Unnamed “Republican strategist” says Gonzales is “finished”
posted at 8:48 pm on March 15, 2007 by Ian
CBS News is reporting that an unnamed “Republican strategist” close to the White House says Gonzales is finished. Also joining the anti-Gonzales bandwagon is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher:
Pressure mounted on the White House Thursday to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the abrupt dismissal of U.S. attorneys. More Republicans called for his ouster, and one Republican strategist close to the White House told CBS News that Gonzales is “finished.”
Congressman Dana Rohrbacher became the latest Republican to say Gonzales should go, reports CBS News White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I am sooooooooo sick of the spineless Republican party.
hindmost on March 15, 2007 at 8:59 PM
He should go. He couldn’t even defend himself! He kowtowed to the Left and he deserves to be thrown out.
TheBigOldDog on March 15, 2007 at 9:09 PM
How about this:
I am sooooooooo sick of the spineless Republican party, that he should go. He couldn’t even defend himself! He kowtowed to the Left and he deserves to be thrown out.
right2bright on March 15, 2007 at 9:19 PM
If Bush can not mount an effective defense of this decision to replace 8 federal prosecutors, then Bush is finished.
rockhauler on March 15, 2007 at 9:20 PM
He’s been finished since November
lorien1973 on March 15, 2007 at 9:38 PM
I think it would be more correct to say that others are jumping on Rohrabacher’s bandwagon. He’s been threatening impeachment and investigations into Mexico’s influence on the DOJ.
If Gonzalez did resign, it might be hard for Bush to get a new one confirmed. There are things going on there that would need to be “kept in the family”, and another Texas crony wouldn’t be acceptable to the Democrats or the Rohrabacher Republicans.
Perchant on March 15, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I agree that the lack of defense is appauling, but look at the source of the charge:
CBS News? CBS News? {Dan Rather, Memo Gate?}
How about any news organization?
Clintion fired over 90, President Bush, by his Constitutional authority, just let 8 go.
And what to we here?
Screams from the left, and lo and behold, from the press, “Outrage”, “Scandal”, “Fire Him”, “Impeachment”
People, we are in a war for our country’s survival between illegal immigration and the terrorist’s war against us.
It is clear that the left, politicians and media alike, want us to loose those wars, just to regain power, at ANY cost.
That being the case, when ever anyone from the left or the MSM speaks out of their “pie hole”, our first reaction should be, “I call bullsh”T” on you, prove your case or shut the hell up”.
“Anonymous sources”, give me a break.
If we don’t give these political hacks credibility, they won’t have it.
And this will not stop for the next two years.
I just hope President Bush and his Administration grow “a pair” so we can put some of these people in their prospective places………
My 0.02………….
PinkyBigglesworth on March 15, 2007 at 9:47 PM
And I’m finished with Bush… as my back is locking in the bent position and I’m almost out of soap.
If it takes Rudy to roll back the Rosie O’Donnell (Stalinist) left, then bring it on, Rudy!
petefrt on March 15, 2007 at 9:57 PM
AAAaargh!
Remember when Rove was finished? Remember when Cheney was toast? Bush and Gonzales better grow some, and damn soon.
How about firing all of the remaining US attorneys named by Clinton, and do it tomorrow. Better yet, do it in the middle of the night. Bush’s reason? Schumer pisses him off.
Eat that Dems, you whining, ever-complaining, ever-investigating, pack of jackals.
[vent over]
fogw on March 15, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Seems like we’ve reached a tipping point. So many of us have become so completely fed up with the Admin at the same time – And, it’s not just here – if Bush doesn’t grow a pair in a hurry he’s in for a very rough ride and there won’t be anybody there to help.
TheBigOldDog on March 15, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Bush was finished with his very first budget. The exploding spending proposals were a strong indicator of where he would end up. Conservatives howled back then to the deaf ear of Karl Rove. We are still howling at a brick
wallhead. He and his father will go down in the bottom 10% of presidents even though they are both decent men.Valiant on March 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Bush will kick Gonzales to the curb this week and then roll out the red carpet for Amedinejad next week in NY during his UN appearance. A class A-hole sellout Bush has become. @008 can’t come fast enough.
roninacreage on March 15, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Not quite. Just like the war in Iraq, not yet won, not yet lost, and the surge is working. Any let up, and we lose what little we’ve gained.
Same with domestic politics:
Conservatives must field a creditable candidate who can defend free market capitalism,
Christian values, and the rule of law, and free public education from the strangled hold leftist have on it, otherwise we will have 8 years of Hillary as president.
What follows from that will be the demise of conservativism as a political force and changes in the United States beyond anything we can imagine.
rockhauler on March 15, 2007 at 10:19 PM
I never like Gonzales in the first place, he’s a wuss and never should have been appointed in the first place. Bush choosing him was nothing more than pandering to hispanics, just like his stop in Mexico the other day. No I’m not anti-hispanic, (my fiance is in Colombia and we are waiting for her visa LEGALLY), I’m anti-panderer. They could get rid of both of these tools of the Mexican invasion and I’d have no problem with it. Maybe a little more stem cell research and we can actually figure out how to grow some huevos for these 2 spinless whimps.
NeverSubmit on March 15, 2007 at 10:25 PM
How is it possible that the Dems invent administration scandals out of nothingness meanwhile Dems with bribe money in thier freezer run committees in the most ethical congress ever?
Resolute on March 15, 2007 at 10:26 PM
When a US attorney refuses to investigate voter fraud they damned well better be fired, but of course the Dems can’t handle that because it was Democrat voter fraud that will be investigated by a new appointee!
NeverSubmit on March 15, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Suppose Gonzalez does get fired. Would the next move be that the nutroots demand that the 8 U.S. attorneys get their jobs back?
Kokonut on March 15, 2007 at 10:48 PM
If he resigns or is fired, I will NOT vote for a Republican in 2008. My vote will go to a Libertarian.
SouthernGent on March 15, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Hello to AP, Bryan, Ian and the rest of the HA crowd.
Those who’ve watched Pirates of the Carribean will remember the scene when Jack Sparrow (Depp) and Will Turner (Bloom) have an absolutely fantastic sword fight, which ends abrubtly when Sparrow whips out a pistol, whereby Turner exclaims “You cheated!”. Sparrow merely gives a small shrug, a smirk, and then says simply “Pirate”.
This is perfectly analogous with the Dems and GOP.
One side has amorality damn near written into the party platform, while the other has a code of conduct.
One side has absolute freedom of movement, while the other is constrained by worries of what others will think, and further, allow the other side to be the “others”. (Does that make sense?)
Putting the analogy aside, clearly the Dems aren’t afraid to caucus in private, plan their work and then work their plan. Not constrained by morality, their hypocrisy in being silent when Reno fired all 92 US attorneys doesn’t stop them from feigning outrage at 8 select firings by Gonzales, outrage made barely credible by an accomodating press. To even an average mind, this is just an attact on Bush by proxy. You would think that the college educated, well heeled millionaire’s club that litters the GOP would see this and react properly.
But no. Constrained by fear of what others will think of their reaction, the GOP finds itself with it’s finger in the breeze, trying to find the path of least resistance, with the most weak kneed actually siding with Dems and calling for Gonzales’s head. Ugh.
Why don’t the GOP caucus in private, and come up with a co-ordinated response to this kink of attack. The most weak-kneed could be forced to put their love of the camera aside and remain silent, while the staunch state the obvious in unison and lockstep. It’s taking a page from the opponents playbook without losing the moral high ground.
Let’s see. The last time the GOP co-ordinated a message, the result was the Gingrich revolution, not a bad result. That kind of success could be had again, but it would require at least one GOP’er with a set of stones in a seemingly neutered party.
He’s been finished since November
lorien1973 on March 15, 2007 at 9:38 PM
They’ve been finished since they went, en masse, to the vet for said neutering.
OneEyedJack on March 15, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Well, I’m thankful there were enough protests back in 2005 that Gonzales never made it as a nominee for the Supreme Court.
Remember this and this and this?
In the second link:
From the last link:
It could have been worse, folks, it could have been worse.
INC on March 15, 2007 at 11:00 PM
As an aside, with all the talk recently about Fred Thompson I had forgotten this interesting item from the second link from July of 2005:
INC on March 15, 2007 at 11:01 PM
While I won’t miss Gonzales at all if he does go, as he is totally inept IMO, it’s the way he’s being forced out that really gets under my skin. Just when you think this administration can’t get any more spineless, they surprise you with even more.
I’m am disgusted beyond belief, these guys have no balls whatsoever. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
thirteen28 on March 15, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Let me clarify my comments above as I realize I didn’t connect the dots (the sleep lag from Daylight Savings is catching up with me). I did the links because I don’t have a very good opinion of Gonzales.
However, I find it highly ironic that Bush stood up for him when Gonzales was criticized by conservatives in 2005 and now there are these rumors that Gonzales will be gone when the libs are helping to hunt him down.
Go figure.
INC on March 15, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Bush is very strong against his own base. The Minutemen are “vigilantes”, Tancredo will not darken the door of the White House again, Specter over Toomey in the primaries,
comprehensive immigration reformationamnesty… the list is almost endless. Yet conservatives have carried his and the neocons’ water for 8 years.Valiant on March 15, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Let me be concise this time…
Tossing Gonzales under the wheels of the bus just because he is the one Dems are attacking now just validates the tactics the Democrats use to smear Republicans.
Remember DeLay? Tossed for having connections to people who give money to PACs? Notice the double standard for Barney Frank.
How about the attempt to toss Speaker Hassert? For not doing enough pro-actively to stop Foley from E-mailing “icky” messages to ex-pages who were of age?
Who defended him? /cricketts chirping
What about Foley? The Dem’s equivalent was Stubbs, who buggered an underage page, belligerently stayed in office, was backed by the dems, and re-elected.
Get the point? Your personal views (which seem to be underwhelming re Gonzales) aside, to toss the man under the wheels just because he is the Bad Guy du jour doesn’t make any sense.
It validates the tactic of picking off the right side of the aisle one by one, and the overall picture of “culture of corruption” is made by the absence of the victims of these attacks. After all, who would toss an innocent person?
Exit point: Whatever your opinion of Gonzales, recognise the game that is being played, and play your part, or shut your pie holes. There is an active pro and con, and silence is the only neutral.
OneEyedJack on March 15, 2007 at 11:41 PM
If Bush tosses Gonzales out over this then there is no redemption for him but I don’t think he will. Bush is having problems finding people who will follow his open borders for drug smuggler policy and if he fires Gonzales he won’t be able to put another North American Trade Union type in during the rest of his term. The Democrats will fight him, the conservatives will fight him and it will never get done.
And OneEyedJack we don’t have to shut our pie holes now that we no longer “carry water” for Bush and the NeoCons. Thats the price the GOP must pay for kicking conservatives in the teeth, we can speak our minds.
Buzzy on March 16, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Buzzy, you are right.
Perhaps it would be better stated if I said that our political class should learn the games of politics and play their roles.
I differentiate between the the two definitions of politics as I see them, where one is the enacting of policy, and the other is the getting and keeping of power. The second is the only game in town apparently, and you and I subscribe to the first.
If I’ve offended the average Schmo, who has no recourse but the biennial vote and venting in the comments section of a blog, mea culpa
OneEyedJack on March 16, 2007 at 12:20 AM
we need a new political party, and soon. How about the NRA party.
sonnyspats1 on March 16, 2007 at 12:36 AM
I was never a fan of Gonzales from the first announcement of his nomination, Most of what he has done has been a big disappointment, to me, so I wouldn;t mind seeing him replaced by a tough conservative interested in enforcing laws and working to maintain American soverignty and saftey.
The leftys should be cheering Gonzales for 90% of his actions and decisions.. And the one thing that they really want to call him on now is so minor, so legal, with a clintonian precident that makes this one seem completely insignificant.
A good AG would have at least 5 treason, 50 sedition, a hundred bribery and fraud trials and much more going at this time.
LegendHasIt on March 16, 2007 at 2:14 AM
Doubt we’ll see a tough conservative AG interested in enforcing laws and working to maintain American soverignty and safety till we elect a President who has those same traits.
Would be nice though, a guy can dream.
Buzzy on March 16, 2007 at 2:55 AM
WTH has happened to Bush since november. I still can’t believe he said republicans got a Whuppin. He better not sell Gonzales out. He needs to back him..those US attorney’s serve at the pleasure of the president regardless. No other president has been scrutinized this bad.
It’s time that the white house pushes back and says hands off especially now that the dems are crying for a new committee to scrutinize gonzales. This is such a waste and all these committees are turning the presidency into a joke.
Highrise on March 16, 2007 at 4:08 AM
Hmmmm..found it interesting that I read this just before I read the following out of Proverbs 16:
“1 To man belong the plans of the heart,
but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
2 All a man’s ways seem innocent to him,
but motives are weighed by the LORD.
3 Commit to the LORD whatever you do,
and your plans will succeed.
4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends—
even the wicked for a day of disaster.
5 The LORD detests all the proud of heart.
Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.
6 Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for;
through the fear of the LORD a man avoids evil.
7 When a man’s ways are pleasing to the LORD,
he makes even his enemies live at peace with him.
8 Better a little with righteousness
than much gain with injustice.
9 In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps.”
As a Christian, I have hope in the eternal even though I am extremely frustrated with the political now. I thank GOD this is all temporary!
Centurion68 on March 16, 2007 at 6:37 AM
BigOldDog,
My tipping point was 2 or 3 years ago. Bush and his admin are invertabrates.
Invasion from Mexico, PC war in Iraq, no defense of John Bolton, the list goes on and on.
What is worse, Libs/Dems that are treasonous or RINOS/Repubs that claim to be Conservative and are freakin’ jellyfish? The final destination and result will be the same: Turd World status for Americo.
We need a real conservative party. It has become next to impossible to support todays Republicans.
mountainmanbob on March 16, 2007 at 7:53 AM
Think about this one: if Gonzales resigns, WHO will GWB nominate in his place? And the scary thought: it’s going to have to be someone who can get past the Democrats in a Senate confirmation.
pullingmyhairout on March 16, 2007 at 9:00 AM
You guys are so silly with your convoluted “Well Clinton fired all 93 attorneys and Bush only fired 8″ logic.
I mean it’s true, I’ll give you that much, but it’s hardly relevent. USA’s are political appointees and are usually change when the administration changes. When Clinton was elected he fired all of Bush Sr.’s USA’s and hired his own. Regan did the same thing, it’s common practice.
What’s not common is to fire your own USA’s simply because you feel they aren’t toeing the party line close enough. That is sketchy and that is why there is controversy.
JaHerer22 on March 16, 2007 at 9:09 AM
JaHerer22,
the USA’s serve at the will of the POTUS. It doesn’t really matter when they are fired. If they aren’t towing the party line, that’s reason enough. Sketchy or not.
pullingmyhairout on March 16, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Give me a break, JaHerer22! Clinton replaced 93 INCLUDING the US Atty who was investigating White Water and replaced him with a women who conviniently couldn’t muster a single indictment years later….humm? Also, these US Atty’s are basically “at will” employees. So Clinton wipes them all out in one swoop….THAT is unprecedented! Carter and Reagan had many US Atty holdovers. Probably because replacing them ALL at once puts undo stress on their open investigations, it stress the confirmation commitees (93 at one time!!) You are the blind and silly one if you think that there is ANYTHING wrong with these terminations but cant find a single fault in Slick Willy terminating one who is investigating HIM! Talk about convoluted thoughts.
This is just the next calculated distraction of the People for Democrats. With the Libby case (for all intents and purposes) is behind us and the media needs its next plate of red-meat-conspiracy to push against the White House so that they dont have to report on the piss poor ‘leadership’ of the Democrats. See, its not so terrible convoluted, its pretty easy to see and understand.
OSUBuciz1 on March 16, 2007 at 9:25 AM
JaHerer22,
And furthermore, what Reno did was very unusual. Instead of waiting for the resignations of the holdovers and then accepting them in a slow fashion (in order to not be disruptive), she fired them in one clean swoop. I think most people are just really upset that the MSM and the democrats have such a selective memory. It’s yet another reason for the distaste and distrust that many people have for the MSM and the democrat party – do as I say, not as I do. Typical democrat bullsh*t.
pullingmyhairout on March 16, 2007 at 9:41 AM
:
And if they had said as much from the get-go (well maybe not the towing the party line part, but just hey, we don’t have to give a reason) there would have been a minor flare-up (maybe). But no, this WH’s motto appears to be “never miss an opportunity to lie about stuff when the truth would be fine”.
Famous Casey Stengal line: “Doesn’t anybody here know how to play this game?” If this administration was a horse, you’d put it out of its misery.
honora on March 16, 2007 at 9:48 AM
I think you have it backwards–people weren’t upset that Reno fired everyone and parenthetically without a solid replacement plan/timetable–people accepted the firings as not that unusual when a new party takes over (at the end of the day, call it what it is: patronage); people were upset at the sloppy, ill-conceived manner in which it was carried out as you describe.
honora on March 16, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Again you miss the basic point: Clinton fired all of Bush Sr.’s USA’s and hired his own; Bush fired his own USA’s.
Yes he has the right to do that, but it’s not exactly standard operating procedure and it’s bound to garner unwanted attention. Before you make any comparison you must acknowledge the difference between firing political appointees from the previous administration, and firing the appointees you yourself hired just a few years ago. I’m not saying you can’t make a comparison, but if you are going to do so with any sort of intellectual honesty you must admit this is a key difference.
And as honora said, it’s not so much the fact Bush fired them, as it is his prerogative to do so, it’s how he did it. Instead of just announcing he was replacing these USA’s because (insert focus-grouped reason here), he tried to be all sneaky and behind the scenes about it. Even if he didn’t have anything to hide, the way he went about it makes it look like he did.
JaHerer22 on March 16, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Usually? Who else has ever fired the lot of them? Ever? Is once usually in your vernacular?
Pablo on March 16, 2007 at 10:56 AM
“Because I felt like doing it” is sufficient explanation.
Pablo on March 16, 2007 at 10:57 AM
NeverSubmit’s statements exemply why I think Gonzales is finished, even though there was no wrongdoing in the firing of the attorneys. Gonzales never had the wholehearted support of the Republican base, in part because he was hired as a friend of Dubya with thin credentials, but also because he was awowedly pro-illegal, bringing into question his commitment to enforcing what pathetically weak laws we have to provect ourselves against the illegal invasion.
I, for one, will be happy to see this pathetic flunky’s public departure, although I wish it had been earlier at Dubya’s instigation and not at the heels of a slavoring Democrat lynch mob. His maladroit handling of the manufactured controversy suggests why he should never have been hired in the first place, and his sorry hide is not worth using up presidential capital to save.
ptolemy on March 16, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Pablo: think this through. The USAs in place are Bush appointees. How do you think this happened? Bush replaced Clinton’s as Clinton replaced Bush 1′s. Reagan did the same thing. Patronage.
honora on March 16, 2007 at 11:16 AM
83% believe in the MSM “selective memory”!
OSUBuciz1 on March 16, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Only every President ever. When a new President comes in all political appointees from SecDef to USA’s either resign or are fired.
Agreed. But did Bush even say this? Nope, just lies and deception.
JaHerer22 on March 16, 2007 at 11:29 AM
It doesn’t matter what Mr. Bush or any conservative says. “How to please a Democrat” is an impossible task, therefore a futile one. The reverse probably just as true.
Entelechy on March 16, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I remember when there were MEN in the republican party. Men with balls and testosterone. No more, just spineless ‘girlie men’. The party is a disgrace and learned nothing from the 2006 elections. Looks like we will be kissing the presidency goodbye in 2008. As if we have the presidency now. Bush should resign for the good of the party.
Wade on March 16, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I can’t even refer to Bush as President Bush as that refers to leadership, of which Bush has none any more.
Wade on March 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Girl, watch your thoughts/tendencies, for your own good.
Wade, there will be Fred Thompson. Cheer up. The alternative is Socialism.
Entelechy on March 16, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Hey girl: you’re not referring to the “thought police” are you? I thought this was what you folks accused my side of being? (Sorry for the torturous syntax…)
honora on March 16, 2007 at 12:33 PM
No honora, not the thought police, just the thought capability of us humans – just looking out so you don’t get yourself in trouble :)
Entelechy on March 16, 2007 at 12:56 PM
You Know… I was going to say that there’s no reason for Gonzales to resign….
But I tell you what. When your AG can’t effectively defend his perfectly legitimate actions and make his opponents look like the fools they are…
Yeah. He really does need to go. There are Millions of Attorneys in the US. surely, Bush could find 1 Republican Attorney that is a good prosecutor, AND doesn’t take crap from his political enemies?
Jones Zemkophill on March 16, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Bush is so lost he is not capable of making a decision to find another Attorney General. That would require leadership. Well, maybe he could find one in Mexico as he thinks more of Mexicans than he does USA Citizens.
Wade on March 16, 2007 at 1:54 PM
o.k., i’ll admit that it’s a key difference, but SO WHAT?? Bush is the CEO of the U.S. he can hire and fire the USA’s any time he wants to. Big deal if it’s someone he hired. if the guy’s not towing the line, get rid of ‘em. it’s what any good CEO of any decent corporation would do.
So now it’s ok to call congressional hearings, fire the AG and other subordinates because of how something was done?? never mind if it was illegal, if the process pisses off the democrats, then by god almighty, CALL A HEARING!!
sheesh.
pullingmyhairout on March 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM
I meant to say “never mind if it was legal.”
pullingmyhairout on March 16, 2007 at 3:04 PM