TPMtv Guide: Wednesday, May 2
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has bumbled and fudged his way through a good two months worth of press conferences, op-ed pieces, and congressional hearings, his repute declining precipitously among first Democrats and then Republicans. With Gonzales scheduled to return to Capitol Hill on Thursday, May 10 to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, the question on everyone’s mind seems to be, “What in the world is it going to take to get this guy fired??”
In today’s episode of TPMtv, we answer that question. As a Tuesday McClatchy piece so aptly put it, "In order to get fired in the Bush administration, you need to have hatchet in hand, the corpse in front of you, your fingerprints all over the handle and a photograph of the act in progress." And in the case of Alberto Gonzales, maybe a written confession to the murder, just to be sure.
In talking about Gonzales’s improbable survival, a lot of people invoke that Bush hallmark – loyalty. After all, look at how many jobs Gonzales has gotten from Bush over the years:
1994-1997: General counsel to Bush (as Governor of Texas)
1997-1999: Texas Secretary of State
1999-2000: Texas Supreme Court Justice
2001-2005: White House Counsel
2005-2007: United States Attorney General
But Josh argues that Gonzales’s continued employment as Attorney General has little to do with fidelity. It’s not so much that President Bush doesn’t want to fire Gonzales. He can’t fire Gonzales.
His title may be Attorney General, but Alberto Gonzales basically continues to serve in the capacity of White House Counsel, meaning that his main obligation is not to the law and the people of the United States, but to George Bush and the White House. He is little more than a conduit through which the White House can exert its control over the Department of Justice. He protects the President. He has the President’s back.
An arrangement like the one Bush has with Gonzales is a nice luxury for any president to have, but in the deteriorating political atmosphere in which George Bush now finds himself, such an arrangement is an absolute necessity.
If Bush fires Gonzales, it would be up to him to appoint his replacement, and up to the Senate to confirm that appointment. The fact is there is no way the Senate would confirm another Alberto Gonzales.
To have any hope of Senate confirmation, the President would have to appoint someone with some credible level of independence; in other words, a real Attorney General who would let real investigations into the administration move forward. That’s a reality that President Bush simply cannot allow.
The choice the President has on his hands is this: either keep a laughingstock and a political albatross as the Attorney General, or open the floodgates to all the various investigations this administration has worked so assiduously over the years to keep stopped up.
So again, it’s not that President Bush won’t fire Alberto Gonzales; he can’t fire Alberto Gonzales.
After the break, Josh sends out a request to all you TPMtv viewers for your thoughts, comments, questions, and suggestions for TPMtv. We’ve been doing the show for almost 3 weeks now and like Ed Koch, we’re asking you the people: “How’m I doing?” Let us know what you have to say by e-mailing us at talk@talkingpointsmemo.com. We’re all ears, so don’t hold back a whit.
Comments (19)
1. I think TPMtv is dumb. I like the words you all put together and can read them silently faster than Josh can out loud.
2. A side effect of the Bush strategy of running out the clock is that the indictments and convictions will come after Bush's ability to pardon has gone away.
May 2, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are the Democrats so intent on solving all the Republicans problems for them just in time for the Repubs to take credit in the 2008 election?
May 2, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice if you could provide a transcript of your TPMtv episodes to go along with the video ... for those of us who leave our speakers off and are in a hurry.
I've missed quite a few episodes (always meaning to go back and watch them when I have the time, but never seeming to find that time).
May 2, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
good summary reporting but not terribly profound - i think everyone knew the answer to that question all along - gonzales is his firewall, his last line of defense. if he were to lose him (either by resignation or termination) we'd see the likes of sunshine we've not seen in years!
May 2, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
To expand on your statement that Bush cannot fire Goonzales. I agree...Any Attorney who would have the qualifications and standing to win Senate approval(I am not sure George Bush knows any such Attorneys)would in his first days review and, I believe, change or void a number of the so called legal opinions furnished through Goonzales, and which furnish the basis of Bush's rape of the Constitution over the past 6 years.
May 2, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
How are you doing? GREAT!! Thanks for all that you do.
You spoke of the "bloody battle" it would take to confirm another Attorney General.
Is there really time enough left in this adminstration to go through that process, and if so, afterwards, would there be enough time left to expose the White House for its malfeasance in office regarding its use of intelligence in attacking Iraq?
Thanks
Dennis
May 2, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that the thing you've posted a comment to is a summary of a TPMtv episode, don't you? It's not a transcript, true, but is this not satisfying your needs?
May 2, 2007 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
When did "Capitol" become "Capital"? Is this something new - I've seen others make this (seeming) mistake - am I just behind the latest AP style guidelines?
May 2, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's something new. Not a mistake. Guess you haven't heard - this weird new thing, capitol nixed from all dictionaries. President of Words says it's all capital from now on. Go figure.
(It was a typo. It has been fixed. Thank you for the correction.)
May 2, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, hungrycoyote's point may be that this is the first episode for which you have provided a text summary, and some of us prefer it in text, so please keep doing it!
Thanks!
May 2, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love TPMtv. Josh does a great job laying things out like he does in his blogs. It's well done, short enough to watch easily and always keeps my attention. The best part is I can send it to my Republican friends who don't read but will watch a clip.
Has anyone else noticed that most hardened Repubs don't ever read. All they do is listen to Rush or some other right wing talk radio show and/or FOX news.
May 2, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like Josh finally read my e-mail :-)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Apr 20, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Loyal Fredo
To: talk@talkingpointsmemo.com
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003073.php
> Mark Corallo, Justice Department spokesman
> (2002-2005), said, "Alberto Gonzales' loyalty to
> George Bush has got to trump George Bush's loyalty
> to Alberto Gonzales."
In my cynical view, Fredo is showing loyalty to
Dubya by not resigning.
The DoJ is so infested that it could not withstand
being led by someone with enough integrity to be
confirmed by the Senate. The voter-suppression
stuff and the Dusty Foggo connection to Carol Lam's
firing is just too hot to let any non-Bushie get a
glimpse.
Their best strategy is to stonewall and try to run
out the clock. But it's not clear they can pull
that off.
--TPM Reader JZ
May 2, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think TPMtv is OK, but maybe use sparingly for effect? For example, use when you have a big "exclusive," or BIG NEWS, or when you interview someone else. Altho I watch it, I do prefer reading your articles...some of us (older, I suspect) are more used to reading/digesting/responding. Younger viewers who are more tv/youtube/video games oriented may prefer their reports via TPMtv. If you are asking, "How are we doing?" in general, I must report back to you that you are doing excellent, great, fantastic, ground-breaking, profound work. (and any other superlative you can think of)
Ann
May 2, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
For whatever this is worth. Ray McGovern on "Bolton's Yellowcake"
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=5934
May 2, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like TPMtv and think the summary and/or transcript is a nice follow up. As others have stated, sometimes a transcript is more user friendly. Interviews would be a nice addition, as long as they are not too lengthy. Anything over 10 min would be too long. I think the longest one to date might have been today’s. Keep up the great work.
May 2, 2007 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alberto is safe as long as GWB allows him to mow Leahy's lawn and trim Feinstein's bush. I am not serious literally, figuratively yes though.
May 2, 2007 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with others who say TPMtv in its current stage is not much of a value-added product, but I like it as the genesis of something much bigger. I could easily envision a much longer program with multiple contributors (perhaps from other popular progressive blogs?)handling different topics, or perhaps even a panel discussion of one topic.
Stylistically:
1) I'm glad you got rid of the lava lamp in the background.
2) If part of the window must be in the background, I would prefer to see it head on, rather than on an angle, or I would like to see the whole window. That could just be me.
3) As for Josh, he looks like he's hunched over in blog typing position. He ought to be directed to relax his shoulders and sit up straight. Of course, that would take away from the conspiratorial mood of the visual, but tv is tv.
Take this as constructive or ignore it. Just my impressions.
May 2, 2007 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like most blog-readers, I'm text-oriented. I like that you provide a written recap, so I don't have to watch the TV version, even though Josh is as cute as a button :).
Another thing is that TV is not text-searchable.
But if it brings in a bigger audience, so be it.
May 3, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard about a thousand times that the AG “serves at the pleasure of the president”. I wish some one would ask Bush and then Gonzales how many levels below the President can the authority to fire Federal Prosecutors legitimately be delegated.
Should not the President be required to overtly endorse any firing at at this level at the time it happens since he is the person who actually has the authority to take the action? If he claims ignorance does that not mean that someone is guilty of overstepping their authority?
May 3, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink