Tancredo: Gonzales must go; Update: Bush to speak at 5:45
posted at 2:53 pm on March 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
While not naming names, Politico predicted yesterday some hardline conservatives would use the U.S. Attorneys kerfuffle to punish Gonzo for his squishiness, especially on immigration.
Now comes a man…
Unlike others criticizing Gonzales over the recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the Colorado Republican said the embattled attorney general should go because of “a series of leadership failures” — chiefly his handling of illegal immigration prosecutions…
Tancredo said that he doesn’t believe Gonzales’ handling of the prosecutors’ firings alone warrants his dismissal, but “his total mishandling of the affair is simply the latest in a series of leadership failures at the Justice Department.”
Tancredo faulted several Justice Department decisions dealing with border crimes, including the prosecution of two border patrol agents for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler and trying to cover it up.
Exit question: Is Bill Richardson the anti-Tancredo? (Exit answer: Yes!)
Update: The Senate stripped Gonzales of his power to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval earlier this afternoon. The vote was emphatically bipartisan.
Update: Bush has called a press conference for 5:45. He phoned Gonzo this morning to reiterate his support, so if he’s out, it’ll have to be by, ahem, “resignation” instead of firing.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
There’s your conservatives standing up for your president. Disgusting. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend…friend.
tomas on March 20, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Rather than standing up to the Dems over this none issue of the dismissal of political appointee attorneys, the usual gang of spineless Republicans are rolling over, Tancredo among them. How disgusting… the Dems have these guys trained to fetch, roll over, and next play dead.
IntheNet on March 20, 2007 at 3:02 PM
If the NAU doesn’t like you, you don’t have a prayer.
lorien1973 on March 20, 2007 at 3:02 PM
It would be better to defend him with all you have. . then when the smoke clears, fire him.
- The Cat
P.S. Is Gonzales being squishie because he’s squishie, or is he following what Bush told him to do?
MirCat on March 20, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Eating their own.
Matticus Finch on March 20, 2007 at 3:08 PM
I think Bush’s squishiness since November has trickled down to everyone else. They are all pretty much gumbys these days.
lorien1973 on March 20, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Dam… I hate bogus news stories…
The Senate has to CONFIRM replacements… it has nothing to do with firing the current ones. Bush could fire every dam one out there, it would just be hard to get them all through the confirmation process…. They serve the President, he can still fire for no reason if he wants.
Romeo13 on March 20, 2007 at 3:12 PM
My personal plan is to spend the next year and a half shoving a sharpened screwdriver into the back of any conservative who doesn’t show the proper fealty to the True Conservative Agenda®. Once I have winnowed down the pack of so-called “Republicans” to my hand picked force of several hundred or so True Believers, we will march in force and vote affirmatively for Tom, or perhaps Ron Paul.
Look out Democrats. Our 213 votes united in purpose will smite your feeble 59,028,111 half-hearted votes for Hillary.
a4g on March 20, 2007 at 3:15 PM
One would think. Gonzo and Bush had attempted to end run that little bit of balance of power via the Patriot Act. The news is that the Senate has addressed this and closed that loophole by a vote of 94-2.
honora on March 20, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Actually, that’s the best justification I’ve heard yet for giving Gonzales the boot. While others, Bush included, are caving solely over Gonzales’ handling of the prosecutors’ firings, Tom at least acknowledges that isn’t the reason to throw him overboard - it’s the larger lack of leadership.
Tancredo-bash if you must, but he’s at least got it right, and I expect that his opinion will become the prevailing one as AG walks the plank.
thirteen28 on March 20, 2007 at 3:28 PM
BTW, AP, you should feel icky for linking to the Austin American Bird Cage Liner.
thirteen28 on March 20, 2007 at 3:29 PM
No wonder why none of the conservative candidates excite me.
I’ll revert to my childhood dreams and wish for a silky pony.
How many Americas are there?
Kini on March 20, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I’m not a huge AG fan, but I sure am tired of the president’s people getting walked off the plank by Republicans and Democrats alike. The president has a right to hire whomever he likes for his cabinet. Used to be, cabinet members had to do something heinous to get this kind of lynch mob treatment. Now, I wonder if the mob would try to get Condi fired for something like VPL (visible panty lines).
aero on March 20, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Allah, I love the Tancredo ’shop. Always makes me laugh, even when I was just lurking.
HAHA!!!
Bad Candy on March 20, 2007 at 3:51 PM
The democrats have two plays they run over and over…one is Vietnam, the other is watergate. The American people elect a President, the dems should learn to STFU for four years and do their effing job, not make war on our duly elected administration. When Clinton got himself into his OWN mess they accused us of a “vast right wing conspiracy”. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. I’m tired of just sitting back and taking this s#it over and over. If things don’t change, we will see civil war in my lifetime. The moonbats openly called for violent “resistance” just last weekend. I for one would like to see them try. I’ll be on the side of the gathering of (desert) eagles.
Buck Turgidson on March 20, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Gosh Darnit…if you want to get rid of him…you do it on YOUR YOUR YOUR TERMS…NOT The Fragging democrats. How STUPIDE CAN YOU BE.
tomas on March 20, 2007 at 4:01 PM
“The news is that the Senate has addressed this and closed that loophole by a vote of 94-2.”
The House has to agree by a veto-proof majority in case Bush vetoes i.
georgej on March 20, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Why are so many people supporting Gonzales? What has he done that’s worth standing up for? I’m serious. I have no affection for Gonzales at all.
DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 4:23 PM
I’ll wait to hear what President Bush has to say.
I hope he tells everyone to go to h….
(wishful thinking)
PinkyBigglesworth on March 20, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Hello. Die-hard Bush lovers. News flash: Bush is already reportedly looking for a replacement for Gonzales. Is that what you calling standing up for your friends? He is about as much a stand-up guy for Gonzales as he is a stand-up guy for border security. Sheesh. Can people ever bring themselves to admit Bush isn’t much of a conservative to begin with and maybe isn’t worth going to the mat for every single time? Not enforcing our borders, declaring Islam “a religion of peace,” essentially backing down on North Korea, signing McCain-Feingold into law, enacting No Child Left Behind, endorsing Harriet Miers, engaging in all around cronyism in terms of political appointments (ICE queen Julie Myers, Mike Brown for FEMA), etc. etc. I mean what isn’t to love about the guy?
tommy1 on March 20, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Tancredo is and has been standing up to the Democrats which is why he’s critical of Bush’s and Gonzalez’s Democrat-type ways. It seems to me that he has been very supportive of those rare conservative positions the president has taken.
Are we supposed to heartily support ineptness and destructive practices and policies if they have an “R” attached to them? Those whining about Tancredo are the same ones who were calling conservatives “backstabbers” when they opposed Harriet Miers.
Perchant on March 20, 2007 at 4:34 PM
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not so much supporting Gonzales as I am supporting the president’s right to hire and keep whomever he likes for his cabinet, as long as they’re not breaking laws. I have a problem with the Dems (and some Republicans) “going after” anyone and everyone in the Bush administration for virtually any transgression they perceive. If Gonzales is simply a poor leader, but he hasn’t broken any laws, then it’s up to the president and the president alone whether or not he wants to keep Gonzales on board. It’s not the choice of this bipartisan lynch mob that has formed to tear down the president’s choice of AG. I just see it as yet more disrespect for the office of the presidency. Gonzales may be a poor choice, but it’s Bush’s choice to make.
aero on March 20, 2007 at 4:35 PM
“Why are so many people supporting Gonzales? What has he done that’s worth standing up for? I’m serious. I have no affection for Gonzales at all.
DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 4:23 PM”
Because tossing Gonzales to the wolves only makes the Democrats will want more.
The professed intent of the Democrats is to discredit Bush enough by constant attacks to either (1) remove Bush from office before he leaves in 2009, or (2) insure electoral victory and recapture of the White House in 2008.
This isn’t about Gonzales, this is about preventing the Democrats from getting their way, as they did with Rumsfeld, and their using it to cement their political hegemony over all of us.
Regardless of how you feel about Gonzales or Bush, it is obvious that “appeasement” doesn’t work with Democrats any better than it works with Al Qaeda.
If Bush cannot or will not fight back, then he should resign and let Cheney be President.
georgej on March 20, 2007 at 4:41 PM
I, too, hope Bush doesn’t cave tonight and can Gonzales. It’s not because I love Gonzales (far from it), but because the perception will be that Bush is weak and that any member of his administration can be walked off the plank at will by members of either party for any reason at any time, and Bush will just meekly go along with it. We know that these kind of cave-ins result in feeding frenzies, and the Dems will spend the next six months seeing who else they can lynch.
aero on March 20, 2007 at 4:41 PM
I think Gonzales is a poor excuse for an AG; just as Bush is a poor excuse for a President.
Nonetheless, I totally agree with you. If you can’t command respect, give it up. It’s a shame this is where he may have to draw the line in the sand, but you gotta play the hand you’re dealt. (Yikes, talk about your mixed metaphors!!)
honora on March 20, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Janet Reno was waaaay worse than AG, and the libs threw her a dance party. When dems are in power they have their way. Republicans, not so much.
Buck Turgidson on March 20, 2007 at 4:53 PM
And therein lies the central problem - Bush will not fight back. And if he’s not going to fight for Gonzales, why should we - particularly when neither Bush nor Gonzales will fight for our interests on numerous issues? On issue after issue they’ve sold us down the river, and we’re supposed to come running to their side now? Uh-uh.
I understand and fully agree with the argument against appeasing democrats, but unfortunately the lack of balls by both Bush and Gonzales in responding to this “scandal” in the first place is exactly why they’re in this situation now. They have nobody but themselves to blame.
thirteen28 on March 20, 2007 at 4:53 PM
I was all set to go on record as being against Tancredo’s position after reading the headline. However, after reading the whole bit, I am in complete agreement with him. Firing Gonzales for the Dem’s or for the President’s exercise of his legitimate power is just plain stupid.
However, firing Gonzales for the multiple mistakes he has made and seemingly continues to make is fine by me.
Such an obviously good position it defies the label of “nuance.”
America1st on March 20, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Do you think anyone will care about that…heck no. This is so bad.
tomas on March 20, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Bush is already weak and was made so by his own design. It’s up to others to give the administration an infusion of strength.
We need an AG who will proudly and openly fire US Attorneys and will start with Johnny Sutton.
Perchant on March 20, 2007 at 5:09 PM
After watching Sandy Pants walk on what should have been a major felony charge, after watching what happened to Tom Delay, Scooter Libby and the lack of border enforcement, I think Gonzalez should have gone a long time ago.
Dave R. on March 20, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Still drinking the kool aid Tomas?
What is there to stand up for…he has betrayed conservatives at every turn not to mention the appointment of Mecha boy Gonzales.
ScottyDog on March 20, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Gonzales is part and parcel of the Bush open borders brigade and as such has tremendous power to circumvent the public will, that’s more than enough reason to say bu bye.
I wish the congressman would not have said anything, Bush will now keep reconquista Alberto out of spite.
Speakup on March 20, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Tancredo is, in my personal opinion, more harmful to the GOP than a help.
crosspatch on March 20, 2007 at 5:36 PM
What makes anyone think that a replacement AG would be any better than Gonzales? Bush is pretty hit-and-miss with his selections, after all. And evidence suggests he would most likely choose a replacement that is just as soft on immigration as Gonzales. That’s Bush’s policy, so he’ll look for an AG who has a similar point of view, don’t you think?
aero on March 20, 2007 at 5:44 PM
tomas: I understand your frustration, but don’t take the folks in Hot Air comment threads seriously. They’re a deluded fringe when an issue has even a slight relevance to immigration policy. A significant portion of this audience believes in the North American Union conspiracy peddled by a faction of the 9-11 Truther movement. These folks can’t see past Gonzales’ last name and immigration stance. They’re good folks, but this is their weakness. They’re 100% Kool Aid Maniacs with this stuff. The truth is most of these folks are jumping up and down with delight at this scalping. Never mind that it doesn’t change anything. Never mind that it has no impact on anything anywhere. It’s the blood they want.
If Gonzales goes Bush will appoint an interim clone of Gonzales until he finds a replacement that’s even better. Like Ted Olsen. But Bush won’t fire Gonzales, so it doesn’t matter.
The Apologist on March 20, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I understand I find it ludicrous that they attack Bush with such violence and yet run and hide with the democrats. Jump on the president of your country and party…real badasses.
tomas on March 20, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Hard to imagine that the replacement could be any worse than Gonzalez but I guess it would prove the point that Bush isn’t worth defending.
If the replacement who Bush selects is at all decent, he won’t be confirmed with the new Democrat majority in the Senate. After the first two or three rejected nominees, the red state Democrat senators will be feeling the pressure to confirm an AG. Bush should choose a couple of pitbulls who would be willing to make war on the Democrat senators as his first nominees-to-be-rejected. Bush won’t do it and this will end badly so I think you are probably right.
Perchant on March 20, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Do you believe conservatives jumped on the party and the president when they rejected Harriet Miers? Gonzalez is even worse.
Perchant on March 20, 2007 at 6:44 PM
What the fark are you talking about????
You make about as much sense as a soup sandwich.
thirteen28 on March 20, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Some trolls answer their own questions.
Buck Turgidson on March 20, 2007 at 11:43 PM
I hope Gonzalez gets the boot…he hasn’t upheld the law since he began his job. TANCREDO is right…the rest of you continue to carry water for Bush as he gives your country away…what a bunch of fools…………
Mellen on March 21, 2007 at 1:06 AM
The way it was, the president could fire one attorney and appoint another on a temporary basis, the thing is, that temporary basis lasted as long as he wanted it to, thus effectively eliminating the Senate confirmation process.
I’m not complaining about that mind you. Lord knows I’m all for the president stealing power away from the jackals after all they’ve stolen from his branch.
Wolfman on March 21, 2007 at 7:03 AM
Traitor
tomas on March 21, 2007 at 8:19 AM
A dictionary might solve both your problems, dude. I can’t help you.
Buck Turgidson on March 21, 2007 at 10:34 AM