If Gonzales were to be impeached immediately, Bush wouldn't have to fire him until the Senate convicts. At that time, he would most certainly just reload, (nominate another puppet) and they would still be running the DOJ operation from the White House. How long would the impeachment process take?

What would be the gain from an immediate impeachment?

It seems to me that it would be more prudent to pursue the Special Prosecutor option and see where that takes us before impeaching. If the investigation leads to impeachment, fine, but we have to remember that our goal is to drain the swamp, not just to kill alligators.

Once again, what would be the gain from an immediate impeachment?

Given the current marginalization of Gonzales, would you rather have a fresh face making crutial FISA Amendment presentations to Congress (and the American People) on behalf of the White House or would you rather have AG AG?

In anycase, I believe Gonzales will resign before September because "he can no longer serve the People because of the unfair treatment of him by the Democrats in Congress combined with the complete and total lack of fair and balanced coverage by the Liberal Media."

Bush will then reload with that fresh face I mentioned earlier....with the purpose of getting his fall agenda passed.

It's going to be an interesting autumn.

crutial FISA s/b crucial FISA

"On an unrelated note, I had expressed the view several times this week that I believed the perjury case against Alberto Gonzales was weak to the extent it was grounded in his answers about whether the Comey/Ashcroft dispute applied to the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," as opposed to "other intelligence activities." My view arose, in part, from e-mail discussions I had on this topic throughout the week with Anonymous Liberal, a very smart and insightful lawyer who has developed a real expertise in the NSA scandal. Throughout the week, he and I shared the same view on Gonazles' defense to this particular perjury charge."

I think we are looking at this from different perspectives. You seem to be looking at this situation from a legal standpoint and my perspective is from a political/strategic angle.

While we seem to be in agreement vis a vis the deservedness (is that a word?) of Gonzales to being impeached, I am hesitant to employ impeachment because I see a greater gain, in the long term, from not going that route at this point in time.

I tend to be a fan of Edwards, but would accept Clinton, Obama, or Richardson as the Democrat candidate. IMO, both Clinton and Obama carry some pretty heavy baggage, not all of which is their own doing. IMO, Clinton would certainly energize the Rightwing base but I'm not sure that she would energize it more than a Black man. While at the same time, Clinton has more experience, it's true that Obama would certainly bring a new set of characters to Washington. Whether that is a total plus or not would, of course, be wholly dependant upon one's position on the various issues.

None of the Republican declared candidates can hold a candle to any of the Dem candidates I mentioned above. None of them. Since I don't believe Thompson is going to run, I won't spend much time on him except to note that he carries a lot of baggage also.

Ok. My time is up and my hair is starting to hurt.

Smooches to Mona.

benefits the Washington wonks.

While there is a small advantage given to a lesser known candidate because of the uncompressed time frame he/she has to make the public familiar with his/her name, IMO, the real winner here are the pundits and incumbants who dictate what the pundits talk about and how they talk about it.

How many additional "ad buys" will a "serious" campaign make because of the extension of the political "season"? How many important issues can be ducked because "it's a political year"?

While I can remember serious campaigning going on amongst the GOP in 1997-98 (two+ years ahead of the election) it was, IMO, mainly due to the Bush camp's attempt to put as much money between them and other candidates as possible. They were successful and there was really no "race" to determine who would or would not represent the GOP in 2000. McCain made a stab at it but then, like now, he didn't have either the money management skills or the cash to follow through on his early popularity. There was really never a question who would win the GOP pennant.

IMO, both Romney and Giulaini have attempted to do the same thing this time (and McCain has failed in the same way). It remains to be seen if either of them will glom enough monetary support early to pull the curtain down on other "serious" candidates.

In any case, it's bullshit to be talking (much less worrying) about an election a full three years before it happens - and that's what our media has done. They have successfully transformed an extremely important part of our political heritage into little more than a game of Gimme and Gotcha.

I blame the Atwater/Delay/Rove/Carville/Begala school of politics for that. Next, I blame the media (owners and pundits alike) for going along with it simply because it makes them money.

Finally, I blame us, the American People, for allowing it to happen.

Well said.

Go Saints (or Brownies)!

".....and pay homage to Osama bin Laden in Mecca."

-- nabalzbbfr

...and all this time we thought that he was most likely near the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan (remember Tora Bora?).

Nice work, Moron.