[more Glenn from the post]: ... the only acceptable replacement for Alberto Gonzales is someone who is truly independent of the Bush machine and whom Democrats are supremely confident will act independently...

... like Janet Reno, who was nonetheless vilified by the Republicans.

Cheers,

[Glenn, from the post]:

That is not going to happen if the Democrats allow the confirmation of one of the ostensibly less corrupt and "establishment-respected" members of the Bush circle -- Michael Chertoff or Fred Fielding or Paul Clement or some Bush appointee along those lines.

Chertoff: Whitewater panty-sniffing raid counsel.

Fielding: Nixon's hatchet-man.

Clement: Dubya's enabler in front of the Supreme Court for the dismantling of the Constitution.

"Establishment-respected"?!?!? By the coctail-weenie-eating Beltway insiders, perhaps. I vote "none of the above".

Cheers,

Its pretty sad that all the Democrats have to do is -

a) Act in their political self-interest and stand-up to the Bush administration and prove to the country why 2006 mattered.

b) Act in their political self-interest and confirm an independent Attorney General who will stop the politicization of the DoJ as well as covering up lawbreaking by the Executive Branch.

c) Act in their ideological self-interests and refuse to confirm someone stands for the numerous radical positions that AG did.

d) Vote their conscience and refuse to confirm someone they think will further hollow out the Constitution and what American values used to stand for.

- and yet its not a given that they will muster the courage or even the self-respect to do what is right.

i never claimed that anyone was "denouncing or mocking Glenn for what he does"... and when has glenn "mocked and denounced people who advocate direct action?" did i miss that?

glenn has said he thinks it is ineffective. personally, i wish he would encourage action he thinks would be effective instead of discouraging people from action that might suit them best... i think that kind of discouragement pushes people who are feeling temporary despair into a more permanent position of defeatism - one that he rightly condemns.

but, we've had this conversation before... no point in me repeating myself. here's last year's discussion:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/glenngreenwald/115952198586297701/?a=46347

regarding protests vis a vis blogging and apathy.

You need to step back and recognize what it is we are saying, not what you think we're saying.

No one is blaming you. OK? Name someone, anyone, who claims "there are no protests" because kibosh keeps getting put on them by Big Nasty Lefty Bloggers Like You. If anybody is saying that, I agree with you, it's garbage. I maintain, and have always maintained, that there are constant, and sometimes enormous, protest actions, despite the lack of interest most of the Big Lefty Blogs have in them. What I criticise you for, and others criticise you for, is your consistent tendency to mock and denounce -- and misrepresent -- those who advocate direct public action. You've done it repeatedly to me, and it's happened way too many times to others in this thread.

Not only is no one blaming you, most of us have enormous respect and regard for what you do. No one is calling you a "barrier." Do you think you are a "barrier?"

We want to know, not so much what you do -- because we already know a good deal about that -- but what you think is more effective than the so-far ineffective calls, letters, emails, blogging and so forth. Since you don't think direct public action is particularly effective (and over the short term I think you're correct), what do you think would be more effective? Not so much for you personally, but in a more general sense?

Somehow I have a feeling this question is going to keep getting asked... ;-)

How useful or not that statement is would all depend on one's definition of "the middle of the road".

All the way to the right, on the other side of the breakdown lane, across the guard rail, up under the bridge girders. The lack of exposure is good for weathering tornadoes, and avoiding feeling like a jellyfish with a jaundiced dorsal tinge.

Period.

And Bush could name his dog Barney Attorney General for all the difference it would make. Other than for the improvement over Gonzo, it wouldn't change a thing.

Whomever Bush nominates (recess or otherwise), it will just be more lies, obfuscation and stonewalling to cover this regime's criminality and incompetence.

So that's Rove and Gonzales out. Why? It obviously has nothing to do with "being a distraction." Something big is about to hit the fan, either yet another scandal or we'll be bombing Iran soon and they wanted to clear the decks of the ballast first.

"...we are willing to meet you in the middle of the road... we're not looking for confrontation here.''

How useful or not that statement is would all depend on one's definition of "the middle of the road".

Regardless of ones frustration with the spectacular impotence of the Democratic led Congress to protect our Constitution, stop Bush and his administration from acting illegally and corrupting our system of government, giving in and remaining silent will not signal disgust and resignation to their incompetence but rather as approval for their behavior. Any absence on our part will be seen as support and set a very dangerous precedent as to our acceptance of the Democratic congress and their behavior as well as the Administration.

One has to believe we are slowly chipping away at Congress with blog posts such as Glenn's and others and all the calls and letter we're sending, and at some point critical mass will be reached and the Democratic Congress will not be able to do anything but effectively stand up to Bush.

"...we are willing to meet you in the middle of the road... we're not looking for confrontation here.''

-Pathetic Democrat Chuck Schumer, in a message to President Bush about a replacement for Gonzales this morning.

As far as I can tell, no one (apart from the usual suspects, skeezix224 and such) is denouncing or mocking Glenn for what he does. There is no doubt that his talents are being put to good use here, in his media appearances, in his books and so on.

And yes, of course, everyone's contribution matters. But the issue I was addressing is not that. It is that Glenn, along with many other so-called "lefty" bloggers, thinks it meet to mock and denounce people who advocate direct action, whether it's "taking it to the streets," general strikes, Giant Puppets (fear the Giant Puppet!) or whatever. He says he believe those things are "ineffective," and that's fine. Apart from calls, letters, emails, blogging, he has never said (that I can recall) what he thinks is more effective, and given the issue here is Democratic Redemption, and the Dems are so in need of Redemption because all the calls and letters and emails and blogger snark have not been effective over the years, and years, and years, it would be good for him to say what he thinks IS more effective than either shutting the fucker down, or writing yet another stern letter.

But I can't find anyone here (except the usual trolls) who are denouncing and mocking Glenn.