It's a sign of how bad things are that I'll bet more than a few here stopped and thought, "hhhhhhmmmmmmmm, y'know that's not the worst idea I've heard...."
The rumor I'm hearing is that the White House is looking for a fight. That sounds ridiculous--it did even to me, at first--so hear me out... The theory is being pushed by Ed Gillespie, who effectively has "replaced" Rove as the top political strategist. The argument goes that, no matter what, the Democrats are going to come out swinging in a confirmation battle and hit on and at everything possible. Even if the White House picked a moderate Republican or conservative Democrat, Senate Democrats would question that nominee on past Administration actions relentlessly. So, no matter what, the White House is going to get beat up here. So Gillespie and some around him allegedly believe that it's best to pick a stalwart conservative, argue that "the old guard" (Gonzales, Miers, Rove, etc.) are gone--replaced by Bolten, Gillespie, et al.--and fight hard to get the confirmation, thereby rallying the GOP base this fall as we head toward the presidential primaries. With that being said, Chertoff is (or should be) a no-go because it brings up Katrina and it causes a second confirmation fight. And I've yet to hear any tangible names associated with this "let's welcome the fight" theory (Larry Thompson keeps popping up more and more, but I don't know if he falls into that category). Clement, himself might ultimately be the answer.
I'm sure Congressional Republicans are thrilled about the possibility of "fighting it out". If this administration had any sense, they'd propose a moderate Republican with little or no ties to the current administration, take their lumps in the confirmation proceedings, and move on.
Someday I'd love to see one of these asshole politicians float the theory that the administration should do what is best for the country, not what is best for the next asshole politician with the same letter behind his name who is running for a political office.
To quote Poppy "nat gonna happen." Bushies don't trust non-Bushies including Poppy's crew. 1st & foremost you have to be a Bush azz-kisser to get anywhere. Does Abu Gonzalez have a kid brother who just graduated from Liberty Law School?
Actually, I think you be surprised. Congressional Republicans wouldn't want to "fight" for a perceived Bush lackey like Gonzales or Miers. But Gillespie's argument is that the GOP and Bush are going to get battered no matter what, so put forth a stalwart conservative with impeccable legal credentials and make Democrats try to embarrass him. In other words, the White House recognizes that congressional Republicans are going to have to "fight" no matter what, so they (Gillespie) figure that you might as well give them something worth fighting for. Thompson's name is coming up, as is the more conservative Ted Olson. Again, I bought into this argument to begin with, but I'm leaning more toward Gillespie's theory now. The Democrats are going to try to "win" this no matter who gets nominated and there will be a fight. So the White House has put congressional Republicans in the position of defending terrible nominees (Miers) in the past. If they "gave in" this time, they'd put them in the position of defending a non-conservative and maybe even a Democrat--it'd be a paradox. The party is reeling and, truly, with Gonzales and Rove and Miers gone, the house has been cleaned. If a conservative with the right credentials will take the job, now would be a good time to nominate him. Well, that's not what this is completely about. Given a choice, GOP Senators and the White House would think that a conservative with excellent credentials (read: not Gonzales or Miers) is what's best for the country. The political calculations are a factor or an additional consideration. Though you might be right that a moderate doesn't get the nomination, your reasoning doesn't really hold. The "crew" is gone... Rove, Gonzales, Miers, etc. aren't there anymore and Bolten and Gillespie want to show their authority and influence by nominating an outsider. Whether that's a conservative outsider or a centrist/moderate outsider is open to debate and there are different reasons to pick one or the other, but it's not going to be someone who is perceived as a Bush 43 insider. The point I'm trying to make in all my posts here is that, with Gillespie and Bolten truly at the helm right now, you may see a bit of a new mentality.
The fact that they trot out the most convuluted, biased statistic that they can pull from all the data and parade it around as some kind of a vindication of the leadership of Gonzalez and Ashcroft.
I'm well aware of the history behind the Saturday night massacre but thanks for the condescending tone. Those of us who try to know the facts know that he only thought about offering his resignation AFTER the firing so it wouldn't look like he was Nixon's lacky just for the sake of a better job. Bork's actual thought on the subject was....."I believe a President has the right to discharge any member of the Executive branch." In other words, Bork believed that Nixon could fire Cox....the very person investigating Nixon....a belief not shared by Richardson...who up to then had been a stalwart Nixon ally..... or Ruckelshaus. Regardless of how you may want to spin it, Bork caved and did Nixon's bidding. I won't excuse that firing for a second.
Do those figures include Iraqi citizens while Gonzales has been covering Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield's arse?
I didn't mean to sound condescending. Sorry. My understanding of the events do match match yours. But my sources are all secondary, and I read them over 10 years ago, mostly. One of them, Stanley Kutler's "The Wars of Watergate" (1990), goes into some detail. Kutler says that "Why Bork acted as he did, exactly how he acted, and what were the consequences of his acts, became matters of dispute." That part I did not remember. But Kutler goes on to say "Solicitor General, Robert H. Bork, then agreed to carry out the President's order, to a significant extent because of the urging of Richardson." And: "Richardson and Ruckelshaus urged Bork to carry out the President's order to ensure continuity in the Department." And further: "He [Bork] told Richardson and Ruckelshaus that he would carry out the order but then would resign so that he would not be perceived as an apparatchik." And finally: "All three [Bork, Richardson, Ruckelshaus] understood that if Bork did not carry out the order, the White House would send someone else to do it - presumably Buzhardt. That, they believed, would only threaten departmental morale and continuity even more seriously." Admittedly, this is Kutler's view, but I hope you can see why I thought what I did.
I too have read that Richardson and Ruckelshaus urged Bork to stick around....and I have no reason to doubt that their influence played a large role in why Bork didn't offer his resignation after the firing. Although it should also be noted that Bork did give up the acting AG position pretty quickly and returned to what he considered his dream job as Solicitor General....thus how much stability he provided to a floundering department is debatable. But putting all that aside.....Bork clearly believed that Nixon had the right to fire Cox. The quote in my previous post is straight from Bork from a Washington Post story on the massacre. IIRC, even more recently (by recently I mean his SCOTUS nominee hearings) Bork has maintained that he took the action because he thought it was legal (ie., within Nixon's power). That, specifically, is what I and many other Bork critics have a problem with.
I have read that Bork believed that Nixon had the right to fire the special prosecutor. I have always given him a pass on that regardless of my feelings about his other opinions. I see the problem with Nixon having the right to fire him, but it's pretty much the position we're in today. The Justice Department is not very keen on investigating wrongdoing on the part of this administration with Gonzales in charge. I suppose that's why Bush stood by him so long. And why the next pick is important to Bush.
And that....I just can't do. While I have huge problems with Bork's originalist view on constitutional interpretation, IMHO, his having no qualms with firing the independent prosecutor who had been given the responsibility of investigating the Watergate shenanigans.....especially after Richardson (when appointing Cox) did his best to assuage congressional fears that Cox would not be truly independent......indicated both a lack of integrity as well as a dangerous view on presidential authority. Exactly. And even though there was no set law in place when Cox was appointed....like there was with Starr and Fitz.....there was still an understanding by everyone (except Nixon and Bork obviously) that Cox was to be given rather free rein in conducting his investigation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/051973-1.htm
This could all be settled if Roy Cohn were still alive. He has all the Right Wing GOP credentials. He was a pit bull for staying on message, had no scruples and, to top it off, was a self-loathing closet homosexual. There wouldnt be enough Medals of Freedom to go around.
The best part about Cohn is that HE didn't think he was gay. This, despite the fact that one time a huge tube of lube fell out of some luggage he was carrying, in front of someone else. Roy just casually picked it up and put it, and the rest of the stuff, back in.
He sounds a bit like our own dear ex-tory defence minister, Michael Portillo but at least he admitted to homosexual dalliances in his youth. What was hilarious was the reaction of some of his own right-wing supporters many of whom said, 'Well, who among us HASN'T had a homosexual dalliance in our youth'. Great stuff!!