The political prosecution of eight United States Attorneys by Alberto Gonzales’ Depart of Justice is blowing up the Bush presidency more than the immoral war in Iraq ever could because this issue is something everyone can understand and rally against as being un-American in its core. The Washington Post reports Gonzales’ days are numbered as Bush’s loyal legal lapdog because Republican support for the president’s pernicious policies is finally aching away:
WASHINGTON — The White House dropped its contention Friday that former Counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys, blaming “hazy memories” as e-mails shed new light on Karl Rove’s role. Support eroded further for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Presidential press secretary Tony Snow previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea, but he said Friday, “I don’t want to try to vouch for origination.” He said, “At this juncture, people have hazy memories.”
Here’s deeper analysis of precisely why Gonzales, Bush and Rove have created such a political monster of a problem as detailed in The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok by Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan:
The Harms of Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials
1. Political profiling makes Democratic officials look like they are more corrupt than Republicans, just as racial minorities are made to look more corrupt than whites by the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies. However, the data on state-wide, U.S. Congress, and U.S. Senate elected officials do not support this claim.
2. Political profiling of local Democratic elected officials attacks the party at the very grassroots essence of its personality.
Each local case of reported or insinuated corruption by the federal authorities eats at and saps the local Democrat’s energy to be the grassroots leader of the party and drains his or her resources in defense against the comparative unlimited resources of the federal government.
3. Political profiling discredits each candidate’s persona as a viable leader of and spokesperson for the local Democratic party.
4. Political profiling weakens the candidate’s ability to raise monies for themselves when seeking re-election and negates their ability to raise money for other democratic candidates.
5. By keeping political profiling at the local level — in this way the story is most likely not to be viewed nationally — it makes it harder for reporters to connect the dots between corruption investigations in say Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, or Philadelphia let alone towns like Carson, Colton, East Point, or Escambia, or counties like Cherokee, Harrison, Hudson, or Lake. Each local report of a corruption investigation appears as only an isolated incident rather than as a central example of a broader pattern created by the Bush Justice Department’s unethical practice of political profiling.
This is going to be a difficult matter for the Bush administration to overcome because there is internal email verification of this plot against Democrats — that the White House itself publicly released — going as far back as 2005 with Karl Rove appearing to dictate the decision-making policy in the Department of Justice.
Watch the change in strategy from the White House as they attempt to bury this new Rove matter by suddenly appearing more “open” to discussions and public debate with the Democratic majority on tapping out of Iraq.