According to Dana Perino, the President will only fire someone if there is "evidence of wrongdoing." That standard seems a little skewed. Shouldn't the President also demand at least simple competence? There is copious evidence that Attorney General Gonzales is incompetent. Regardless of whether Mr. Gonzales has engaged in "wrongdoing," the President and the people are entitled to much better performance from the nation's "No. 1 crime figher."

Even if Congress feels 100% that Gonzales is a disaster, Bush probably feels, "So what?" Until such time as Congress does something to "cost" the White House, I doubt that Bush will feel that there's any point in finding someone new. Bush owes a lot to Gonzales, after all. Gonzales is the lawyer who got his drunk-driving convictions expunged from Texas records. Without that, Bush probably wouldn't be President now. If there is one quality that Bush values, it's loyalty. And the highest level of loyalty is to those who got him where he is now.

So Arlen doesn't think it's appropriate to call for a resignation of a cabinet level appointee, because this is obviously a decision for the President and the apointee alone.

Funny thing is that he didn't feel that way in 1996 when, as the Times-Picayune reported on 9/19/96: "At least one senator - Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican - had called for Perry's resignation" after a terrorist attack killed 19 US airmen in Saudi Arabia.

Oh, that's right. I forgot. Specter's a Washington politician and therefore by definition a complete whore who only pretends to be principled when it suits his current needs.

But the real question is why doesn't the press call him on this. They have lexis-nexis too, right? If I can find a quote in 30 seconds of looking, shouldn't a reporter be able to find it as well?

However, not as much as Justice will be hurting the Bush cabal once he's replaced. Hence AG* has to remain as the human firewall (or more appropriately, the memory hole) between the real criminals and Lady Justice. He may just be a deuce, but he's in a crucial spot in the house of cards.

* How messed up is it that his initials are that?

You say:

"The problem for Gonzales: It's almost impossible to find a Republican on Capitol Hill who would be sad to see him go. We say "almost" because there's always Orrin Hatch."

Much as Orrin Hatch is an unctuous ***-licker for the administration, no one really sees him as having much to worry about from an investigation, and coming from Utah, he will have his Senate seat until he dies, or gets caught fornicating with two headed goats on the alter or a Mormon Tabernacle. That is not the case for a lot of other Republicans on the Hill -- they have the same reason as the White House for wanting to see Gonzales stay on for months.

Gonzales is not Rumsfeld -- he is the Attorney General, the head of the US justice system, to use the hackneyed language of the White House, the US' top crime-fighter. He is also an incompetent partisan hack, totally dependent on staying in the good graces of the White House, with a senior staff who have been demonstrated to be no better. On balance this is a good situation for a Republican party that has much to hide and which can only be hurt by new scandals -- while the US Attorney story is now out and well known. If, on the other hand, Gonzales was to resign, he would probably be replaced, along with his top team by someone of much greater independence and competence -- someone who could get by a confirmation hearing before a Democratic Senate, someone who might take the title of No. 1 Crime Fighte seriously, someone who might unveil more Republican scandals, both in the White House, on the Hill and in Governors mansions and state legislatures and K-Street lobbying offices, someone who might have to be "Archibald Cox'ed" with the same consequences that the Watergate Justice department firings to suppress investigations had.

The key difference between Rumsfeld and Gonzales is that every day Rumsfeld's incompetence doing damage to the Republicans, with little positive reason to keep him; by contrast, the negative publicity from Gonzales is (a) out there already, and (b) nothing an what could result from an effective AG. Thus, if one looks at the calculus, from a Republican standpoint, the longer Gonzales lasts before quitting the less time his successor has to be effective . . . and perhaps no serious lawyer would want senior DoJ roles that might last a very short time -- as it is new political appointees will have to clear their desks in 22 months. Frankly, I do not think anyone in the White House or on the Hill seriously believes that Gonzales can endure to February 2009, but they are hoping to get him to last as close as possible to Novermber 2008 . . .

Neither Competence nor honesty nor intelligence are standards for an AG.

In fact, there are no standards for being appointed for the office, except Presidential nomination and Senate Confirmation. And Fredo has both.

You know you're right! What we need is to replace Bush and Cheney right now since they'd just appoint, oh I don't know, Orrin Hatch to take his place. That's assuming Orrin isn't gunning for the Supreme Court.

Pelosi in 2007!

If these 8 or so were fired for not bringing trumped up charges against Democrats, then the other 93 must be performing within expectations.

Remember this the next time some swing voting friend sez: "They're all corrupt."

A 3-10 sentence in Leavenworth would be a damn fine start.