Too busy to blog the past few days; this week probably won't be much different. Sorry, Nice Deb, and any theoretical lurkers. (Yes, I'll put up a SiteMeter counter dingus someday. And I'll do the normal blog-pushing kind of stuff eventually-- I kind of want to have more content before I try to increase visibility and do any branding and whatnot.)
Ahem. Dr. Krauthammer's column this week is about Attorney General Albert Gonzales and U.S. Attorney-Firing-Gate. He says Gonzales should go based on his incompetence in handling what should not have been a crisis/scandal/controversy.
Personally, I'm not sure. I mean, yeah, there's plenty of grounds for dismissal, but really. Appeasement doesn't work. At this point, the Democrats will just be emboldened by Gonzales's ouster, and clamor for more.
Keeping him in won't solve the situation either, granted. So I'm going to boldly say it's a tough call.
My question, though, is this: If Gonzales gets replaced, who should replace him? Honestly, I don't have any answers. No one President Bush would actually appoint would satisfy the Democrats. Unless Bush goes nuclear and appoints the Democrats truly despise like John Bolton or someone. That might be neat. (Is Bolton even a lawyer? Is that even a requirement? I should do some actual research. I mean, I'm not even sure whether or not the Senate would need to confirm a replacement.)
Yeah, I obviously have no idea what I'm doing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment