Goodbye Gonzo

Alberto Gonzales, the president's unloved Attorney-General, seems to have resigned. Conventional wisdom started to congeal over the weekend that for a replacement Bush was going to try to find a relatively uncontroversial figure who'd have an easy time getting confirmed.

That might happen, but my best guess is that Bush will go out of his way to pick somebody fairly controversial -- someone whose confirmation liberals will find outrageous -- and then start loudly and immediately declaring that each hour's delay in confirming his nominee is putting thousands of lives at risk. The hope would be to generate one of these situations where all the Republicans plus maybe a dozen Democrats vote to confirm, and then progressives spend the next month arguing with themselves over it, and even the Democrats who reliable agree to surrender on anything terror-related get criticized in fall '08 for being soft on terror.

Comments

Why didn't they impeach the necrotic ALMF when they had the chance?

Indict!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 27, 2007 8:44 AM

that sounds completely implausible. the Dems are far too smart to let that happen.

Posted by cleek | August 27, 2007 8:45 AM

U.S. News & World Report's Washington Whispers seems to think Gonzales' replacement will be Michael Chertoff.

Posted by raff | August 27, 2007 8:50 AM

that sounds completely implausible. the Dems are far too smart to let that happen.

Thanks for my first laugh of the morning!

Posted by Matt Stevens | August 27, 2007 8:53 AM

"U.S. News & World Report's Washington Whispers seems to think Gonzales' replacement will be Michael Chertoff."

Yup. The WH has been floating Chertoff like crazy for the last week.

Posted by Petey | August 27, 2007 9:00 AM

I have a feeling it's going to be a "Cossacks work for the Czar" kind of day.

Posted by washerdreyer | August 27, 2007 9:03 AM

But who would be so bad that anyone would care, or even notice?.. Hm.. I've got it. Ted Nugent.

Posted by MattF | August 27, 2007 9:05 AM

Remember Chertoff's connections to torture (via Obsidian Wings commenter CharleyCarp).

Posted by KCinDC | August 27, 2007 9:05 AM

> Conventional wisdom started to congeal over the weekend that for a replacement Bush was going to try to find a relatively uncontroversial figure who'd have an easy time getting confirmed. That might happen, but

No, it won't. Please stop saying dumb shit.

Serious question: Why is it that Washington conventional wisdom always has it that this time, Bush is going to do the reasonable, moderate, conciliatory thing? When has he ever done that? His entire career has been a series of "fuck you" gestures - fuck you Dad, fuck you Iraq, fuck you Constitution, and especially fuck you Democrats. Why would anyone continue to float the idea that he's gonna be different this time, especially now that he's in cornered-rat territory both in the polls and in the media? Ted Nugent's actually a fair bet. Another fair bet would be Bernie Kerik, or making Cheney AG and appointing Nugent or Kerik VP. Anything that sounds totally batshit insane and self-defeating, attributable only to a petty desire for revenge is a fair bet with GWBush.

Posted by pdf | August 27, 2007 9:23 AM

Any guessing on the likelihood of a recess appointment right away? Just skip over that nasty checks & balances thing and install Chertoff until the end of the current congress...

Because, of course, fighting the terrorists to protect our way of life is just too important to worry about quaint niceties like Senate confirmation..

Posted by jp | August 27, 2007 9:24 AM

Now will ge go back to being the Bush's shoe-shine boy?

Posted by Nate | August 27, 2007 9:34 AM

i hear karl rove is available...

Posted by right | August 27, 2007 9:36 AM

Harriet Miers?

Posted by KCinDC | August 27, 2007 9:39 AM

"Any guessing on the likelihood of a recess appointment right away? Just skip over that nasty checks & balances thing and install Chertoff until the end of the current congress..."

I think one of the appeals of Chertoff to them is that they think they'll be able to get him confirmed.

Tangentially, one of the fascinating things about the post-11/06 Bush WH is that they seem to actually be putting "responsible Republicans" in position for the first time.

Folks like Chertoff, Gates, Crocker, and McConnell are actually decent choices to fill a GOP administration. They're wrong ideologically, but at least they're not the utter crazies we've seen for the past 6 years.

Posted by Petey | August 27, 2007 9:45 AM

If he wants to appoint a non-partisan, the obvious choice is Ann Althouse.

Posted by Jeffrey Kramer | August 27, 2007 9:47 AM

You've got to appreciate the genius that was Gonzales: He was given a task any sane man would have regarded as impossible, and not only accomplished it, but made it look easy.

I mean, a few years ago would YOU have thought liberals would develop an appreciation for John Ashcroft?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 27, 2007 10:25 AM

"I mean, a few years ago would YOU have thought liberals would develop an appreciation for John Ashcroft?"

So, if Cheney resigns for "health reasons", will they have to nominate Charlie Manson as the new VP to get folks to develop an appreciation for Cheney?

Posted by Petey | August 27, 2007 10:28 AM

America, it's time to tell the Democrats to stop their partisan bickering and put the safety of the nation first.

It's time they let Ted Nugent by our next Attorney General.

Posted by El Cid | August 27, 2007 10:37 AM

Is there room for improvement at Justice? With 20-20 hindsight can we spot areas in which we could have done even better? Is there someone who could bring to the table known knowns, master known unknowns, and identify unknown unknowns? Get thee behind him, Henny Pennys. The Master returneth.

Posted by Malcolm | August 27, 2007 10:51 AM

i predict... John Hinderacker

Posted by cleek | August 27, 2007 10:56 AM

It goes without saying that W. will appoint a Republican, and that even the best possible Republican he might choose will not be someone Democrats can actively support. It is enough that he appoint a half-way reasonable non-toady, who should be confirmed after enough pledges of non-whorishness: the Great Mentioner names seem to fit the bill. If W. does make a fuck you appointment, then Democrats should resist trumped-up urgency. We've gone with Gonzo for so long, can an empty chair be any worse?

Posted by CJColucci | August 27, 2007 11:13 AM

I just heard on the radio that he could make a recess appointment who could serve the rest of the Bush term.

Is this right?

Posted by spencer | August 27, 2007 11:16 AM

CJ, there are definitely Republicans Bush could get through the Senate, just not Republicans he would actually want. Bruce Fein, for example, would be good. Hell, any Republican senator would be confirmed unanimously, so Hatch or Specter or Cornyn would get through -- it's just that they wouldn't be reliably loyal to the president even at the expense of the party (though they do have tendencies that way).

Posted by KCinDC | August 27, 2007 11:20 AM

If the Democrats approve Chertoff, I don't know what I'll do. The guy should have been impeached for Katrina, is one of the top-5 Bush loyalists within the Administration, and would absolutely continue the Gonzales legacy of impeading every investigation against the Administration with everything he's got.

Obviously, Bush isn't going to nominate someone as independent as Bruce Fein. But the Democrats could at least require Bush to select someone from outside the Administration. Someone from the private sector, like Sec Def Gates, would be hugely preferable to a current Administration official who is, by definition, stained with the taint of the presiden'ts law breaking.

I heard Shumer talking about Chertoff on CNN this morning and, boy of boy, he sure didn't sound like he was ready to put up a fight.

Posted by owenz | August 27, 2007 11:35 AM

I just heard on the radio that he could make a recess appointment who could serve the rest of the Bush term. Is this right?

Spencer: Reid currently has an agreement in place with Bush for no recess appointments. Basically, Reid threatened to keep the Senate in session through vacations using some procedural maneuvors...and Bush agreed to stop with the recess appointents in exchange for Reid's promise to help get some stuck nominations moving.

While Bush obviously isn't to be trusted, I think Reid will be prepared to stop any recess appointment.

Posted by owenz | August 27, 2007 11:39 AM

Glenn Greenwald reports there was presumed to be an agreement between Harry Reid and Bush about recess appointments. Bush, of course can ignore same. Some up and down activity on recess appointments at various web sites. See GG for details.

Posted by mk | August 27, 2007 11:41 AM

I can't believe everyone has overlooked the obvious choice, Ann Coulter. She's available and clearly in need of a bigger platform.

Posted by bill | August 27, 2007 11:43 AM

Can someone explain to me why we even have "recess appointments"?

Maybe they made sense in the 18th century; today, they are merely a method by which the executive can bypass the checks and balances set forth in the Constitution.

Posted by Josh G. | August 27, 2007 11:49 AM

heard Shumer talking about Chertoff on CNN this morning and, boy of boy, he sure didn't sound like he was ready to put up a fight. Posted by owenz

Smarmy Chuck loves his fellow pro-immigration, Open Borders, Transnationalist Jew, Chertoff - and endorsed and ran interference for the guy in past Bush appointments. No doubt he would promise an "easy conformation" and no doubt that should be why Chertoff is not nominated.

If he is, watch the hearings be used by Republicans to debate Open Borders, Amnesty, and Chertoff's endorsement of giving away US assets to bolster Transnationalism - like our Dubai Ports Deal, putting the US under WTO authority, UN Committees in charge of sending refugees to America, Law of the Seas.

Ted Olson would be a good choice. Smarmy Chuck would have a hard time making his argument of "what's a few American lives compared to the civil liberties of hundreds of terrorists?" argument to Olson.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 27, 2007 12:06 PM

Can someone explain to me why we even have "recess appointments"?

Maybe they made sense in the 18th century

The latter answers the former (and many other puzzling idiosyncracies of the American political structure...)

Posted by djw | August 28, 2007 12:57 AM

Charlie Manson only order the deaths of dozens.

Posted by Gregorio | August 28, 2007 3:41 AM