you may be saying that any "coup plot" was only hatched after the controversy was under way, and the Ryan firing and the smearings were just bad acts that McNulty had devised and carried out. But if there was no conspiracy to mislead and deceive Gonzales about these bad acts, earlier on, then what shields Gonzales from responsibility for them?

I don't think you have this story straight yet. Somehow I doubt it's going to get much better.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be implying that Paul McNulty is a "democrat careerist" at the DOJ. He is not. He was appointed by President Bush as a USA for Northern VA shortly after 9/11 and has handled most of the major terrorist prosecutions. Before that, he worked for republicans on capital hill. Among many other things he was spokesman for the house judiciary committee republicans during the impeachment of President Clinton. He is not now, nor has he ever, been a democrat. He IS a republican and a very good man.
The plan to fire the USA's began before he was the DAG. When it occurred, he was serving his country as a USA so I doubt he would have supported firing all of the USA's. I have never seen or heard him express any interest in being the AG, and he is not likely to be considered for the position if it was open anyway. If he has any political ambitions after his current job, and I doubt he does, he wants Sen. Warner's seat when he retires.
He testified on the hill to the facts regarding the firings as he knew them to be, and he would not have lied to Congress under any circumstances. He also would not attempt any kind of coup against the people who have given him his job. To suggest otherwise indicates you have never met him, and know nothing about his character.

From the main post:
"He needs to fire McNulty, Margolis, and the handful of career Democrats everyone in Washington knows are behind this mess."

To try to make sense of this claim, I am going to assume the mess is the publicity rather than the firings which even the American Spectator article seems to have little sympathy for ("some perhaps wise, some almost certainly not"). I doubt Erik is also blaming the unnamed career Democrats for the firings.

Now I understand from the post what McNulty did say, and that he is accused of leaking information. But I don't understand why Margolis should be fired. And the career Democrats comments comes out of nowhere. Erik does in the comments note that "over time" he will "start getting those names [of the career Democrats] out." I think those names and some evidence would be appropriate at the time of the allegation. Perhaps a later post/comment will clarify. Otherwise, this is a little too inside baseball for those of us outside of Washington who don't already know about the "coup".

Tom

As deputy he is the point man for criminal prosecutions. The decision to punt on the NY Times leaks case was his. So was his decision as a US attorney to bring charges against Larry Franklin and the AIPAC officials. That is an extremely disturbing case in which it appears that government elements at CIA and Justice who want to appease Iran and undercut Bush policy, are trying to criminalize their policy opponents.

Erick's report sounds plausible given past performance.