With Alberto's ouster, why things could get even worse (if you can imagine that)

What made the news coverage of Alberto's departure worth reading, and finally commenting on, was less his departure than the far-ranging observations offered on the lessons to be drawn from his squalid tenure. We've had controversial attorneys general resign in disgrace before, but none quite like Alberto.

From the 20th century's Harry Daugherty to John Mitchell, the injudicious sort seemed to flock to Justice. From their tenures we learned valuable lessons, of course -- so naturally quite early in the 21st century we suffered capo-regime Fredo.

But I don't really blame Alberto Gonzales. He was a small man with narrow aims -- the aggrandizement and protection of his patron -- too innately small not to be overwhelmed. One telling observation was this: "Former colleagues say that what they originally took for discretion, when Mr. Gonzales would say little in major policy meetings, they later concluded was disengagement."

I wouldn't be surprised to learn from historians years from now that Alberto really didn't know, for instance, who slated various U.S. Attorneys for removal, or why. Like a good little crime-family captain, he just took orders, and he was delighted he ever made it that far.

As Daniel Marcus, a Clinton-administration Justice official and now a constitutional law professor, said, "He was not the intellectual father of those positions [of unitary-executive supremacy], but he shaped and articulated them at the White House, and he continued to take a very strong position on executive power as attorney general."

From this Mr. Marcus concluded "What this whole episode illustrates": that of the "problem of having a close confidant, a close friend of the president -- particularly someone who worked first in the White House -- going over to the Justice Department to serve as attorney general in the first place."

I disagree profoundly. Other presidents have had close confidants serve as their attorneys general (hell, one was the president's brother), yet those personal connections were not the responsible agent or catalyst for the launching of lawlessness. That starts at the top, and you-know-what runs downhill.

For my money, Stanley Brand, the "ethics lawyer" (no oxymoronic jokes here), summed things up the best: "You can’t just change government through strong-willed policy. People who ride into Washington on a high horse of ideology or ignorance" -- or, in Mr. Bush's case, ignorant ideology -- "are inevitably headed toward a blow-up."

Call it overconfidence, call it karma, call it whatever you like, but Alberto's downfall was as inexorable as Bush's collapse. Given the man at the top's willful ignorance, ideological hubris and inner corruption, Al's days were numbered from the start.

I have a hunch, however, that we haven't yet seen the worst of Mr. Bush & Co., even as the White House empties itself of some very bad boys. And it was Mr. Bush's bizarre, otherworldly reaction to Alberto's departure that leads one to this frightful suspicion.

Political scientist Calvin Jillson set the scene: Newer and less personal White House advisors could now lead Bush to "more of a middle ground ... but whether he has the mental and ideological flexibility to take advantage of that chance, I’m quite skeptical of that." Said the professor: "If you just listen to what he said ... in defense of Gonzales [the day of the resignation], his back is so up and his heels are so dug in, I’m not sure he can do it."

Well, professor, I'm sure he can't. I'd bet money on it. The president is a mental infant with a child's emotions. He won't let this go, he won't let it drop. He'll throw a monstrous temper tantrum in the form of ... something monstrous ... just to show Congress and the press that no one can kick George W. Bush around.

Comments

[Pat W]

Impeachment of both bush and Cheney are essential. Yet Conyers is quoted as saying that the ensuing trial, if it did not succeed in the Senate, could be a disaster. I'd like to hear intelligent debate on why. It would seem to me that in such trials so much would go public with no attempt by the MSM to hide it that the Democrats would rebuild and solidify popular support for the 2008 elections no matter how the Republican senators voted.

[Rich]

We are seeing the fruits of politically motivated illegal domestic spying....The Dems are too dirty to pick up the scalple of Impeachment!!!!!!!!!! Isen't that right, Nancy!!!!!!

[Perry Logan]

Which part of "they don't have the votes to impeach" don't you understand?

[Ned]

The issue is not "votes to impeach" it's "taking a stand." If significant evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors come out and the Republican's in Congress still back this administration..... Doesn't the public have the right to know how deep and wide the cancer spreads? If only to cut it out with the next election?

[Duh]

I'm betting on Lieberman. That would be the most fiendish, devilish, divisive, controversial, worst case scenario and so I'm sure it will be his first choice. Force the Democrats into the position of having to oppose 'one of their own', and at the same time end their control of the Senate since the Republican governor of his state would appoint his replacement. Perfect, sayeth Mr. Bush.

[priscianus jr]

Let me say this about that.
You are no doubt right about Bush's pychology. But at some point this has got to work against him. At some point, even Lieberman's got to lose his magic with the Democrats. Basically what I'm saying is, at some point even AIPAC and the defense industry have to lose their magic with the Democrats, as the positions they take on everything from A to Z are anathema to the overwhelming majority of Democrats. At some point.

[Leslie]

They have the votes to impeach - they only need a majority in the House. What they probably don't have is the votes to _convict_, but the public airing of all the dirty laundry of this bunch in a trial, if it weren't enough to turn enough R's, might be enough to disgust the country so thoroughly that no Republican would win the White House for at least another decade. Also, as I've heard pointed out several times, even if he can't do any more damage (doubtful), failing to hold this bunch accountable is just leaving a loaded gun for the next (and maybe more competent) megalomaniac who gets in there.

[Cole]

The incumbant megalomaniac is going to leave?

[Cugel]

Actually, the MSM would portray any serious Democratic attempt as an "extremist left-wing vengeance plot" to get political "pay-back for what Republicans did to Clinton." There would be ZERO substantive coverage of what actual charges existed or whether they were substantiated, along with frenzied denunciations of Democrats for "diverting our attention in the middle of a war", blah, blah, blah.

The Senate would reject it and the majority would vote against it. Probably even the majority of Democrats would vote not guilty.

Then the media and Republicans would crow about how Bush and Cheney were "exonerated". Jubilant Republicans would flock back to support the party against the Democrats in 2008 to "punish the Democrats for over-reaching." It would be a major theme in 2008 that the media would constantly refer to, in exactly the way that they DIDN'T mention Republican over-reaching in the Clinton impeachment during the 2000 election.

Conyers is absolutely right: it would be an absolute disaster.

Unless and until the MSM is broken up and forcibly divested so that some rational voices are introduced into the howling wilderness that is inside the beltway wisdom, there is no point in this useless exercise.