I find reason #3 most intriguing:
"If Gonzales goes, the White House fears that other losses will follow. Top Bush advisers argue that Democrats are after scalps and would not stop at Gonzales. Congressional judiciary committees have already subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firings of U.S. Attorneys last year. Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues."
So to avoid handing the Democrats a victory on corruption, Bush is hanging onto the biggest political hack on his cabinet? This is the same man who hired and fired federal prosecutors based on political loyalties ("loyal Bushies" were kept around), not on their ability to convict criminals.
For the rest of this story, click
On Fox News Sunday a couple weeks ago Russ Feingold admitted that he had no evidence to back the accusations levied on Gonzalez. That to me is very telling. You can see it here -
:::link:::
They are investigating based on a hunch. This is one of the many reasons why people aren't happy with Congress.
The latest Zogby poll showed congressional approval of their handling the war at 3%. THREE PERCENT! Nobody is happy, for a large variety of reasons. At least we are all unified in our hatred of our Congress... ha! Just an assumption on my part, but I feel as if people are largely displeased with these investigations and would, like you point out (e:blotics), rather see them work on something substantive rather than play political games. Obviously we all disagree and have our own views on what those substantive things should be, but the point is that we should at least be talking about things that are meaningful... rather than what is going on now.
What people need to remember is that US attorneys can be fired at any time, for any reason. I couldn't agree more that US attorneys should be above the fray, but the reality is that they are not and are subject to hiring and firing depending on which party wins the election. US attorneys get fired every single time a new president is elected and at times in between... none of this is new. Does that similarly constitute firing for political reasons? I think so. Are we next going to debate which political reasons are more legitimate than others? Really... this is silly.
As for abuse of power, I think that if you are going to accuse a high ranking government official of something malicious, you damn well better have hard evidence lined up. What people are going to find is that the law wasn't broken and investigators, just like in the case of Scooter Libby, will try to hang a perjury charge on him for lying about a non-crime.
I suppose this puts us at odds over whether we think somebody should "pay" here. I simply view this as the continuation of an ongoing witch hunt. I find Democrats' collective hatred of Karl Rove a little irrational.
If the president does axe the AG that means congress will have to approve a new one. And congress would never approve one that would let the same shit fly that the white house has been slinging. That is how I think of it at least.
The approval ratings of congress though are always low. Always. And lower than the presidents usually. So, I don't find the numbers to be very interesting other than suddenly the media is interested in congress' numbers. Additionally, if you look at approval ratings for each senator and each rep. you will see that they all enjoy better approval ratings than congress as a whole. Besides, the senate is deadlocked between Joe Lieberman and Tim Johnson. Coupled with dozens of veto threats and the largest number of filibusters in the history of our government, who is surprised that there is compromise and frustration?
Federal prosecutors are generally seen as above the political fray, so these firings are unusual from an historic perspective. It makes sense that they should be unfettered by politics to do their jobs correctly and again, that job is to put criminals in jail regardless of political leanings.
I'm with you, Joshua, on how poorly Congress has performed since the '06 election. On the whole, they deserve the low approval numbers that they are receiving.
The fact that they're going for scalps, and I'm thinking of the Harry Reid and Howard Dean types, is part of the problem. Don't worry about revenge, just pass some damn legislation that helps get this country moving in the right direction again.
If my memory serves me correctly, and I think it does, every president gets rid of the attorneys he doesn't like (i.e. from the opposition party) and replaces them with attorneys that he likes (i.e. from his own party); what is different this time is that the attorneys were terminated for cause because of their job performance and not because the Prez wanted some yes-dudes in their positions.
These are lawyers that are employed at the pleasure of the President of the United States. I've yet to be compelled to believe that hiring lawyers you like is actually a new sort of practice in our "democracy."
I think the Bush Administration has a point, though. Democrats *are* after scalps. Personally, I think its fascinating that Congressional approval numbers are lower than those of the president.