<Euphemism>It's Time To Take Fredo Out Fishing</Euphemism>

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Comments (93) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

No, Alberto Gonzales should not be offed. Let me repeat that: No one should kill, wound, or even try to temporarily inconvenience the life functions of the current Attorney General of the United States. But the man President Bush calls "Fredo"--was a Presidential nickname ever more apt?--should at long last be invited to spend more time with his family. Much more time. He should be a Soccer Dad, a Harry Potter Dad, a Couch Potato, Sleeping Late In The Morning The Better To Avoid Any Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings He Might Accidentally Stumble Into Dad, a Dad who doesn't leave the Gonzales family compound for any reason whatsoever without legions upon legions of intelligent adults accompanying him in a supervisory capacity.

Especially if he suddenly gets a hankering to serve his country once again. In which case, the legions upon legions of intelligent adults accompanying him in a supervisory capacity should move Heaven and Earth to convince Alberto Gonzales that "his country" is Kazakhstan. Or Portugal. Or Libya. Or Greece. Or [INSERT NAME OF ANY COUNTRY BUT THAT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . OH, AND LEAVE OUT THE UNITED KINGDOM; WHAT WITH THE FLOODS, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. BESIDES, THEY STILL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH GEORGE GALLOWAY AND GOSH, CAN HE BE A PAIN . . .].

Sorry. Digressing. Anyway, convincing Alberto Gonzales that "his country" is Kazakhstan, or Portugal, or Libya, or Greece, or [INSERT NAME OF ANY COUNTRY BUT THAT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . OH, AND LEAVE OUT THE UNITED KINGDOM; WHAT WITH THE FLOODS, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. BESIDES, THEY STILL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH GEORGE GALLOWAY AND GOSH, CAN HE BE A PAIN . . .] should only take about five minutes. Ten minutes tops.

Do you think I am even remotely done with the snark? Oh, mes amis, think again! More below . . .

I guess I could go on at length as to why I believe this, but Ed Morrissey does an excellent job demonstrating why the whole "I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!" schtick from the Attorney General is about as comical as when it was delivered in the movies.

Of course, the problem is that once the Attorney General says his "Hail Mary," gets the fish and then gets casually disinvited from taking part in the governance of the United States of America, the way is opened to the Mother of All Confirmation Hearings, in which the next nominee for the position of Attorney General--poor sap, whoever he/she is--will become a tool for having the Senate investigate each and every aspect of the current Attorney General's tenure, including the firing of the 8 U.S. Attorneys. Now, whatever your view concerning just how scandalous this scandal is and no matter what your opinion may be on the proposition that the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President (and I think there is something to be said for the correctness of that proposition), it is near indisputable that Alberto Gonzales has created an Everest of a political problem for the Bush Administration with his "handling" of this issue. (Not to mention potential legal problems for himself, but let's not discuss that for the moment.)

So any confirmation hearings for a new nominee for the position of Attorney General will simply turn into one big, giant Bush-bashing session. Naturally, the Bush Administration does not want that and so, Alberto Gonzales stays safe in his job.

Or to put it another way: Mamma is still alive and no one's goin' after Fredo yet.

So I have a solution for the Bush Administration: Take Fredo fishing (again, this is just a euphemism!) and then declare that the Deputy Attorney General is the Acting Attorney General. Then nominate no one. My RedState colleague, the Dark Lord Krempasky informs me via e-mail that the Acting Attorney General can run things for 210 days before it's time to put forth a nominee. Perhaps in the interim, the Acting Attorney General can work with Congress to clear up the problems left behind by Alberto Gonzales so that when a nominee for the position finally is put forth, he/she can be considered for the position of Attorney General without the ghost of Alberto Gonzales haunting the confirmation proceedings.

The only problem I have with this plan is that if the Deputy Attorney General becomes the Acting Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Paul Clement, will become the Justice Department's second-in-command. Given that I think Paul Clement is a future Supreme Court superstar, I am really hesitant to have him around the administrative mess that Alberto Gonzales has left for his successor to clean up. I would rather that Clement get to concentrate on his job as Solicitor General until the time comes for him to don a black robe.

But that's my only hesitation. And in the end, I think that while there may be a chance that Clement's name might get sullied in this entire affair, the probability of that happening is actually rather small.

So come on. What are we waiting for? Surely, the fish must be biting . . .

« McClellan Originally Wanted to Attack Media, Defend BushComments (5) | If It's Monday . . .Comments (3) »
<Euphemism>It's Time To Take Fredo Out Fishing</Euphemism> 93 Comments (0 topical, 93 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

(if you disagree with that notion, just look at his hearings), is it really worth the confirmation fight in this democratic congress? I don't know, but it is definitely a lose-lose for the GOP.

"nominate no one" don't you understand? No nomination, no confirmation fight.

out loud, with my wife as I read this to her. Priceless humor. Dead on analysis... what is left to say?!

"This is the business we have chosen..." -Hyman Roth

... all mysteries and wisdom can be found in the Godfather movies


The World's Ruined

He would be number 2 in name only. He would remain solicitor general and I doubt that the Acting AG would have him serve as some sort of Acting Deputy AG. There are plenty of people under the direction of the Deputy AG that can fill the administrative role.

I would be happy to see Bush offer a nominee to replace Gonzales and then berate the Democrats (and refuse to allow said nominee to partake) if they make the confirmation hearings about Gonzalez rather than the nominee. Since that is inevitable, have a standoff followed by a recess appointment at first opportunity, which will allow the new AG to serve until the end of Bush's term.

Give the job to Ted Olson, he's unlikely to be up for any judgeships (he is already 67, even Rudy would likely not nominate him for one, when he will be at least 69). Certainly that's a guy the president can rally support for against a Democrat show trial in the Senate.

They were going to use procedural routes to block recess appointments from now on, which is why Bolton stepped down. I don't think that will work

Bolton stepped down because he couldn't get paid during a second recess appointment.
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Let the Dems punch Alberto's lights out everyday till they wear themselves out. Who cares? If Gonzales is up to it, so what? Having him leave tomorrow won't change much.

I detest Fredo. He is the absolute emblem of the Bush Administration. I'm guessing that before he leaves office, GWB will give Fredo a small piece of George Tenet's Medal of Freedom.
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

and presumeably if domestic terrorist activities are really a threat, competent leadership at the Justice department is crucial. If the national security interests of the US and the safety of our citizens are the priority, rather than avoiding political embarrasment, than Alberto has to go.

Your post makes no sense.
I think one of the big problems behind the Republican civil war is that we have subconciously boiught into the assumptions of the dhimmies - that Bush is stupid, that AG Gonzalez did anything wrong, that Bush has done a lousy job with Katrina, the border, taxes or the economy.
The AG has politely declined to participate with the dhimmies in their witch hunt. He is right to do so.
The dhimmies want to do a Libby to him - trip him up over time and declare the crime to be his tripping up. Because nothing he did was wrong. Not the surveillance, not the firings.
Let the dhimmies play out their pointless dance. Let them stomp their little feet and pretend they can make contempt charges stick.
But don't help them.

I think the post makes great sense....and Bush did screw up on Katrina and Gonzalez is a liar and poor excuse for an attorney general.....as for Bush being stupid, well, if he was going to get rid of Rummy, wouldn't BEFORE the election have been better? But then, Hunter, keep on believing all these fairy tales. Bush should have dumped Gonzo a long time ago; now it may be too late. The wolves are smelling blood and Bush keeps cutting himself.


But then you had to fixate yourself on Katrina.

Alas. Alack.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

All things being what they are maybe Vice President Cheney could take our dear friend "Fredo" Gonzales hunting? And not bird hunting either, something like deer or elk. That way the resulting wound would legitimately keep Alberto out of the public eye with all sorts of medical excuses as to why he can't attend various legal meetings. And, as an added benefit, the deluge of yellow journalism, targeted on Cheney, could possibly put a damper on the huge volume of un-biased, fastidiously researched, bipartisan, anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-victory and anti-american stories in the Blame-stream Media. Cheney has huge shoulders and I think he would take a perverse pleasure in deflecting attention "towards" himself.
Come on Alberto, take one for the team! You know there's no way out. As a Republican you know even if your innocent your not, I mean the MSM says so right? And if a Republican makes a mistake, say like forgetting about an email sent or mixing up some dates or forgetting about a conversation one may have had more than a year or two ago, then it's prison for you because, of course, you were perjuring yourself and interfering with the investigation of a non-issue. We all know this like we know Republicans hate old people and want to starve children, and only Caucasians can be racist, and more taxes are good for the economy, and O.J.'s innocent.
Whatever happens,as far as the Office of Attorney General,
it's pretty obvious that the Dumocrats are going to do all they can to keep the AG and the administration extremely busy with legal buffoonery so that nothing gets done or done promptly between now and the end of Bush's term. The gridlock of times past will seem like a brisk pace. The current collection of legislative politicians we have, especially the Senate, behave like Jerry Springer Show rejects. They strive
to damage the other party to the detriment of our country, passing bad law, creating bad precedent, and creating such extreme discord between all three branches of government so that none are working together for the good of our country.
I mean as we speak there are members of the House and Senate trying to weaken the powers of the President while increasing their own. Trying to censor points of view over the public airwaves, that they disagree with to weaken the position and power of the citizens of this country by only allowing us one (their) point of view.(Fairness Doctrine). And don't for a minute think that all the noise they are making about Alberto Gonzales, the fired attorneys, etc isn't also supposed to keep you occupied while they ram other anti-american legislation through. I mean really, pulling the protection for John Doe out of that bill so that people who report suspicious activity
can be sued for it is so blatantly stupid as to be ALMOST beyond belief! And this after they told us over and over to be DILIGENT and keep an eye out for suspicious behavior!
I have never been so worried for my country and it's future. And I would have never believed that if it were brought down it would happen from the inside.

Nothing can now be believed which is seen
in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes
suspicious by being put into that polluted
vehicle! Thomas Jefferson

So there are a bunch of small wrongs in this post which aren't really offensive enough to warrant correcting, but I'll throw down on this one: "I mean as we speak there are members of the House and Senate trying to weaken the powers of the President while increasing their own."

With respect to the issue of Executive Priviledge, I think it is rather fair to be annoyed by this (as it is a long-standing precedent). But some of the other stuff that Bush is doing is completely inappropriate. The new Executive Order uses such broad strokes and general terminology that it essentially makes any and all anti-war activists arrestible at the executive branch's discretion. This is just one example. The executive orders / handling of intelligence / suppression of criticism which support this "War on Terror" violate so many fundamental rights that it's not even funny.

"GOOD I HATE HIPPY ACTIVISTS" you say, but what happens when it's some year in the future Bill Clinton 2.0 takes office more powerful then ever before and uses these powers written by Bush to suppress Pro-Life activists? Cover up intelligence surrounding conservative issues? You can't have the Executive Branch running around without checks and balances.

Did you ever read Clinton's Executive orders? Nothing our President has done remotely approaches that attempt at Executive legislating. Care to compare and contrast substantively?

The current HJC move is nothing more than an attempt to strengthen their branch against longstanding precedent. Please elucidate on how that is NOT true?

Oh, and please advise how "powers written by Bush" will suppress Pro-life activists".

Quickly, before they falme your account.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

1,500 words on the Soviet Gulag system sounds about right. Although we'll accept one on the PRC's Laodong Gaizao, but you'll need to include a bit on the likelihood of it still existing in a recognizable form. Either way, write it up, send it in via the Contact link and we'll think about turning your account back on.

And while you're writing it, do try to internalize the difference between the Soviet/ChiCom governmental method of managing dissent, and ours. I'll give you a hint: one type doesn't include "bullet in the head" as a standard option.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Dear Doc:

I absolutely agree with you. One of our own, Bruce Fein, is making the PBS circuit boldly advocating for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney for the very reasons you note. The precedents are dangerous. They were foreseen and written about in The Federalist Papers. He is not a left wing nut hatch. He wrote the first Article of Impeachment for Clinton's Impeachment. By revising legislation that Congress has passed, Bush steps on the Legislative Branch. By interpreting the law, he usurps the authority of the Judicial Branch. They were designed to be separate Branches because of the history of despots in Western Civilization. The Executive Branch is the most dangerous of the three because one can decide faster than 9 or 535. Fast does not necessarily mean deliberate speed either. It can be rash and compulsive. Kind of like what a non-recovering alcoholic would do. Getting directives from God is dangerous in Churches and has no place in the Oval Office. The Burning Bush does not refer to our President or his zeal for enlarging the Federal government in the name of "compassion."

Bush demolished a major portion of the 1st and 5th Amendments with his most recent Executive Order. We cannot let him do this. Neither party has a monopoly on mental health. And I'm a little suspicious of one Independent. Do we want a future Howard Dean to have Legislative and Judicial powers? God, I hope not. Or a Joe McCarthy? He would have put Ike in prison. Or Nixon? Hillary? God forbid.

When Gonzales gave presidential authority to Cheney he crossed the line and totally politicized the career paths of the Federal Government. The people are fed up. If we go along as though what Bush and Cheney are doing is "right" we will forever identify ourselves as being without objectivity, spines, and values. Then the GOP will be marginalized for two election cycles. Look at the polls. We are alienating the young and the middle and ceding the high ground to the left. The YouTube deciders are so out of touch! Indiana University (in a RED STATE) shows FOX News is a propagandist's tool. We need to look at this, folks. IU is not Berkley.

Let's take the LEAD on distancing ourselves from the worst of Fox News. O'Reilly speaks for our less sophisticated Southern Brethren anyway. George Will and his ilk are more persuasive, less emotional, and much more respectable. We can do better than Bill and Rush. A blowhard and a drug addict as our spokespeople?? We're not the Kennedy's for God's sake!

What are we doing instead: 1) reading Hillary's musings when she was a teenager writing to a friend. Makes us look like voyeurs. 2) Making fun of left wing blogs and not focusing on what is real. People, that just gives them ammunition. Why keep shooting ourselves in the foot? We need to get real. Let's dump Vitters where he belongs. Let's hold our elected leaders accountable. Now is the time to endorse Impeachment. We should be at the front of the line, not lying back and name calling. If Stevens and Young took bribes, let's boot them now rather than at the end of September of '08. Remember September of 06--Foley, Haggard, Ney, et al? We lost the House and Senate. We lost evangelicals, folks.

Maliki's government is on the verge of total and final collapse. Then what do we do, declare martial law over a lawless country? Our own people produced a film that is playing selectively right now in two cities. "No End in Sight." You think libs aren't going to make it the second biggest documentary in terms of receipts within the next 90 days? I've seen the trailer. GOP insiders are calling Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld idiots and backing up their case with anecdotal and factual, verifiable material. Paul O'Neil was telling the truth. They were the blind leading the deaf.
Bush didn't even read "one page intelligence summaries" written, I bet, in one syllable words. How can we overcome THAT? Tony Snow is great, but he is not Anne Sullivan.

Finally, aren't we all really just a little embarassed by the parade of fools: Sampson, Goodling, Gonzales, McConnell, Bush, and even Cheney (I am not part of the Executive Branch)? That could be why we have such a weak slate of presidential wannabes. Can you really see Mrs. Thompson as First Lady? Rudy's 3 wives, #2 has a very loud mouth? Rudy in the tabloids in September 08. Newt's sexual infidelity while calling for Impeachment? McCain is a has-been from 2000. Mitt is so opportunistic he makes John Kerry look like the Northern Star. I really buy that he was a "varmit" hunter. Riding his dog on top of his car? Thinking MySpace is YouTube? Maybe we should suck up to Michael Bloomberg, or concede defeat now. People, let's take the lead on righteous, moral indignation. We have to embrace Impeachment of Cheney first, then the President. Maybe Bush could appoint a winner (like Colin Powell who could appoint Elizabeth Dole as VP) to take his place and clean up these messes he has made at home and around the world. Think of it, with Colin and Liz, we trump Hillary and Obama. Colin still has integrity (because he left the insanity without blemish.)

I think you are falling head over heels into a trap. Throwing a body into waters filled with sharks in a feeding frenzy is not going to calm the carnivores.

First, at least come to grips with the fact that this is not about the competency of the Attorney General. This is about partisan politics. The Democrats could care less about the competency of the AG. Sacrificing him in some naive gesture will only drive them on to the next BS target for investigation. Remember, this whole "scandal" is over well delineated powers of the President.

Second, put some perspective on it. The AG for the prior Administration burned children to death in a clumsy attempt to end a standoff that could have been avoided with better planning. She invaded the home of a family in Florida to send a child back to Castro. Yet she proudly served out her term. (There's a lot more there in the way of comparison, but I hope enough was said to make the point.)

Third, I see no advantage to handing the Dems even more ammunition over this nonsense by gift wrapping a "what is he hiding by not nominating someone for Senate approval" package. An recess appointment would do the same thing.

If Bush wants to rearrange some of the responsibilities at Justice let him do that. But dump the AG because the Dems and a handful of Repubs have their skirts in a flounce?

You'll have to actually find a smoking gun before I would support that. Which you would have if you could find either a gun, or some smoke.

I don't think much of Gonzo, but throwing him under the bus is not a good move. IMHO of course.

We got had over Dubai Ports by democrats who played at punching our buttons, and succeeded only in shutting down what was apparently not only an important strategic relationship, but a valuable intel and security operation. Now it is the AG. He must fo precisely why? Did he burn up a house full of kids? Did he use his office to obstruct justice for years? Did he act as personal lawyer to the President? Did he kidnap kids and return them to servitude? No. He fired some employees he was authorized to fire, and he kept some legal intel programs going that helped the nation. Enough already. We are getting played. Again.

The Janet Reno comparison defeats your argument about Gonzalez staying. She didn't try to cover up the obvious and was certainly never accused of flat out lying by Arlen Specter. Gonzo is another Brownie, doing a "heck of a job". Like Rummy, Jerry Bremer, and George Tenet.....You ever hear about any of those guys anymore? Gonzalez gave the Dems the info they were looking for when he couldn't say any of his underlings put those US attorneys on the list....so logically who did??? The White House. He should have taken the blame and resigned and the whole deal would be over. Sorry guys, that appearance this week killed the President and is the beginning of big trouble. For sheer damage control, he needs to get off the bus before he takes the President under it with him.

I watched the AG hearing this week in which Fredo flat-out lied--there's no other way to describe it, because he continued to insist on the truth of two points that completely contradicted each other (I'll be happy to elaborate if anybody is interested). Negroponte, Mueller, and a contemporaneous memo also explicitly contradict Gonzo. Yet Tony Snow is four-square behind him. Not one iota of hesitation, no distancing at all. That tells me that Al is doing exactly what he is told. Why? To what end? I have no idea, unless it is to force a test of strength between the Executive and Congress. In other words, a reprise of "Bring it on." If so, it's an interesting development, to say the least.

Hunter and Damay are quite right.

Redstate. You and your enablers sound like the Koskids.

Grow up.

We are in a war with terrorists who are supported materially by the likes of Iran and Syria. They are also given moral, if not material, support by every faction and country who disdanes(sp) the Republic of the United States of America.

On top of this we have the Democratic party. Some really do want our enemies to win and will do everything in their power to change foreign policy. Others are just political hacks (or should I say Jackasses), looking for every advantage to weaken the administration, and therfore the Republican party, before the next election.

And you think Bush should remove Gonzales. Your "No, Alberto Gonzales should not be offed. Let me repeat that: No one should kill, wound, or even try to temporarily inconvenience the life functions of the current Attorney General of the United States" sounds like the defence of the mafia dons. I specifically told everyone not to hurt that man (wink, wink, nudge, nudge".

You and your ilk had a lot to do with the Democrats winning the last election, and now, instead of showing the Democrats up for the traitorous or political hacks they are, you spend your time helping them emasculate an already weakend administration.

You should be ashamed of yourselvs.

"We" had nothing to do with Democrats being elected. The corrupt Republican congress and the incompetent Administration did that all by theirselves.

And talk about an enabler, you are the type who is willing to stand up for anyone in your party no matter how, stupid, incompetent, milquetoast, corrupt, or two-faced.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

There are more of us than them, and we did not show up and vote.
We allowed ourselves to be disapointed in the frailities of our reps, instead of realizing the alternative is much worse, as we now see daily.
The dhimmies seem to have little trouble taking care of their own and in keeping the perspective of power.

Republicans still have a lot of problems. Do you think for one second that somehow having Republicans stick up for the AG will make the party stronger? Many Republicans have ALREADY jumped ship on him and the fact is that things aren't going to get any easier because now Democrats are saying they have documentary evidence the AG lied to Congress. The vast majority of the public has already turned against him and I really don't see public up in arms about the Democrats investigation for a simple reason, Republican fundraising.

Republicans are having a trouble motivating their supporters and "independents" are starting to state they are more inclided to side with Democrats. This AG mess is that a mess. Do you really think Reagan would of kept his AG on this long? I would be shocked to think so.

Stubborness is NOT A VIRTUE. There are times in life you know when you deal yourself a new hand. In the end every bit of goodwill is important if Bush doesn't want the troops out of Iraq in a year. This is a political system and sometimes the political solution is the best solution (shocker I know :( ).

Further to my earlier post:

Powerline has an interesting post showing the Dems and media to be lying about Gonzales testimony.

We really need to find another term for you shoot at the hip conservatives.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell


on record for censorship, ruining our economy, destroying our proven tools for fighting a war, that demands we lose a war, and has literally done only one item on their election agenda since their narrow victory?
We should start following the lead of the party that got us to get rid of Tom Delay on phony charges, that blocks good judicial nominees by way of lies and smears, and votes to underfund or not fund our troops?
I think not?

Firing Gonzales (or hinting that he resign) would not end the controversy. It would be seen as an admission of guilt, and the investigations will continue into how high talk of the firings went and when it went there.

Follow the money. Who is paying the protesters outside the AG's office? I'll bet it will lead to only one place: former Nazi collaborator George Soros.

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

All the money seems to be flowing from the same place and very few seem to want to talk about it and apparently no one wants to do anything about it. There have been whole series written about the money that comes from Americans, who want to destroy this country. Haven't heard a word about these reports on Redstate. I'll try to find some examples, after I find a cup of coffee.

Sounds like a plan to me...

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

I'd be careful throwing around phrases like "former Nazi collaborator George Soros" -- such a statement might be actionable. Soros was a kid (10? 12?) when the Nazis overran Hungary in 1944, and from what I remember from a biography of him, he certainly wasn't a Nazi sympathizer. In fact, his family hid him away to protect him. (He's Jewish.)

And yes, I do admire Soros, while disagreeing with his politics. His work promoting democracy in Eastern Europe was quite important -- billions of dollars spent there. He was always a staunch opponent of the Soviet Union during the 70's & 80's.

I see no problem with a billionaire pushing a political agenda -- cf. Scaife, Forbes, Murdoch, Bloomberg, Buffett, etc. After all, billionaires like Soros have the right to be wrong...

"Then, there is the funder of Media Matters, billionaire George Soros. As my friend David Horowitz has painstakingly detailed in his book, "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party," the Jewish Soros is a fake Holocaust survivor, who--instead of "surviving" the Holocaust--helped the Nazis perpetrate it.

Horowitz details how Soros bragged on CBS' "60 Minutes" of helping his adopted father round up Jews to send them to their deaths at the camps and confiscate their property. Before that, he enjoyed his job as a "courier" delivering notices to Jews instructing them to pack up food for a two-day retreat, which was really their round-up for the death camps. He found this "exhilarating."

You can read the whole report Here

If one thinks George Soros ever did anything to promote democracy, I predict there will be people that disagree with that position.

"If one thinks George Soros ever did anything to promote democracy, I predict there will be people that disagree with that position."

There most certainly would be, and they would be wrong.

Soros is a one world government uber-leftist of the highest intellectual order. In short, he rarely knows what he's talking about.

But take a look at the Open Society Institute. There are OSI offices all over the world doing important work that largely has nothing to do with leftist causes. Much of their work is in preserving history. If anyone is ever in Budapest, check out the Open Society Archives located in the beautifully restored Goldberg building. Interesting and fascinating stuff on display from Soviet times and before, even extremely rare Arrow Cross artifacts.

Of course, he also built Central European University, a graduate school in international English for students all over Eastern Europe and the former Soviet block. Important work is being done at CEU, and believe me, the people there are by and large not a bunch of leftist nutbags. On the contrary, considering the history of this region, there are refreshing views on capitalism, America and free markets held and debated by young Eastern European future professionals.

OSI and the University are both closely connected to Freedom House, a non-profit which seeks to expand American missions of democracy and freedom (Freedom House played integral roles in the events taking place in Ukraine, Georgia and Lebanon).

Soros is Soros, his political mission in the United States is unsavory to say the least, but if you haven't noticed, he's experienced one set back after another here. Here's to hoping the trends hold up.

But I see nothing wrong with his work overseas, in fact, he's done much in the way of aiding America's mission abroad.


History is all that will help us with the future

and sorry for the threadjack

History is all that will help us with the future

You have no idea what is going on.

Nonetheless, you may be correct. It may not be Soros, though he seems to have his finger in all the mudpies the left throws around.

So inform me, who are these people who are more worried about the Attorney General than about going to work, or school, or whatever?

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Elliot was a hero when chasing piratical businessmen. Now he's using State police to gumshoe Assembly Speaker Bruno[R].
But it's not him you see, it's his aides, who refused to talk to the state AG, fellow named Cuomo. Can't get caught in a Libby if you don't talk.

Let's sit back and wait for the calls of Nazi tactics, impeachment, firing squad, assault on civil liberties, and mortification on the part of liberals. Maybe even a little contrition, yes, no?

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Have sorely missed the Pejman's point - namely, that he is not bothered by the Democrats throwing a fit, and has no desire to placate them - he's bothered by having someone running the Department of Justice who doesn't really seem to be up to the job. I didn't see the hearings in question so I can't comment on the coverage of them, but I've seen others, and I've watched how he's handled the firings "scandal," and it's not been good. Stories abound from conservatives I know that Justice - especially the legal department - is an absolute mess right now. To posit that everything is fine in Fredo-land besides the press and the Democrats is to avoid reality.

This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.

-Edmund Burke

We weigh (1) on the one hand, the stunning incompetence of AGAG, and the damage he is doing to America's justice system (and who knows what else, like immigration enforcement and so on), and (2) doing ANYTHING that makes the Dems happy, that validates what they accuse us of, that gives them red meat, that gives them an opportunity for more nasty confirmation hearings.

I have to fall on #2. Yes, Fredo's a ball and chain, but I will give no quarter to the America-hating left. I reject all calls for AGAG's resignation or firing.

Although I do quite like the idea of 'running out the clock' that Pej suggests. 18 months till the current administration is over. If we can endure AGAG for 11 months, he can go on that 210-day vacation while we put Justice in better hands.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Wow. by Catsy

Look, EPU, it's not that I don't understand the urge or its motivation. It's hard to take actions, no matter how necessary or otherwise justified, which are virtually certain to make your opponents happy and hand them something they will call a victory.

But what you just said? Read back over it again, and reconsider. When you hear Kossites talk about how Republicans put their party ahead of the good of the country, this is practically a textbook example of the kind of thing they're talking about, and you're handing them ammunition on a silver platter. That's not even a stretch; you outright said that that's exactly what you're doing, weighing your displeasure with making Democrats happy against "the stunning incompetence of AGAG, and the damage he is doing to America's justice system".

If you think the that equation comes out to anything other than a strong argument to get rid of the AGAG, regardless of who he is or what party is in power, you have a strong need to step back and get some perspective.

That the guy Bush chooses and is able to get approved by this Senate at this time in his presidency is going to be better than Gonzales is. Have you considered the fact that his replacement might very well be worse? You also don't replace one guy and sub in another on Monday and be fully up to speed on Tuesday. There is a substantial cost to replacing high level officials. One you won't necessarily get back in 18 months even if we do somehow end up with a decent replacement. That's why we don't do it once a month.

The Democrat reaction is also not irrelevant because they will be encouraged to go after others. There's a cost to that for the entire country, not just the party.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I should hope that this much would be uncontroversial to say: whoever makes it through the confirmation process cannot possibly, in anyone's imagination, be more incompetent than Gonzales. The man is a laughingstock and has turned the AG position into one in the process. The DOJ is dysfunctional across the board right now.

You're correct that his replacement would need time to get up to speed. I just have a hard time imagining that he would be any less effective during this interim period than Gonzales, who has demonstrated that he has almost no functional awareness of what goes on in his org or of what his direct reports are doing in his stead.

As for the reaction of the Congressional Democrats, do you imagine that whether or not Gonzales is replaced has any real bearing on whether or not they will go after others? If Gonzales skates, it gives the base a reason to be fired up and gives Congress low-hanging fruit to beat on--and doesn't stop them from going after anyone else anyway, which they're already doing. If he goes, they're emboldened anyway. It's six of one, half-dozen of the other; why not bite the bullet and do what's right for the country?

Catsy, I think my perspective is just fine. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that 'giving ammo to dKos so they can howl about yet another thing they don't like about us' has some relevance. Screw them.

AGAG is incompetent, but he's not a crook -- and he's Einstein compared to Reno, so let's not get out of hand. In a civil political situation it might be nice to broom him and get somebody good in there. But as zuiko highlights, and which I *thought* I strongly implied, it's not a situation where you can do that.

No quarter to the Democrats. None. They hate America and are perhaps her most mortal enemy. And I will base NO act or behavior on 'how dKos will respond'.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

put in Harriet!

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Respectfully, hopefully you can write a follow up post that details the legitimate reasons and facts behind your wishes. After all, one hopes that writing metaphorically about the AG in such a way, no matter how you attempt to qualify your textual remarks, deserves some obligatory elucidation. This of course does not include your post factum conundrum regarding his replacement or parochial anxiety about Clement. Perhaps you call also enlighten us on your points of agreement with Democrats and Spector, who seem to be performing most of the cackling?

The fact is our AG has done nothing wrong. This is a continuation of the Democrats latest political scheme is nothing more than part of their monumental investigatory effort. If you took the time to notice, that substantial expenditure of taxpayer funds has yielded very little and in fact zero of their intended result. That you have apparently been worn down by the inquisition and with some other Republicans are shouting “please make it stop” due to the cacophony does not qualify as substance; it qualifies as acquiescence.

This administration has given an extraordinary amount of documentation and access to Congress; almost unprecedented and some say too much. They have also offered to take the conversation off camera in order to expound on answers which contain national security issues. The link to John’s article above provides a novel example on how to intellectually dissect events into factual pieces.

Now you may have missed it in yesterday’s testimony but the AG also offered to speak in closed session to further explain. That proffer was refused by Democrats such as Schumer. The same Schumer who took contributions from convicted felons (he didn’t know), reimbursed the government $19K for using taxpayer funds for personal use (he didn’t know), who’s researcher stole Michael Steele’s credit records (he didn’t know), who received $29 k from Abramoff (he didn’t know) and the largest FEC fine ever $250k (he did not know). But of course, his memory and organizational grasp is infallible. Where is that story or the call to relinquish his sash?

Overall, I have no substantial affinity for the AG, but believe he is at worst a poor manager. However, that latter quality seems to be a requirement for working in government and is hardly a convictable offense. Nonetheless, Democrats have sought to make his recollection the issue (can you say Scooter?); then demur and delay when Gonzalez offers to further discuss matters off camera which may contain national intelligence secrets. I am just truly sorry it appears you have bought a ticket to that disingenuous show.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

"The fact is our AG has done nothing wrong."
I agree that he has not done anything illegal. There are good nonpolitical reasons for firing the nine attorneys, especially on the ground that they were not doing their jobs. We should apply the same standard to the AG. Conservatives, the Republican Party, and -especially- the U.S. deserve better.

Of course it will not shut up the Democrats, but nothing will. Their strategy until November 2008 is to investigate, wail, moan, and complain about Bush. Then they will tar the Republican candidate as the next Bush. They don't even need to do that. All they need is to have the average middle mushy voter to psychologically associate Republicans with scandal and incompetency. The only way to break the link is to be honest and criticize the administration when appropriate (also praise them when appropriate, too).

The fact is our AG has done nothing wrong.

The fact is that our AG has done nothing RIGHT. He has, at best, grossly mismanaged the DOJ and the US Attorney firings. At worst, he didn't mismanage these because he didn't manage them at all.

Can you imagine how different the conversation would be if he had come out saying, confidently (as if he were actually in charge and involved), "Of course these people were replaced for political reasons. They were HIRED for political reasons. Every administration defines its goals and priorities and, in the areas of law enforcement, US Attorneys are hired to set those priorities and achieve those goals. In some cases, we may replace attorneys to better align priorities and goals. In other cases, we may choose to change attorneys simply to bring different talents and experiences to bear on the needs of the job or to realign our resources to the better use of the DOJ. These actions have been taken over the course of this administration and *I* may take them again in the future as I see fit, to aggressively pursue the law enforcement goals of this administration."

Of course, Fredo couldn't make such a statement because he would have had to check with his staff first to see if this had actually been done and if the administration really had any goals and priorities and if he really would do it again. Then, there's his Casper Milquetoast personality.

Using the performance of the AG of the past administration as a standard for measuring the performance of this AG doesn't cut it. This adminstration ran on correcting the incompetence and politicization of that adminstration. Bush set the bar for himself, his administration, and the GOP. Reminding people how low that bar really is can only serve to help the Democrats.

Fredo very likely did nothing illegal in his tenure as AG because he's done virtually nothing at all. If anything illegal happened, he'd be the last to know. But, if something did happen, it happened on his watch. Welcome to the concept of responsibilty, Fredo. (If you are confused about it, there are attorney's on your staff that explain it in court often.)

Competence in government is supposed to be a Republican talking point, not a Democratic one. For Mr. Bush to leave Fredo in charge after his repeated public demonstrations of incompetence is to concede the point to the Democrats. A Senate confirmation hearing will be worse still. The ideas expressed in Pej's post allow Bush to take some definitive action while avoiding the confimation hearing. It deserves further discussion.

I agree. I would also like to add that those who say "Throwing a body into waters filled with sharks in a feeding frenzy is not going to calm the carnivores" that when Donald Rumsfeld resigned, there was no confirmation fight for his replacement. The waters did calm after Rumsfeld resigned. Alberto Gonzales is a symbol of incompetence, and the longer he remains the more we lose the mantle of being competent.

"the longer he remains the more we lose the mantle of being competent."

The Dems will also enjoy making a very long running exhibition of his incompetence and questionable memory.
His resignation would put an end to a very effective campaign.
I suspect that though they will continually call for AG resignation, they will also make it difficult for him to actually do so.

AGAG is the greatest show in town for the partisan Democrats. He is the embodiment of the President's fabled loyalty despite a dishonesty/incompetency quotient that is absolutely stunning.
I don't think the Democrats want him to resign though. I think what they really want is for him to stay and fight so they can IMPEACH him. They are dying to impeach somebody, and AGAG looks like low hanging fruit to them....

as to who is the bigger Bush incompetent/crony. To parrot Becker above, both symbolize all that has been and has gone wrong with this Administration. I tend to agree with Pejman, though, and Gonzo should survive somewhere in Alaska just to distract Democrats. However, there is no reason to keep on DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff until something blows up and he also obtains Bush Administration "tenure."

We don't disagree on the basic fact that the AG is not well suited for the job and has not performed well in office. However we do disagree on the response required.

I don't think the Republicans have 'ceded' competency as an issue to the Democrats. We are a long way from doing that as a comparison of Bush vs Clinton Administration AG records will demonstrate. Or most other comparisons of key personnel.

Opening up a Confirmation Hearings Circus or an Unconfirmed AG Shooting Gallery will only weaken the situation for the country and for the Administration. Many Dems are dying to get their hands on any lever which will allow them to gut national security mechanisms, and to revisit the "torture" issue. They hate Gonzales because for all his Milquetoasty futzing and stumbling around he has managed to prevent a sharp reversal on both of these items on the MoveOn checklist. Making a change with 18 mos left in office will be like pouring gasoline on the coals of a smoldering fire.

The agenda here is to stampede panicky Republicans off the cliff. Maybe we ought to stop and reconsider before coming up with rationale about why that route down will save time getting to the bottom.


"The agenda here is to stampede panicky Republicans off the cliff". It has already started. Just look at Redstate and the majority of the responses to this post. I am, however, pleased at the realistic approach of some posters who take the time to read the research before jumping on the talking points bandwagon.

I'm a bluestate voter, I am here to learn from you. Just wanted to say all of these comments are very helpful. I see dissent among you; that is usually the dem's problem.
Anyway, my comment is, the AG is undoubtedly following orders.
Not "screwing up". He is falling on his sword, folks.
His problem is, he cannot prevent the fall from killinng him forever, and his time is running out. That's why Bush needs to fire him, of course hinting at some fault on AG's part, very subtly, and finessinng the whole thing by good news management practices (Rove can handle that).
The acting AG plan would work for 210 days, imho,
but it is a low road solution to a high road problem.
I think the country's needs are first and foremost and we need a competent AG right now, one that will have a new clean slate and be unbeholden to the lame duck President: we need law and order, and the politics "is what it is". Why not welcome the opportunity to have the nominee showcase the administration's case for the GWOT, surveillance, etc.--take control of the agenda. Again, Let Karl do it. He's the best.

You need to stay over at DailyKossack where your use of inductive reasoning is accepted as the norm.

You have no idea what is going on.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

at least it works in jean-claude van damme movies.


“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

Liberals blogs have picked up this idiotic posting and are using it as proof that 'conservative bloggers' hate Gonzales and call for his resignation. You do NOT know what Gonzales is doing and you acting like you find humor in the topic is doing nothing for the country but adding ammunition to those who have none of their own. You should remove this posting but it is too late to use logic and contemplate consequences. Alberto Gonzales is telling the truth. He is NOT lieing. He is NOT stupid. He is serving his country.

You have no idea what is going on.

Have you watched any of the hearings? Have you seen and listened to Attorney General Gonzales?

If so, which version of events are you sure is the truth? Every time he appears or responds there seems to be yet another "truth."

For anyone who has watched Gonzales testify (and has even the smallest shred of objectivity) two things seem pretty obvious. 1)If you take him at his word, he's unbelievably incompetent.
2) Taking him at his word requires ignoring at least half of what he says.

It's painful when people are so blinded by hatred (in this case, apparently, for Democrats or liberals) that they openly champion a man who may be the most incompetent person ever to serve as AG (and there's some tough competition, what with Ms. Reno so recently departed).

Gonzales gets my vote for the most incompetent AG of my adult lifetime. Further, I believe he has perjured himself.

I'd like the AG 1) to be able to accurately recall the occasional event during his tenure; 2) to be demonstrably involved in the department's important decisions and actions; and 3) to inspire confidence that the Justice Department is well and honestly led.

In my opinion, Alberto Gonzales, irrespective of ideology, partisan politics, or party loyalty, fails on all three counts.

Gonzales has perjured himself. Mueller has directly contradicted Gonzales account of his Ashcroft hospital visit.

I personally love posts that tell me I have NO idea what's REALLY happening but fail to offer an alternative or explanation.

I can't decide if this is:

a) someone trying to get a reaction (the attack on conservative bloggers)

b) The AG himself (still no fact or argument)

c) George Bush (it's "lying" George, not "lieing")

c) Alberto's mom. (The "He REALLY is a good boy" tone.)


about as much as dumping Rummy did.

And just like throwing a bunch of judicial nominees under the bus got us to the current blocking of Keisler, Kethledge, Murphy, Southwick, and Elrod.

Isn't there some point where it stops being about pressure, advantage, politics, ideology, etc. and simply depends on the qualities and performance of the individual?

With all due respect to the Attorney General (and I mean that literally), I wouldn't hire him to mow my lawn without adult supervision.* I can just imagine his "explanation" of the unfortunate events that took place when no one was watching him: "Gee, I don't recall you're telling me not to run over the neighbor's children and pets."

Attorney General Gonzales is damaging the president, the Republican Party, the Justice Department, and on and on.

There are only two reasons I can imagine for keeping him on the job: 1) an irresponsible determination to not be seen as letting the Democrats win (right now, everyone is losing); or 2) the president has something to hide that he feels only his old friend can be relied on to protect. I'd like to believe it's not number two, but the longer Gonzales remains at Justice, the more I wonder.

*Even then, I'd only do it if I had no choice.

If he is dumped we get rid of someone who's become a liability.

In return, we get months of hearings from Dems, demands for every document under the sun, blah blah, all under the guise of approving his replacement. They'll try to do all that if he stays, but it's probably easier to tell them to pound sand as is.

Heck I don't know what's worse - I just know that we got screwed big time on judicial nominations after attempting compromise. I suspect it will be the same here.

Maybe the best thing would be for him to leave as soon as the August recess starts and then Bush recess appoints his replacement and gives AG a pre-emptive pardon, saying it's time to move forward. :-)

recess appointments. In this case, it would simply engender more enmity and distrust. There are plenty of qualified people who could be easily confirmed, unless the point of the nomination was to "stick" it to the Democrats. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that as justification for any nomination, ever, by any president, of any party.

Pardon Gonzales? I understand your feelings, but the point should be to restore confidence, not destroy it.

Yea by zuiko

In this case, it would simply engender more enmity and distrust.

As if such a thing were possible. The Democrats have made it clear where they stand with respect to anything Bush says or does.

There are plenty of qualified people who could be easily confirmed

If only they were appointed by someone other than George W Bush. They'd probably even fight a Reno appointment at this stage, if it were Bush making the appointment.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

As if such a thing were possible. The Democrats have made it clear where they stand with respect to anything Bush says or does.

Have a seat, I'd say there's a pretty good chance things will be getting worse very soon.

If only they were appointed by someone other than George W Bush. They'd probably even fight a Reno appointment at this stage, if it were Bush making the appointment.

Well, apart from the fact that I hope everyone would fight a Reno nomination (something I think it's safe to say won't happen), I think you're overstating the case. Unlike court appointments, which have become much more controversial and contentious over the years, the job of the Attorney General could be filled by any number of respected conservatives with established careers and stellar reputations. The more partisan the figure, the greater the likelihood of opposition. Although I don't think it would be a good idea to choose a sitting senator for the position, I suspect that if the president wanted to choose a politician (perhaps not the best choice under the circumstances -- personally, for AG I'd always lean toward a legal mind rather than a political one) Orrin Hatch could be confirmed without a great deal of trouble. I'm not saying there wouldn't be any opposition, just that I don't think it would take too long to get him confirmed.

It doesn't matter who Bush would nominate to replace AGAG. The hearings would be guaranteed to be a zoo. The Dems would stretch it out for weeks/months, saying they need to get every document and sworn testimony from dozens of insiders so that they can be satisfied that the crimes AGAG obviously committed are not repeated. And every piece of paper and every bit of testimony would be "troubling" and would "create more questions than answers", all proving that Bush is still covering up crimes. They could demand the appointment of a special prosecutor (is Fitzgerald available?) before allowing a replacement to be confirmed. Is it worth opening the door to all this partisan nastiness?

I was obviously (or so I thought) being tongue-in-cheek about the recess appt/pardon approach, but Bush needs to calculate how much of a zoo he is willing to create by whatever action he does (or doesn't) take.

This is an interesting discussion, but how many of you saw the testimony? I did. Perhaps the worst performance by a witness before Congress ever. I grant you that I don't know what the truths were that Gonzales may have been triangulating to protect, but the performance was embarrassing. It was sleazy. I felt like I needed to shower afterward.

I don't know if Gonzales is corrupt. I don't know whether or not he might be trying to take one for the team. What I do know is that whatever he is doing, he is doing it very, very badly.

We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

I saw them trying to entrap him and he was doing his best to give them nothing concrete.

Do you see how now the scope of the investigation is slowly expanding? The whole thing is a travesty, nothing was illegal to begin with and it's a replay of the Libby deal but with bigger fish.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

... but the double-talk was sickening all the same. If you get your story straight and stick to it -- hopefully that story is the truth -- then displays like that are unnecessary.

I'm not going to let Gonzales off the hook just because people are pulling sleazy maneuvers on him. He built the trap himself.

We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

Is that there are some tough lawyers in congress and they are zeroing in on the AG. the AG is making a fool of himself, all for W. I agree he could not cut my lawn either; but the real target of the lawyers on Judiciary cmte is the politicization of the Justice Dept by his best friend, mentor, and defender, the president.
The AG is falling. Nothing W can do can stop it now, but the real target is W.

couldnt find a kossack blogger tho.

Courtesy of the NRA

This has been going on for a while, and I'm suprised that it has recieved so little attention. I personally find it to be one of the more threatening actions taken Bush Administration.

For those who would rather not click the link, here's a quote from the NRA website:

The Gonzales/Lautenberg bill, S. 1237 drafted by the Justice Department—is the broadest power grab ever proposed over the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

This bill gives the Attorney General the power to prohibit you from purchasing firearms, and to seize any that you already possess, by merely declaring you to be suspected of terrorism-related activies. The Attorney General's power will be unilateral, immune from judicial oversight, and as is the case with National Security Letters, you as a suspect will have no right to even see the evidence against you.

If anyone here who has read this bill can tell me why I should not hold this against Alberto Gonzales, I would much appreciate the reassurance.

Expecting the DOJ to not support this measure is like trying to find a big city police chief that is a big supporter of shall-issue concealed carry permit laws. It will never happen. The Dept of Justice, under any AG, will always love power grabs for the Dept of Justice. It's like a law of nature. That's not going to change with a new AG.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I agree with you zuiko, although I am not resigned to the notion that every DoJ will attempt to revoke our constitutional rights with no due process.

The natural mindset of law-enforcement bureaucrats notwithstanding, remember that Alberto Gonzales doesn't just support this measure. His department drafted it.

I don't expect better of Gonzales; he has done nothing to convince me that he is qualified for this job in any way. I do, however, expect more from my president.

You must wait longer, breathing deep of our venom. Become one with the state of redness. Surrender to our bile.

Only when you have merged your immortal soul with that of the teeming hordes of subvocalizing knuckle-draggers will you be able to post and not ... stand out quite so much.

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

When I read your post just now I was scratching, erm... myself.

I feel I have much to offer this community.

This is not the most scintillating sub-thread to read, particularly at 12:30 AM. Let's reset from zero, 'kay?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I don't know whether to be offended by the title of this post, or just offer you my secret for catching fish.
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM

I realize that for many of you this will ring very hollow.

But I'm here to tell you that Mr. Gonzales days are numbered. He was simply not up to the task assigned to him.

He allowed this problem to fester and now he is almost certain, sooner or later, to be caught saying something wrong. It won't be some error in time frame. He will be caught red handed. Because he handled this situation horribly.

Had he simply been upfront about things this matter would have blown by in about 2 weeks. Instead he played the denial game and went down the rabbit hole.

He's done. The Democrats have him cornered and they aren't going to let up until he's another carcass to feed off.

You guys want to fight it? Your choice. Nothing good will happen for your side. Best case is exactly what will happen if he leaves office now. Worst case is that the entire Bush Administration is implicated and GOP hopefuls will have one more obstacle to overcome in 2008.

Honestly I don't think you guys realize where this is going. Everyone of these Contempt of Congress charges adds legitimacy to the Democratic onslaught. If the Republicans continue down this path you could face a very ugly future.

This isn't Jacksonian America.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The last two have been AG and Ramsey Clark. Clark's dad and a guy in the Wilson administration were the other two Texans who served as AG. I don't know what Clark was like as AG, but there's little doubt he's the worst former AG any of us have ever seen.


haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

I cry BS on the Texas thing. I propose that the trick is "appoint somebody for AG whose IQ is above that of an asparagus shoot".

This simple exercise would have culled out not only Clark and AG, but also Reno. Haha!

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service