Gotta go to work. But I leave a link:

"The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity" -- an interview with the author:

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/20343

What is the central thesis of your book?

First let me throw out the term "femiphobia" as a way of naming this anxiety. Femiphobia is the male fear of being feminine. The underlying premise of my book is that the most important thing about being a man is not being a woman. This imperative to be repudiate everything feminine – whether it's external or internal – is played out as much in politics as in personal life.

In politics – where there is an enormous potential for personal gain or ruin – what this leads to is a concerted effort on the part of candidates to disavow the feminine in themselves, and to project it on to their opponents.

That was the central function of the Republican National Convention. Once you got past the moderate sweet talk, the purpose was essentially to make John Kerry their woman. There were a variety of subtle and not-so-subtle code words in this attempt to feminize him. This is a strategy that Republicans have long employed. They've just been more brazen about it lately.

It's not homophobia. That's not the (dreaded!) root cause. Femiphobia, that's the root cause.

Lisa:

What you describe as "vague invocations of stories unfavorable to GOP candidates" are in fact strong evidence against an argument that this process is partisan

Even the most partisan of partisan hacks doesn't vote with his president 100% of the time. But that's what you're implkicitly requiring--100% correlation as proof of the process is partisan.

The requirement is absurd on its face.

While it's relatively easy to keep an "I don't remember" count, the more relevant count is the number of times Gonzales committed perjury.

As TPM has noted, Gonzales has already lied about things that are common knowledge:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013723.php

Sen. Schumer (D-NY) catches Mr. Gonzales in one of several lies. Gonzales says Carol Lam was well aware of the DOJ's concerns about her immigration policy. Lam says that's false. Kyle Sampson says that's false. The documents say that's false.

First he claims the 'documents' show she was told. Not true. He gives up on that. Now he's saying that members of Congress told her, which is of course a non-sequitur since the question is whether the DOJ told her that they were concerned.

This is a telling moment for Gonzales since not only is he lying but he doesn't even seem to be even marginally prepped with what's in the public record.

Late Update: Now Sen. Schumer is confronting Gonzales with his lies to Sen. Pryor (D-AR).

Who knows how many lies he's told in toto?

But maybe, under BushCo's New Rules, it's not perjury if it's obviously a lie the moment it leaves your lips.

What I think is most significant about this hearing is what it signifies in terms of the Dem's learning curve in dealing with Bush--and the jury's still out on that one, since you need a minimum of three points to define a curve.

But there are certainly some helpful signs. The new guys, Whitehouse and Cardin, for example. Whitehouse was particularly effective taking on AG's standard for what would be an "improper" reason to fire a U.S. attorney. He had obviously given it a lot of thought. He didn't just ask a single pungent question, and then pat himself on the back, the way Joe Biden does. He was obviously committed to making his point, and making it stick. it was an important one, too--one that I had been cursing the Dems for ignoring before Whitehouse stood up. Afterwards, I figured the Dems had probably planned it, letting AG have all the rope he needed to hang himself before Whitehouse took his turn.

And Cardin just sounded like a front-line prosecutor himself. It was less about anything in particular he asked. It was all about the attitude--and what a refreshing attitude it was! He really tored down the whole voter fraud canard, just by proceeding methodically, relentlessly.

I should also say that I'm no DiFi fan, not by a long shot. But she really did herself proud this time out.

There is much, much more they could have done, of course. Even without going into his numerous other criminal escapades. They could have asked a great deal more about the details we already know, the priority given to swing states mentioned by Rove, for example. But for once I was actually satisfied that they didn't go deeper--if that is, they have the follow-up to get there in future hearings.

Because there's really two learning curves involved here. One is the Dems themselves learning how just how hard and remorseless they have to be with these bastards--and how to do it successfully, while splitting the Republicans further and further. The other is actually getting to the bottom of this mess... not to mention all the other ones just lying around. Had the Dems gone further this time, they might have given BushCo more of an opening to counter-punch. So long as they're moving forward from here, and keeping the pressure on, I won't second-guess their performance.

For once, a hearing has finished with no obvious failings on the Democrats' part. And that's something I don't think I've seen in close to 20 years.

shooter242:

Lord. Perhaps you folks should consider that trying to skewer Gonzales over something that ISN'T illegal is self-defeating. But that's OK by me, I sense the shark jump is in mid flight.

And right below you is the net.

Shark steak, anyone???