The NYT Sort Of Gets It

2 comments March 10th, 2007at 11:53pm Posted by Eli

Today’s NYT lead editorial:

During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.

He has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush’s imperial presidency. If anyone, outside Mr. Bush’s rapidly shrinking circle of enablers, still had doubts about that, the events of last week should have erased them.

[Insert blood-boiling list of offenses here]

We opposed Mr. Gonzales’s nomination as attorney general. His résumé was weak, centered around producing legal briefs for Mr. Bush that assured him that the law said what he wanted it to say. More than anyone in the administration, except perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Gonzales symbolizes Mr. Bush’s disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.

On Thursday, Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted very obliquely that perhaps Mr. Gonzales’s time was up. We’re not going to be oblique. Mr. Bush should dismiss Mr. Gonzales and finally appoint an attorney general who will use the job to enforce the law and defend the Constitution.

This is all absolutely spot-on, except for one teensy-weensy little detail: Gonzales is doing exactly what Bush hired him to do. Dubya wanted Gonzales to bend the entire Justice Department to his will, and he did exactly that. The only way Gonzales leaves his AG position is if he gets appointed to the Supreme Court, and that won’t happen. He’s too liberal.

Entry Filed under: Bush,Constitution,Corruption/Cronyism,Politics,Republicans,Wankers


  • 1. Charles  |  March 11th, 2007 at 12:08 am

    Well, at least they did it before his indictment, It’s so embarrassing to wait to criticize a political figure only after it’s obvious to most of the public that he’s probably going to the slammer.

    Or, in the case of the Washington Post, defending a p public figure after it’s obvious to all of the non-institutionalized public that that he’s going to the slammer.

  • 2. Eli  |  March 11th, 2007 at 12:12 am

    Baby steps, Charles. Baby steps.

    NYT editorials are generally pretty decent – it’s the reporting and most of the rest of the op-ed page that really suck.

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




March 2007
« Feb   Apr »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *