Alberto Gonzales: The Morning After
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a make-or-break appearance yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. We covered his SJC testimony extensively. See here, here, and here.
If the Gonzales testimony were a Broadway show, today would be the morning after opening night, when the all-powerful Ben Brantley theatre critics weigh in. And based on the reviews (see links below), the Al Gonzales Show is the biggest disaster since Dracula the Musical. Will someone please drive a stake through the heart of AGAG’s tenure?
As you know, we love drama, and we love surprises. We were secretly hoping that Gonzales — who has never been a great public speaker (we’ve seen him) — would deliver a bravura performance, one that would resurrect his career, leaving his critics stunned and speechless. We were looking for a home run, a tour de force like Clarence Thomas’s Senate testimony, as described by Camille Paglia:
Make no mistake: it was not a White House conspiracy that saved this nomination. It was Clarence Thomas himself. After eight hours of Hill’s testimony, he was driven as low as any man could be. But step by step, with sober, measured phrases, he regained his position and turned the momentum against his accusers. It was one of the most powerful moments I have ever witnessed on television. Giving birth to himself, Thomas reenacted his own credo of self-made man.
But Alberto Gonzales is no Clarence Thomas — and his days as AG are numbered. Gonzales isn’t Spanish for “Souter”; it’s Spanish for “toast.”
Al, the President’s Man [Slate.com]
On a Very Hot Seat With Little Cover and Less Support [New York Times]
Gonzales Rejects Call for His Ouster [Associated Press]
Senators Chastise Gonzales at Hearing [Washington Post]
Gonzales Says He Didn’t Know Why Two Were Fired [Washington Post]
Roughed Up on the Hill [Washington Post]
(7) 
Comments
Yeah, cause it's just a fun drama -- no real consequences here ... Politicizing DoJ, turning the internship program into a wing of the Federalist Society, driving out competent lawyers, gutting the civil rights division ... no big deal, right? Go, Fredo!
Gonzales will remain Attorney General for as long as President Bush wants him to serve.
Presenting compelling evidence of Gonzales' mismanagement only *increases* the likelihood that this Administration will insist that he stays. One need look no further than Don Rumsfeld for a recent parallel.
Incompetence is the lifeblood of this Administration. Objective and unambiguous evidence of mismanagement and/or wrondoing is merely a distraction that is invariably met by outright denial and then half-truths that muddy the waters without reallly addressing or clarifying the underlyiing problems.
10:38: Umm, Rumsfeld got canned (even if they took their time about it).
The "Decider" on this was The President, that's clear -- at least in the sense that the decision to purge US Attorneys clearly came from THE WHITE HOUSE. The reason Gonzalez can't recall making any decision is because he didn't make any decision. He "signed off" on decision made by others. Rove is behind everything political that happens in this Administration. (We all know that when it is said that The President decided something, that means Rove told him what to do and he did it.)
Gonzalez is the fall guy here. The reason he needs to resign is that the Attorney General of the United States needs to be the head of the Justice Department, not a messenger boy for a White House political operative.
10:44:
This is 1:30 AM.
That was my point. It took years for them to absorb what was obvious to everyone. And, ironically, the more clear it became that Rumsfeld needed to go, the more they dug their heels in.
They didn't fire him until after the election (I believe). They might have saved the Senate for further Republican incompetence had he been let go (or had he "resigned) before the election.
Yikes. This is 1:22 and 10:38 AM.
I meant to say "This is 10:38 AM" in the last post.
I'm an idiot and any good points I might have made should be disregarded.
Why would anyone cite Camille Paglia to demonstrate anything? She's a raving nut.
Clarence Thomas won confirmation (narrowly) because no one had really thought about sexual harassment until that point. There were women lawyers back then who had been sexually harassed, and didn't even really understand that they had been harassed until Anita Hill testified. It is hard to imagine that any member of Congress had any idea what she was talking about or how debilitating and humiliating sexual harassment can be.