Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

One thing that’s been overlooked in the U.S. Attorneys scandal is just how political by nature such appointments are. A quick example: In November 2001, at the behest of an aged South Carolina Senator, George W. Bush appointed 28 year-old Strom Thurmond Jr. to be the U.S. Attorney for South Carolina.

At the time, no one accused young Thurmond of being a prodigy or the next Louis Brandeis. Also at the time, the Democrats controlled the Senate. Nonetheless, the Senate confirmed young Thurmond by voice vote. One might think such a flagrant example of nepotism going unchallenged is the relic of a more civilized bygone era, but ‘tis not. It has long been known that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and that pleasure can be a whim if the POTUS so dictates.

Which brings us to Alberto Gonzales. The competent members of the administration should have known that with Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales teaming to cashier 8 U.S. Attorneys, the scenario would inevitably result in calamity. Gonzales and Miers are two of the president’s Texas friends, and neither one of them had previously demonstrated the ability to organize a one car funeral. In short, these terminations should have been easy. Thanks to the maladroit efforts of the Dynamic Duo, they weren’t.

SO HERE WE ARE. Democrats are screaming about a scandal that isn’t; if they had any indications of the White House impeding or manipulating justice, they surely would have shared their theories with us by now. The fact that no Democrat either in politics or in the media (old or new) has yet uttered the phrase “obstruction of justice” is telling. There’s no there here.

But we are still left with the incompetence of the Attorney General. He has served the president poorly. What would be an echo of a more dignified bygone era is if Gonzales tendered his resignation because of that simple fact. And let’s face it – it’s not exactly like the remarkable series of missteps regarding the axed U.S. attorneys were out of character for Gonzales. He has hardly distinguished himself as a defender of the president’s justifiable wartime policies as the increasingly missed John Ashcroft did. Even before his recent stumbles, Gonzales had been at best a mediocre Attorney General. And that’s a charitable assessment,

So why keep him around? Denying the Democrats the scalp that they so desperately seek would be a fine thing; given the majority’s increasingly feral nature, it’s likely that Gonzales’ departure would only embolden them.

Alas, at a time of war, and especially during this peculiar war where our system of justice faces such serious challenges, having a lightweight as Attorney General just doesn’t cut it. Some say that the administration wants to keep Gonzales around because it fears a confirmation fight. If this is true, the administration has miscalculated badly. The administration should have learned when John Roberts went up to the Hill that a confirmation fight is nothing to fear if and when you choose the right guy.

The Bush administration should move on from the bumbling and stumbling of the Gonzales era. Needless to say, Gonzales’ successor should be capable of competently dispatching mundane tasks such as firing eight U.S. Attorneys. The administration should also find an Attorney General who will forcefully articulate and defend the administration’s justifiable and necessary wartime policies. If the Democrats want to have a political battle on terrain so hospitable to Republican interests, all the better.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.