Pragmatic Loyalty
Attorney-General Alberto "Speedy" Gonzales is not very popular anywhere outside the White House these days. Republican senators grumble about him in private and a few have cravenly joined the Dems in calling for his head on a spike over the US attorney firing non-scandal. Many on the Right have myopically echoed them on the grounds of his "incompetence" and "bungling."
If I were somebody else writing about what I've written about Speedy, I'd probably describe myself as a "Gonzales defender" and "Bush shill." I might even be denouncing myself the same way that I went after Hugh Hewitt when he was on his island sticking up for the spectre of a Justice Harriet Miers. "Political hack" was one of my kinder labels, as I recall.
In this case, I would be being profoundly unfair to myself. For in fact I have never actively defended Alberto Gonzales himself, not any action he has or hasn't taken or any words he has or hasn't said. From all I've read about the legal and ethical dismissals of a meaningless, insignificant eight US attorneys, he handled the process with the kind of clumsiness and PR tin ear that we've come to expect from the Bushies in the second term. This, in turn, is consistent with the trademark cronyism that Dubya imported into Washington after his re-election. The past few months have made abundantly clear that Gonzales is in over his head as A-G, and was only slotted in that post because the time wasn't right for his presidential patron to stick him on the SCOTUS. On the bright side, there's fat chance of that happening now, either.
Makes one appreciate John Ashcroft a lot more, doesn't it? It damn well should, anyway.
Opposing the sacking of Speedy is not the same thing as defending the man himself. It is simply one of the first rules of political gang warfare: He may be an incompetent boob, but he's OUR incompetent boob. And while we may want to be shut of him, and he may indeed deserve to be pink-slipped, he does not on the grounds the Democrats are seeking it. In other words, it is not a defense of Gonzales to say he should stay right where he is, it is a defense of the President at whose pleasure he serves.
Senate Republicans appear to have, at least, begun figuring out that equation, and have opted to hang together rather than separately:
The Democrats are just full of "symbolic efforts" in this Congress. Heaven knows the GOP is not immune to being "embarrassed" by such things. But the US attorney firing non-scandal is an entirely Beltway phenomenon; probably more Americans are aware of the details of Paris Hilton's Greybar Hotel saga than they are of who the attorney-general even is, much less how he handled high-level personnel matters at the DOJ. It's way too "inside" a kerfuffle to ever gain mainstream traction.
Besides, that's not what they're really after:
That would be the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and a host of others that the Enemy Media treasonously compromised. About the only legit legacy George W. Bush has left, besides the booming economy, is that there has been no follow-up to 9/11 in almost six years. The Democrats are hungry like Rosie O'Fatass locked in a bank vault for six months for another mass casualty attack they can use as the final nail in the coffin of the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism. Confirmation hearings for a replacement for Gonzales would be a much more useful vehicle for paranoiacally lending aid and comfort to al Qaeda than dragging Speedy himself up to the Hill time after time to confusedly mumble and disjointedly ramble about arcana nobody cares about in "flyover country".
This is why Admiral Ed has the comparison of Bush's loyalty to Speedy to his running away from re-upping JCS Chairman General Peter Pace precisely backwards. Pace's term as Chairman is expiring, making another Senate confirmation mandatory; as such, the Bush White House has no excuse not to go to the mat for the Marine Corps Commandant, challenge the Democrats on their "anti-war" ravings that have gone far too long unopposed, and fight them to the bitter end. If the Dems, in the end, defeated Pace's renomination, or couldn't muster enough votes for that and filibustered it to death instead, the positions of both parties on the war would be freshly and clearly re-established.
Instead, the Bushies ducked. And this is what Morrissey tosses off as "not exactly a profile in courage, but probably the pragmatically correct decision." Makes you wonder if he's aware of a few facts about General Pace's likely replacement:
Contrast this profile in cowardice with one crucial difference in the case of the attorney-general: He's already in office, and doesn't need reconfirmation. Why give the President's enemies additional bites at the proverbial apple?
Indeed, if the Democrats are serious about, in Chucky Schumer's words, "dislodg[ing] the attorney general from the post that he should no longer hold," let them use the power the Constitution provides Congress and begin impeachment proceedings against Speedy. Let them turn an empty witchhunt into a full-blown national spectacle to rival the swarm of helicopters covering Paris Hilton returning to the klink in that squad car like it was a white bronco or something. And then let those identity-politics-obsessed hypocrites explain why they are publicly lynching the first Hispanic attorney-general in American history.
They'll never do it. They think they're getting more mileage out of Speedy right where he is, even though they're really not. But that pales in comparison to the damage the White House can inflict upon itself if it falls for the Donk trap and fires his ass.
I'd like to think that the President is savvy enough to be aware of all of this, rather than just being stupidly and obstinately loyal to a drowning buddy whose swimming skills are only slightly less than his own. Even if the latter, though, it still puts him ahead of his A-G's "blistering critics," whose grasp of political dynamics is as meager as their taste for fratricide is insatiable.
If I were somebody else writing about what I've written about Speedy, I'd probably describe myself as a "Gonzales defender" and "Bush shill." I might even be denouncing myself the same way that I went after Hugh Hewitt when he was on his island sticking up for the spectre of a Justice Harriet Miers. "Political hack" was one of my kinder labels, as I recall.
In this case, I would be being profoundly unfair to myself. For in fact I have never actively defended Alberto Gonzales himself, not any action he has or hasn't taken or any words he has or hasn't said. From all I've read about the legal and ethical dismissals of a meaningless, insignificant eight US attorneys, he handled the process with the kind of clumsiness and PR tin ear that we've come to expect from the Bushies in the second term. This, in turn, is consistent with the trademark cronyism that Dubya imported into Washington after his re-election. The past few months have made abundantly clear that Gonzales is in over his head as A-G, and was only slotted in that post because the time wasn't right for his presidential patron to stick him on the SCOTUS. On the bright side, there's fat chance of that happening now, either.
Makes one appreciate John Ashcroft a lot more, doesn't it? It damn well should, anyway.
Opposing the sacking of Speedy is not the same thing as defending the man himself. It is simply one of the first rules of political gang warfare: He may be an incompetent boob, but he's OUR incompetent boob. And while we may want to be shut of him, and he may indeed deserve to be pink-slipped, he does not on the grounds the Democrats are seeking it. In other words, it is not a defense of Gonzales to say he should stay right where he is, it is a defense of the President at whose pleasure he serves.
Senate Republicans appear to have, at least, begun figuring out that equation, and have opted to hang together rather than separately:
Republicans blocked the Senate's no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday, rejecting a symbolic Democratic effort to prod him from office despite blistering criticism from lawmakers in both parties.
The 53-38 vote to move the resolution to full debate fell seven short of the sixty required. In bringing the matter up, Democrats dared Republicans to vote their true feelings about an attorney general who has alienated even the White House's strongest defenders by bungling the firings of federal prosecutors and claiming not to recall the details.
Republicans did not defend him, but most voted against moving the resolution ahead.
The Democrats are just full of "symbolic efforts" in this Congress. Heaven knows the GOP is not immune to being "embarrassed" by such things. But the US attorney firing non-scandal is an entirely Beltway phenomenon; probably more Americans are aware of the details of Paris Hilton's Greybar Hotel saga than they are of who the attorney-general even is, much less how he handled high-level personnel matters at the DOJ. It's way too "inside" a kerfuffle to ever gain mainstream traction.
Besides, that's not what they're really after:
In addition to the controversy over fired prosecutors, lawmakers of both parties have long complained that Gonzales allowed Justice to violate civil liberties on a host of other issues - such as by carrying out Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.
That would be the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and a host of others that the Enemy Media treasonously compromised. About the only legit legacy George W. Bush has left, besides the booming economy, is that there has been no follow-up to 9/11 in almost six years. The Democrats are hungry like Rosie O'Fatass locked in a bank vault for six months for another mass casualty attack they can use as the final nail in the coffin of the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism. Confirmation hearings for a replacement for Gonzales would be a much more useful vehicle for paranoiacally lending aid and comfort to al Qaeda than dragging Speedy himself up to the Hill time after time to confusedly mumble and disjointedly ramble about arcana nobody cares about in "flyover country".
This is why Admiral Ed has the comparison of Bush's loyalty to Speedy to his running away from re-upping JCS Chairman General Peter Pace precisely backwards. Pace's term as Chairman is expiring, making another Senate confirmation mandatory; as such, the Bush White House has no excuse not to go to the mat for the Marine Corps Commandant, challenge the Democrats on their "anti-war" ravings that have gone far too long unopposed, and fight them to the bitter end. If the Dems, in the end, defeated Pace's renomination, or couldn't muster enough votes for that and filibustered it to death instead, the positions of both parties on the war would be freshly and clearly re-established.
Instead, the Bushies ducked. And this is what Morrissey tosses off as "not exactly a profile in courage, but probably the pragmatically correct decision." Makes you wonder if he's aware of a few facts about General Pace's likely replacement:
I have no inside information, but I see the fingerprints of SASC member Senator Hillary Clinton all over this. To win in 2008, the New York Democrat and feminist must convince voters that she supports the troops and can be trusted as Commander in Chief. A vote on the re-nomination of Chairman Pace would have put her on the spot between her gay activist constituency and millions of voters who admire Peter Pace.How is it "pragmatic" to cave without a fight? How is it "pragmatic" to spare the inevitable 2008 Donk presidential nominee a tough vote that would cause her political heartburn either way? And how is it "pragmatic" for Bush to throw under the bus a general who shares his view and vision of the war in favor of an admiral who goes against everything he believes in? At least force the Democrats to screw General Pace themselves; if they want "a divisive ordeal," it'd be their fingerprints all over it, and the millions of Americans who admire him just might be motivated to turn out on Election Day. When it comes right down to where the cheese binds, isn't that what political "pragmatism" is all about?
Senator Clinton has a way of getting senior men of both parties to do her work for her. Pre-emptive removal of General Pace excuses candidate Clinton of the responsibility to vote for or against re-confirmation. As a bonus, Hillary and other feminist senators get to vote for a liberal admiral, CNO Mike Mullen, an ardent advocate of “diversity” quotas and other controversial goals for the military.
Contrast this profile in cowardice with one crucial difference in the case of the attorney-general: He's already in office, and doesn't need reconfirmation. Why give the President's enemies additional bites at the proverbial apple?
Indeed, if the Democrats are serious about, in Chucky Schumer's words, "dislodg[ing] the attorney general from the post that he should no longer hold," let them use the power the Constitution provides Congress and begin impeachment proceedings against Speedy. Let them turn an empty witchhunt into a full-blown national spectacle to rival the swarm of helicopters covering Paris Hilton returning to the klink in that squad car like it was a white bronco or something. And then let those identity-politics-obsessed hypocrites explain why they are publicly lynching the first Hispanic attorney-general in American history.
They'll never do it. They think they're getting more mileage out of Speedy right where he is, even though they're really not. But that pales in comparison to the damage the White House can inflict upon itself if it falls for the Donk trap and fires his ass.
I'd like to think that the President is savvy enough to be aware of all of this, rather than just being stupidly and obstinately loyal to a drowning buddy whose swimming skills are only slightly less than his own. Even if the latter, though, it still puts him ahead of his A-G's "blistering critics," whose grasp of political dynamics is as meager as their taste for fratricide is insatiable.
posted by JASmius at 12:16 AM
<<< Home