Unnamed “Republican strategist” says Gonzales is “finished”


#1

CBS News is reporting that an unnamed “Republican strategist” close to the White House says Gonzales is finished. Also joining the anti-Gonzales bandwagon is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher:

Pressure mounted on the White House Thursday to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the abrupt dismissal of U.S. attorneys. More Republicans called for his ouster, and one Republican strategist close to the White House told CBS News that Gonzales is “finished.”

Congressman Dana Rohrbacher became the latest Republican to say Gonzales should go, reports CBS News White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

hotair.com/archives/2007/03/15/unnamed-republican-strategist-says-gonzales-is-finished/

I think most people agree the issue is not firing the attorneys, it is misleading congress.


#2

originally posted by gilliam
I think most people agree the issue is not firing the attorneys, it is misleading congress.

IMHO, it’s both.
And Gonzales needs to be gone.
Thanks for the thread gilliam. I was hoping someone would post about this. I couldn’t because I’ve never figured out how to do that. :confused:


#3

Gonzales is going to have to resign on his own because the WH will not ask for his resignation.

Its very interesting that Clinton in '93 fired all 83 Attorneys and without so much as a wimper from the press. Geez, I wonder why, hmmmmm.

You need to know that the Prez doesnt need a GOOD reason to fire these people. They serve at his or her discretion period. That is why they are POLITICAL appointments.


#4

originally posted by StMarkEofE
You need to know that the Prez doesnt need a GOOD reason to fire these people. They serve at his or her discretion period. That is why they are POLITICAL appointments.

Well, thanks so much for telling me what I “need to know”, since you, obviously assume I’m ignorant. :mad:
The fact that the appointments AND the firings were political is a given.


#5

oh my :rotfl: C, you are too much


#6

Janet Reno fired all the Republican appointed attorneys but one I think. So I don’t think it is that.


#7

I understand what your saying…its all moot anyway…so how did he mislead congress?
I don’t think I’m all that fond of Mr Gonzales but wonder why he isn’t …I’m trying to be charitable…strong …just come out with it …not so ‘weak’


#8

My question is, while all of this political bull is going on ,and while the dems are trying to sell out our troops in Iraq and Afganistan, who is representing us, and running the country? I’m so tired of this samo, samo politics a usual, I could just scream.


#9

With respect, I think you are attributing thoughts to people that they don’t have. Yes, you can say that the firings by Gonzales were political–just the same as President Clinton firing the whole bunch (save one) and the employees in the travel office who are not politicians. And while they did that, they ruined reputations of some of those who worked in the travel office. All of their accusations were found to be untrue. Where does a guy go to get his reputation back?


#10

“Mr. Bush isn’t the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with his own appointments, reports CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante. At the beginning of his first term, President Clinton cleaned house, ousting all 93 U.S. attorneys, which is not unusual; they serve at the pleasure of the president. The difference this time is the charge that politics apparently played a role in their dismissal.”

This is a joke, right? Why should anyone believe that Mr. Clinton did not fire these attorneys for political reasons. For that matter, it ought to be common practice to fire these appointees at every change of Administration.

What is it that Gonzales did that is the problem. I’m not clear, except that he works for our President and many are determined to bring him down?

CDL


#11

I think that this set of firings caught someone’s attention and made the news because it did not happen close to the change of administrations. After all Mr. Bush was not just elected POTUS and they have been serving (apparently) adequately since his initial election. It really does not matter when he lets them go because they all serve at his pleasure anyway. Firing the top folks is common in state governments also, but some people are kept on for a while if a good replacement is not readily available.

I think the only real issue in this situation is that there were possibly some memos or emails flying about that might show inappropriate pressure was placed on the US Attorneys in question to do something improper “under color of law” which is a federal offense. I’m just going to wait and see if any real evidence shows up before getting excited.


#12

Jc,

I don’t like saying this but I don’t think Mr. Bush read or absorbed enough of Machievelli. It’s obvious the Dems all have and follow his examples fairly closely. But in an increasingly secular culture one must be willing to either be charged with trying to produce a theocracy and push ahead with it and win or push ahead with some other agenda. Leaders have to lead. Let the chips fall where they may.

In other words like so many other dreams left unfulfilled he should have fired them all the day he took office and got his own attorneys in there. He should have used the power he had. And when the show trials in this area and so many others come up those brought before the Senate to make them appear to be even the Republicans had better be ready to play hard ball.

CDL


#13

When the Republicans are in the White House, we have a parliamentary system with votes of confidence.

When the Democrats are in the White House, it’s different.


#14

If we get the pleasure of looking forward to hearings for the next two years against an administration that is not going to be there after the two years, while the “I hate Bush” crowd might be excited, I think it’ll backlash by turning off the general public. If the Democrats wanted the power, I don’t think the people wanted them to go on “witch hunts” but to govern better, not rehash old problems, which is among one of the old problems.

When it comes to Gonzales and the firings, unless there is some real strong and clear evidence of clear wrong doing, I don’t think it’ll seem to the public with little interest too much different from firings from the past. To me, the irony seems that if the offense was that prosecutors were not investigating Democrats fast enough, it seems all the Congress is interested in now is investigating Republicans as fast as possible.


#15

Clinton fired them when he entered office. Regan fired all of them when he entered office. Bush Sr. fired all of them when he took office. Bush Jr. did as well. It is common practice for Presidents to do this when they enter office. What is different here is that Bush is doing so in the middle of a term. This looks fishy. It looks like they are trying to prevent things from being investigated.


#16

It is well known that there is a law prohibiting the President from firing any of presidential appointees except when he takes office.

And that law is … ummm, well, hurrumph ] … well, I guess there is no such law.

[And why only nine???]


#17

It’s called to the general public (well if the Democrats keep these investigations up with no prudence to picking their battles) collecting up petty investigations, with a possible backlash in the next election. To the well informed observer who cares very much about their agenda, one is able to make distinctions fine enough for whatever suit the person, but the general voting public doesn’t care about those fine details, but will go on their general feeling.

Keep your eye on the poll numbers as to how to approval of congress. Bush is not being elected again, Congress is. The longer anything is dragged out, the less the outcome will actual matter for the administration’s active future.


#18

I guess it looks fishy when your goal in life (not you) is to cast shadows on an administration. The Dems have set out to punish the Bush administration since he took office and now that they are in power, they are only setting about doing what they have planned to do all along. I don’t know the inner reasons why those attorneys were fired, and neither do the posters on this subject. Was it political? Probably, just like the firing of the travel office employees when Clinton entered office. Didn’t hear much about that when those people’s reputations were being put through the wringer. I think most of us put the spin on it that we think in order to accommodate our political leanings.


#19

The Republicans are dmned if they do and dmned if they don’t.

The Republicans tolerated Foley who was known to be openly homosexual and the foil of practical jokes by the pages. The result of that tolerance was an “October surprise” that cost the Republicans control of both houses. If the Republicans had maneuvered Foley out years ago, they would have been blasted for being intolerant.

This business with Gonzales is just another attempt by the Democrat Party to get Bush to fire one of his own people and cause more disruption within the Executive Branch.


#20

The White House Travel Office scandal is another illustration of the Democrat Party’s efforts to not defeat the Republicans but to DESTROY them.

Someone recently attributed this campaign to destroy enemies of the Democrats (and more particuarly of the Clintons) as coming from the Saul Alinsky play-book.

Destruction as the goal is the reason they didn’t just fire the White House Travel Office staff, but instead brought criminal charges against them.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.