Do you think President Bush believes his support of embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales makes him look good, proving what a loyal friend he is? Gonzales has been an apologist (and worse) for Bush for years so now, according to the Bush Loyalty Plan, he must support the Attorney General no matter what, right? If there’s one thing almost everyone in the country agreed on last week, it was that Attorney General Gonzales completely tanked at the Senate Judiciary Hearings about the firing of those federal prosecutors. His answers were frustratingly vague, evasive, or simply preposterous, preventing even those staunch Republicans on the committee who wanted to defend him from being able to do so.
Still, I imagine that some Bush supporters would read my opening question and say, “He didn’t care if it made him look good politically, the president is a man of principle who follows his heart no matter what the consequences.” I would agree with that statement, except I’d add that Bush’s so-called principles are the problem and that he should consider the consequences of his actions before he follows his heart. I’m not suggesting that Bush should have left his Attorney General twisting in the breeze the minute he got into a jam, but to call Gonzales’ performance last week “fantastic” defies credulity and makes Bush look like he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the facts. Maybe Bush is a good and loyal friend but that doesn’t give him the right to excuse or ignore the misdeeds of his intimate cohorts. What about his loyalty to the American people?
It’s not like I have it in for Alberto Gonzales. Unlike some of his predecessors such as John Mitchell, Ed Meese, or John Ashcroft, he doesn’t seem like a polarizing figure intent on forcing his agenda down the throats of American citizens. Watching the hearings, I felt for the guy, I’ve never in my life seen such a poor performance in front of a Senate Committee. Gonzales’ answers were so awful he made Oliver North look like a Poet Laureate and paragon of truth and honesty. And now that Gonzales has rendered himself fairly useless as Attorney General, there are a million ways Bush could be “loyal” to his friend while still not insulting our intelligence by pretending the sky isn’t blue.
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, said that Gonzales’ continued tenure will damage the Justice Department, the Bush administration, and the GOP. “As long as he's the Attorney General, I will continue to deal with him,” Specter said. “But whatever he has to say, I will take with more than a grain of salt.” Ouch. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy called into question Bush’s comments today about Gonzales’ testimony. “If that increased his confidence,” Leahy said, “then he has a very low bar indeed for what he needs for confidence.”
I’m still reeling from Bush’s continued support that we’re somehow supposed to interpret as a positive character trait instead of further proof that the emperor has no clothes. At this point, the emperor is so freaking naked that the FCC should impose a $500,000 fine on the White House every time Bush walks into the Rose Garden for a press conference. Oy, I hate what happens to me when I try to write about Bush, and I’m aware that my ravings add little to the conversation. I don’t want to become some lefty stereotype and start frothing at the mouth that Bush is the anti-Christ. (Oh wait, I already did that. Or rather, I said it would be insulting the anti-Christ to compare him to Bush.)
Are there any strong Bush supporters out there? I’d hate to think this blog is stuck in some ghetto where everyone has to think like me. I wish I could be more like Neil on Citizen of the Month and provide forums for civil discourse between people with very different political views. If there are any of you who think Bush is doing a good job, I would love it if you’d leave a comment and tell me one thing that you think he has done in the past six years that demonstrates excellent leadership. It’s not a trick, I won’t reply by telling you that you’re crazy. There are many Republicans who I admire and respect, I’m just having a hard time imagining that any of these people really, in their heart of hearts, think George W. Bush is helping this country and expertly fulfilling his role as President. Does that sound smug or shrill? Sorry.
Bush’s loyalty myopia is only the latest salvo in an endless display of fatal flaws that prevent him from leading this country effectively, in my opinion. Some people may still admire him for his good ol’ boy down-home act. Do these folks ever question the vicious and mean-spirited people that Bush relies on so heavily such as Dick “Attack Dog” Cheney or Karl “Don’t Touch Me, Sheryl Crow” Rove?
“You’re making a fool of yourself,” my friends on the Right would say at this point, as I resort to name-calling in lieu of presenting articulate arguments to support my views. I admit it, I can’t talk about the current administration and its many faults without descending into vitriol. So I’ll stop, and leave the analysis to cooler heads and smarter minds.
Oh, but wait! I just thought of one positive thing to say about President Bush. This man has actually done the impossible and found a way to transcend partisan politics. After the Gonzales debacle, America’s Great Divide has finally come together in a united front—now everyone thinks Bush is an idiot!
I don't think Republicans are that crazy about Bush either, but partisan politics get in the way.
Posted by: Neil | April 25, 2007 at 06:19 AM
If the comments are reserved for people who think W. is doing a good job, then I got nuthin'.
Posted by: Churlita | April 25, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Not getting many responses. . .
Posted by: Julie Voss | April 25, 2007 at 07:10 PM
I guess you can say he doesn't fool around with interns.
Posted by: Neil | April 26, 2007 at 07:04 AM
I have to say that I do think that Gonzales ranks up their with Meese and Ashcroft. Allowing the justice department to become a chess game for partisan politics is, in my book, criminal.
Posted by: Ian | April 26, 2007 at 07:42 AM
The statement that Bush thought Gnzales' performance was "fantastic" makes Bush appear as stupid and out of touch and delusion--maybe crazy, even, as he truly is. End of story. IMPEACH Cheney. IMPEACH Bush. Finished.
Posted by: OldOldLady Of The Hills | April 26, 2007 at 10:30 PM
I used to say that 'as a person' I liked Dubya better than his daddy, because George Herbert Walker was a much more calculating Machiavelli, well aware of the crimes he was committing (It still boggles my mind that King George the First managed to sweep Iran/Contra under the rug so efficiently, first as CIA Director, then as President). For all the ineptitude, I believe Dubya is still firmly convinced he's John Wayne. Unfortunately, he's Jethro Bodine.
And sadly, it makes me feel even less safe having Jethro and the neighbor boys sittin' out by the 'ceement pond', playin' Army with tens of thousands of real people's lives.
So, in conclusion, regarding Jethro's (err.. Dubya's) high points, I got nothing either.
Posted by: Larry | April 27, 2007 at 12:45 PM
"I’d hate to think this blog is stuck in some ghetto where everyone has to think like me."
It's never too late:
Cheney & Ashcroft in 2008!
Posted by: Editor | April 28, 2007 at 09:25 PM
I feel like Sam I Am when I think of George Bush. I do not like him in the House, with a mouse, et. Worse, I have tried. But to give the man his due, I think he did well in his public appearances immediately after 9/11 (and post goat story). Some of the actions he was taking in terms of running the government were abhorrent, but his public presence was mostly good. In retrospect, I wonder if his performance was more a function of the overly simplistic terms in which he viewed the crisis.
The only thing that makes Gonzales tolerable is that I still have a sense that he is not insulated from life by vast accruals of wealth and power. Although his children, and his children's children... I also think that this episode has put Harriet Myer's nomination into better perspective. (Fire all the prosecutor, Dub must of thought it was genius.) Think what trouble she might have made as a Supreme.
Speaking of Harriet Myers and Donald Rumsfeld, too, I really would not want to be depending on George's loyalty to keep me at work. Letting Rumsfeld go after the election struck me as closing the barn after the horses had run off and only a week before that George had affirmed that Rummy would be around until the end of George's tenure.
Posted by: LeeanOC | April 29, 2007 at 04:27 PM
I think Jon Stewart of the "Daily Show" nailed it when he said that Gonzalez was willing to make himself look like "a total pinhead" to prove his loyalty to the president. That was why the president said he was proud of him! (I sure was wondering.)
Gonzales managed to reveal absolutely nothing useful about the Justice Department and did not seem to mind looking like an incompetent nincompoop.
(Would Kissinger have done that for Nixon?)
Considering how rarely anyone stands up to the Bush Administration, it might be a safe bet.
Posted by: Julie Voss | May 03, 2007 at 07:04 PM