Good Riddance Gonzales

The mediocre and almost certainly dishonest attorney general is gone. Yipee! I always thought he was a mediocrity, on par at best with Harriett Miers, and an expression of Bush’s hackneyed cronyism cum affirmative action mentality that has little regard for merit. I’ve written little about Gonzales; I thought many criticisms of him, in particular of his firings of presidentially appointed US Attorneys, were not well advised. That said, his defense of that personnel decision was atrocious and at times clearly dishonest. When Bush (pre-Miers) floated the idea of Gonzales as a Supreme Court Justice, I did have the following to say:

Bush has adopted his extremely off-putting tone with respect to Alberto Gonzales, his A.G. and former White House Counsel. First, Bush promised and repeatedly stated during his campaign that he’d appoint textualist or originalist judges, and he implied they’d be the type of judges that would not rule in favor of ridiculous, activist decisions like Roe v. Wade. He has repeatedly cited Justices Scalia and Thomas as his models of judicial excellence. Gonzalez lacks these qualities. He was the chief voice in the White House urging the government to file an amicus in favor of reverse discrimination, oops, affirmative action in the Grutter case involving the University of Michigan. On the Texas Supreme Court he went out of his way to strike down a Texas law that required parental notification for abortion, and betrayed no concern for the underlying procedure in contrast to his colleague Patricia Owen. He has been involved in extremist Hispanic chauvinist organizations like the National Council of La Raza. People concerned about ideas are rightfully concerned that this otherwise unconservative guy will be elevated to the Supreme Court because of his loyalty and friendship with Bush. The best Bush can do is try to silence his critics for “attacking his friend.” It’s utterly ridiculous. If Gonzales’s philosophy, rulings, affiliations, and ideas are totally unconservative, what else can Gonzales expect to receive other than criticism from those who disagree with him? These are not unfair attacks; they reflect the power and reasoned criticism that come from those with coherent ideas. With Bush, in contrast, loyalty is the first principle among equals, and he obviously takes it personally that he is called out when he betrays the very ideas he said he’d uphold. Bush’s appointments and decisions, unless guided by sound principles, are of no merit. Bush’s stated willingness to appoint conservative justices to the Court was the chief reason many social conservatives supported him.

There is something crude and hectoring about his tone on this matter; it’s the same tone he adopts on immigration issues: I know more than you because I’ve got some limited personal experience with the issue, I’m therefore right, now shut up or I’ll call you a racist. Bush can call me and other conservative critics anything he wants, but I’ll call his record and his decisions a liberal betryal if he nominates Gonzales or someone else not suitably conservative to the court. And I’ll be right.

Of course, he ultimately did bring about that betrayal in the hack business lawyer Harriett Miers. I believe this action, presaged by the Gonzales trial balloon, marked the last straw for many conservatives sick of the politically correct policies in Iraq, the farm and prescription drug subsidies, and Bush’s overall mismanagement of the government.