PDA

View Full Version : Why aren't repubs supporting Gonzalez?



ShaE
04-21-2007, 04:28 PM
So if the repubs are calling for him to resign and raking him over the coals for a "stupid non issue" as some around here have called it, what's their reason?

Are they pandering to the public and feeding into a silly contrived scandal made up by democrats? If not, I'd like to hear some thoughts on why they're jumping on the anti-Gonzalez bandwagon then...


Gonzales Seeks GOP Support, Gets Little
By DAVID ESPO
AP
WASHINGTON (April 21) - Desperate for support among fellow Republicans, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced grim prospects Friday after a bruising Senate hearing that produced one outright call for resignation and a fistful of invitations and hints to quit.

One GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Cornyn of Texas, predicted Gonzales would weather the furor and said he should. "Frankly, I don't think the Democrats are going to be satisfied with the resignation by Al Gonzales," he said.

Gonzales gave no indication Friday that he was leaving.

"Please know that as you continue your work, I am by your side," the attorney general told an audience of crime victims' rights supporters. He spoke in a gravelly voice the day after his long day of testimony.

Gonzales also called several GOP senators, including Cornyn and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, an aide said.

Specter said Gonzales sounded "in good spirits."

"The attorney general did call me today and he said he was just checking with senators to see how the hearing went," Specter said Friday. "I told him, 'Everything I had to say about the hearing I've already said.'"

The Pennsylvania Republican also said he sent a letter to Bush about Gonzales, who Specter had said a day earlier had emerged from the hearing with his credibility tarnished. Specter would not reveal the contents of the letter.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said President Bush had spoken with Gonzales after Thursday's hearing, and she added, "The attorney general continues to have the president's full confidence."

There was little other evidence of support for Gonzales, who has been struggling to explain last winter's firings of eight federal prosecutors.

Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who sits on the committee, issued a statement that notably did not urge Gonzales to remain in his post.

"Although his answers suggested that there were serious managerial issues at the Department of Justice, I did not see a factual basis to call for his resignation. As for whether the attorney general should resign, that is a question I leave to him and to the president," he said.

There were fresh calls from Democrats for Gonzales to step down. "The president should restore credibility to the office of the attorney general. Alberto Gonzales must resign," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

Gonzales and other administration officials had hoped his appearance Thursday would produce a groundswell of support among Republicans, but there was little if any evidence of that.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was traveling, and a spokesman referred reporters to noncommittal comments the Kentucky lawmaker had made on April 1.

"I think most Republican senators are willing to give the attorney general a chance to come up before the Judiciary Committee and give his side of this story, and are likely to withhold judgment about whether he can be effective in the Senate in dealing with us, until after we hear from him before the Judiciary Committee," McConnell had said at the time.

Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, who doubles as the general chairman of the Republican Party, had no immediate reaction to Gonzales' appearance.

In several hours before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Gonzales said he had done nothing improper in firing the eight prosecutors, but conceded the case had been badly handled. At the same time, he said 71 times that he either could not recall or did not remember conversations or events surrounding the dismissals.

Alone among the nine Republicans on the committee, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma called for Gonzales to resign.

Several other Republicans made plain their unhappiness.

Specter told Gonzales his description of events was "significantly if not totally at variance with the facts."

"Why is your story changing?" Charles Grassley of Iowa asked at one point, citing differences between an earlier explanation and the hearing testimony.

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, after hearing the attorney general's account of the case, said, "Most of this is a stretch," and added it seemed to him that some of those dismissed "just had personality conflicts with people in your office or the White House and (officials) just made up reasons to fire them."

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama expressed concern with Gonzales' memory at the hearing. In an interview later, he went further. "I think it's going to be difficult for him to be an effective leader," he said.

"At this point, I think (Gonzales) should be given a chance to think it through and talk to the president about what his future should be."

At the White House on Friday, Perino lavished praise on Gonzales. "He has done a fantastic job at the Department of Justice. He is our No. 1 crime fighter. He has done so much to help keep this country safe from terrorists."

Associated Press writers Lara Jakes Jordan and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press

jameznyhc
04-23-2007, 12:53 PM
it was a non issue true..what made it an issue was their mishandling of the statements regarding what happened ..for instance if gonzalez just said I fired them cause it was my decision and my right to fire them. Then the story would have gone away ..Remember clinton fired all attorneys for no reason other than to clean house..But when you say you fired them for under performing, then you change our story, then the reports are that the attorneys performed at or above average, etc is what blew this story up!! not the actual firings which were 100 % legal

John Kennedy
04-23-2007, 01:00 PM
it was a non issue true..what made it an issue was their mishandling of the statements regarding what happened ..for instance if gonzalez just said I fired them cause it was my decision and my right to fire them. Then the story would have gone away ..Remember clinton fired all attorneys for no reason other than to clean house..But when you say you fired them for under performing, then you change our story, then the reports are that the attorneys performed at or above average, etc is what blew this story up!! not the actual firings which were 100 % legal

no one ever questioned their technical legality... every president appoints new attorneys all around the country once they come into office. A president nominates the attorneys and then leaves it at that. They're not supposed to be under supervision of the executive branch. What was odd was that Bush appointed new attorneys, then fired them in the middle of his term and appointed new ones because of their lack of loyalty to the branch of government which they are not supposed to be directly reporting to at all... because it turns the judicial system into a political playground and it distorts the normal functioning of this government. Bush seems to like to make his own rules and whore the system out for his own personal gain, and that's what is being blown up and rightly so.

jameznyhc
04-23-2007, 01:11 PM
no one ever questioned their technical legality... every president appoints new attorneys all around the country once they come into office. A president nominates the attorneys and then leaves it at that. They're not supposed to be under supervision of the executive branch. What was odd was that Bush appointed new attorneys, then fired them in the middle of his term and appointed new ones because of their lack of loyalty to the branch of government which they are not supposed to be directly reporting to at all... because it turns the judicial system into a political playground and it distorts the normal functioning of this government. Bush seems to like to make his own rules and whore the system out for his own personal gain, and that's what is being blown up and rightly so.

So what bush has every right and its LEGAL...at least he gave them one term to come around they were originally clinton appointees and should have been fired the day bush took office..

John Kennedy
04-23-2007, 01:24 PM
So what bush has every right and its LEGAL...at least he gave them one term to come around they were originally clinton appointees and should have been fired the day bush took office..

no they were Bush appointees... he hired them and then fired them.. thats why it was questioned. It wasn't based on performance, it was based on loyalty to Bush's politics, which isn't supposed to be a factor after you're appointed. As president, you can select who you want from the get go, but you cant, from the oval office, pick and choose which issues get handled in the judicial system, at what priority, at what pace, etc.. that' what was going on. It's comingling of the branches of government.

John Kennedy
04-23-2007, 01:26 PM
That is why it is set up so that the president nominates them, and the senate approves.. something that bush tried to do away with also (in the patriot act no less, what a scumbag), which has just been reversed after this incident. Bush overstepped his authority once again. Someone needs to tell him he's not a dictator.

TheHipHopBillGates
04-23-2007, 02:57 PM
Like Maher said, he abadoned traditional conservatives with that Supreme Court shit.

Defekted
04-23-2007, 03:09 PM
So what bush has every right and its LEGAL...at least he gave them one term to come around they were originally clinton appointees and should have been fired the day bush took office..

they were bush appointees, get the story straight.... this story has been around for months and you still dont even know the fundamental facts.

read a newspaper sometime.