Some trolls answer their own questions.

Traitor

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

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.

How STUPIDE CAN YOU BE.

tomas on March 20, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Some trolls answer their own questions.

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

What the fark are you talking about????

You make about as much sense as a soup sandwich.

Jump on the president of your country and party…real badasses.

tomas

Do you believe conservatives jumped on the party and the president when they rejected Harriet Miers? Gonzalez is even worse.

What makes anyone think that a replacement AG would be any better than Gonzales?

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.

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.

I wish the congressman would not have said anything, Bush will now keep reconquista Alberto out of spite.

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

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.

because the perception will be that Bush is weak

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.

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.”

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

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.

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!!)

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.

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 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.

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.