I hope that this puts to rest any insanity about nominating Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court. If they are going to have an Hispanic affirmative action nominee, he should at least display some level of intelligence and competence.

Or in a sweeping blow at all Hispanics, Bush having been "pleased" at Gonzo's performance, nominates him, he is inexplicably confirmed and then grapples with thought experiments posed to him by Roberts while Alito and Scalia snicker in the background sharing Italian jokes. Meanwhile the nation is forever fixed with the stereotype of dumb Hispanics and doubly dumb Texans and Lou Dobb s agitates further for border control, this time from a national IQ security perspective.

Why doesn't he just resign?

Why doesn't he just resign?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 20, 2007 10:20 AM

Because of the same reason Rummy did not and would not...

and did not until the one person who could tell him to go found more honor and courage then the person who should have walked out thedoor himself.

Robert

He's still there because his job is to be the nation's chief prosecutor, not an agile debater and sensitive political animal under the glare of TV lights. We have Senators for that sort of ceremonial performing-seal role.

The hearings tell you zip about his quality in this job. They just tell you that he can be made an ass of when he's put on the hot seat. But anyone who has, for example, taken the witness stand in a courtroom knows that's not much of a criticism. You can totally know your stuff, be cool as a cucumber in private, and be a fumblemouth bonehead when the hot lights and a dozen hostile eyes are on you, waiting to pounce on your slightest goof and jam it up your behind. It's not nearly the same as being able to coolly collect your thoughts in your private office and write them up in a column for NRO, editing as you go along to remove any dumbass slips.

Whether Gonzalez is a good AG or not, I haven't the faintest idea. Nor will I (or anyone) be any the wiser from this televised circus. I only know he's not Slick Willy, so far. Which fact doesn't impress me either way.

Post-script: I disagree entirely with Rand that Gonzalez has necessarily displayed incompetence and stupidity in his hearings so far -- I'm a pretty smart bastard, and I know I would come across as an aphasic moron unfit to manage a lemonade stand in front of a TV camera.

But I absolutely agree with him (Rand) that nominating Gonzalez to the Supreme Court would be madness. That's one place you do need to be able to think on your feet, hold your own during vigorous debate, and act as if blissfully unaware of the fact that half the country is going to hate you for your next five words. Gonzalez, whatever his merits, is clearly not that kind of man.

Carl, I much vigorously disagree with you. One of the Attorney General's jobs is to show up under the glare of TV lights and justify the actions of the Department of Justice. Besides my take is that the real problem with Gonzales's testimony is that he's weaseling out of responsibility for his actions yet again.

I frankly don't think firing federal prosecutors for political reasons is that big a deal, There is some truth to the point that they serve at the whim of the President. But Gonzales won't own up to his role in it and he's changed his story at least once (he originally claimed he had no role in the affair and only changed his story after emails came out indicating otherwise), a troubling sign. Also, Gonzales's inability to recall what he was doing (especially when he knew going in what the senators were going to ask) seems suspect.

As I see it, Gonzales was one of the prime architects of the most dubious (Constitution-wise) policies of the Bush administration. This includes labeling some forms of torture as not being torture, expanding the scope of surveillance programs, denying information to the public and to Congress, and attempting to undermine accountability, such as it is, for these dubious policies.

I don't see any reason not to torture someone withholding infomation of some imminent danger to save innocent lives, but I don't trust the guy who spins that as somehow being allowed by the laws of the US. Those acts will probably be forgiven and forgotten because of national need, but I doubt it's legal. The apologist certainly shouldn't be Attorney General. Same goes for the rest of these policies.

One of the Attorney General's jobs is to show up under the glare of TV lights and justify the actions of the Department of Justice.

Sure. But it's not his most important job. I don't even think it ranks in the top 10. Congress is perfectly capable of finding out what the hell the DoJ is up to without holding circus hearings under the hot lights. They can have a staffer phone over and ask some questions, or go over themselves for a little chat, et cetera. They're lawyers, they're Washington pols with long years' experience. They know where the bodies are buried, who pulls the levers, how to find out stuff.

These hearings aren't about "finding out what really happened." They already know that, or think they do, or could if they thought it was important. What they are is a form of political campaigning. They're one political faction forcing a televised debate with another. (A debate in which only one side gets to ask pointed questions, I might add -- no one at these hearings is asking embarassing questions about WTF Congress has been up to.)

There's nothing wrong with such political battles. I've got nothing against partisanship. Vigorous political debate in the public arena is how we settle basic policy issues. The root of democracy, so to speak.

But politicians should be doing it, with money raised by their supporters. Senators and Presidential candidates should be doing it on the campaign trail with their own cash, and that of people who believe in them. I see it as a God-damned annoying waste of my taxes -- of that $14,000 check I wrote the bastards two weeks ago, so to speak -- for someone whose primary responsibility is not political (the AG) to spend huge amounts of his time and my money participating. He should be back at his desk tackling the mountain in his IN tray.

I'm aware many people now think that the job description of government officials from the top way far down includes doing full-time marketing for even minor details of government policy. I'm not one of them. I enjoy watching dueling advertising -- Geico's lizard vs. Allstate's clever photography -- as much as the next guy. But when half of government, and the better-paid and more highly qualified half at that, is spending most of its time on public salesmanship, I'm upset. It means either (a) a lot of important work isn't getting done, or (b) I'm paying for a government that not only has to govern, but run a full-time sales and marketing campaign to amuse me. I don't like either. I get a chance every two years to decide whether pols should keep their job. I don't think they need to be giving me progress reports any more often than that, except under very extraordinary circumstances. If they are, they're wasting my money.