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.
Janet Reno fired 93 U.S. Attorneys but nobody really cared in the long run:
Source: Time.
Whereas, the Clinton Administration’s firing of 93 U.S. Attorneys had little effect, the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys will likely be a huge issue in the upcoming election season because it could mean political gains for the Democrats.
I wonder when President Clinton takes office, if she’ll refrain from firing U.S. Attorneys? We all know the answer is NO with any political patronage job.
(I predict Hillary Clinton wins because she has the most money and all of the primaries are now front loaded. It also preserves the status quo of alternating Bush/Clinton presidencies for the foreseeable future. Get ready for Jeb and Chelsea for president signs 2016 and beyond.)
I’m convinced both sides do and support the same things, but like to point fingers at each other in their “gotcha games.” I wonder if there are any Las Vegas odds on any political victor giving up their “spoils?” I’m sure it would be heavily weighted against that ever happening.
I used to not understand why people weren’t interested in politics, but the older I get, the more jaded I become. Both parties have become corrupt with their drunken orgy of power and like keeping the public so outraged that it keeps voter participation at 50% and lower levels. The Democrats acting outraged about something they did themselves when it was alleged they wanted to stop investigations into their corruption is pure hypocrisy. Unfortunately, the GOP is the same as the Democrats — they just haven’t had the same amount of time to steal as much.
The question is who can replace them and not become corrupted by the lure of easy money and all of the power that comes from being seated in Washington?
Chris —
At the start of every new presidential term, all US Attorneys are asked to resign. Some stay. Some go. Regan did this, Clinton did this, Bush I did this Bush II did this — but not other president has done this kind of witch-hunt with two years remaining in office.
Only Bush II has cherry-picked the firing of these US Attorneys for political gain because those attorneys were non-political and refused to do the White House’s bidding in either stopping prosecutions of Republicans or in refusing to investigate faked insinuations there was “voter fraud” only in districts where Democrats won.
Here’s the view from the Guardian citing, rather profoundly, Rove’s role in these political firings:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2035740,00.html
Gonzales himself claimed “mistakes were made” in firing the US Attorneys:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/washington/13attorneys.html
Here’s more information on the plan’s genesis from inside the White House. “USA” means “United States Attorney” and they are required by law to be non-political and impervious to political pressure or interest. They are not the president’s personal attorneys are not allowed to do his political bidding:
Doesn’t Chris make a good point that these people are corrupt and it doesn’t matter what political beliefs they hold. How can we get rid of them.
Hi Arin —
Yes, Chris is certainly right that all politicians are corrupt in some way. They’re corrupted mainly by money contributed to their campaigns and the biggest contributors expect to be “taken care of” by those they support.
So what’s the big deal if everyones doing it.
The big deal with the topic of today’s post, arin, is the fact that the Bush administration is unduly politicizing the US Attorneys for their narrow, and self-interested political ends. US Attorneys are required to be independent and not mandated by politics. They are required only follow the law.
I guess would be bad if the descisions the lawyers are making are done more like favors and not like the law.
I think you’re at the heart of it, arin, and when you don’t do the “favor” you get fired — and that’s not the way the justice and the law are required to be served.
I hope it all comes out and thanks for bringing this up.
Thanks for asking such great questions, arin! I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Hi David,
It’s just another sign that power corrupts and we always have to be on guard against anyone who is given authority, since the temptation is to always take advantage of it.
I agree, Chris! That’s why I’m so grateful we have a return to more of a checks and balances system. With the Democrat majority and the power once again to oversee and consult and subpoena — even against the wishes of the Executive Branch — is a welcome return to balancing the governing power in America.
I think the next two years are really going to be ugly for Bush and his ilk as more and more illegal threats and intimidation come seeping out of the woodwork.
The rule of law, not men, will save us all.
From The Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3175.html
From the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117423441606240747.html
Hi David,
It should be an interesting time these next couple of days. I was listening to John Gibson on the satellite for a few minutes earlier tonight and he said Bush should dump Gonzalez now to stop the scandal stories and because it was a bad move that hurt the GOP.
Have you seen the “unauthorized” Vote Barack Obama ad that is floating around the Internet? It’s very interesting — maybe Web 2.0 will make the difference in this election.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Hey Chris —
I’m not so sure Gonzales will leave. I think they will hunker down and hide their heads because if Gonzales goes — who will they be able to push through the confirmation hearings that will have the same unwitting loyalty to White House politics?
I’m hearing rumors of a Gore-Obama ticket. Now THAT would be interesting! The Denied and the Future seeking revenge in The Now. Delicious!
I did watch that Obama ad the other day. I thought it would’ve been even better if it were Gore and not Obama at its core. 😀 That would REALLY be breaking a new path from the past.
Hi David,
Now that you mention it, it would have been a perfect way for Gore to break from the past. I wonder if we’ll see anything interesting coming from Gore — after all his Current television channel solicits ground breaking video from young contributors every couple of minutes.
Chris —
Gore Watch will be ever-fascinating. He’d be smart to just hang around and watch and be available and then if there’s a move to be made in October, he might jump in to see what happens.
Gore/Hagel would also make a tempting duo. 😀
Anything to break up the alternating Bush – Clinton presidencies. 🙂
I’m with you on that, Chris! It’s enough of those two families. Let’s do something new and fresh and friendlier!
UPDATE:
Gonzales replacements are sought:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3202.html
From The Washington Post: