Republicans at Play: Shoot the Mexican
Watching the Alberto Gonzales circus yesterday I was struck by the same thing it seems everyone else was, how little support he received even from his own party.
Now ok, if I believe a Democrat is crooked or incompetent I'm not usually shy about saying so because I don't see any value in defending people that I believe are just plain old bad for the party. Quite a few Democrats have a similar point of view, it's earned us the reputation of being "disorganized" and "fractious". I can live with that if it means we stay open to culling the herd of rotten apples.
The thing is, Republicans do not have any similar tradition. Point of fact is they have a well established history of rallying around their own regardless of what heinous crime the person has committed or what foolishness has been done. I'm not even going to attempt to list the number of outright criminals and fools they've stood by and vigorously defended....too many to even begin to count.
They essentially went into attack mode on Gonzales. What was so different about this case?
I really don't know, truth is I wouldn't even place Gonzales' actions in my personal Top 10 list of Stupid Republican Tricks....he might make the top 100 at best.
That being the case and in spite of not being a fan of Mr. Gonzales or his actions I had to ask myself if the Republican senators would have reacted the same way if Gonzales had been, say, a white man.
Somehow I can't quite bring myself to believe that and I couldn't muster up much glee over his treatment at the hands of his own because I don't believe they were offended by his behaviour at all.....I believe it was his color that made it acceptable to them to make him their sacrificial lamb.
Maybe down the road they'll show me they are capable of weeding out their rotten apples regardless of race, religion or whatever and prove me wrong. I hope so, I really do, but right at the moment I'm not buying that pig.
15 comments:
An astute observation, Mama. I, too, considered race may have tipped a balance here.
Not Your Mama said: "The thing is, Republicans do not have any similar tradition. Point of fact is they have a well established history of rallying around their own regardless of what heinous crime the person has committed or what foolishness has been done. I'm not even going to attempt to list the number of outright criminals and fools they've stood by and vigorously defended....too many to even begin to count."
NYM, could you do me a little favor and list just a couple of examples... I'd appreciate it.
And, while I'm here this beautiful spring morning, let me add I'm finding very little to like about your Senator, Harry Reid... He's pro-gun and anti-abortion and an idiot (at least in regards to his poorly thought out Iraq position). Just my (never to be humble) opinion....
Keep up the great work!
the Wizard......
The GOP rallied around and protected Tom Delay right up until he was indicted.
Reid is....well, he's Reid...I'm not always on the same page with him but anyone who thinks Reid is an "idiot", well, might want to re-think that. It's one thing he isn't.
As for being pro-gun, there is no way in hell anyone would ever get into elected office in Nevada with an anti-gun agenda. Is Never Going To Happen. Period. Now if you can figger out a way to change the voters of NV you'd have a case but until someone figures out a way to do that there is no other option. It would be like trying to elect a gay Atheist in Alabama. It's called working with the unfortunate reality we have to work with.
Examples: Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Jack Ryan, Denny Hastert, Donald Rumsfeld, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond....google "Republicans defend ****" for pertinent articles. Tons more but those are just a few highlights.
Yes, there have been occasions when at least some Dems have tried to defend the indefensible. The key difference is those occasions are far fewer and lack the cohesiveness of the Republican defense machine. C'mon, we laugh at Kerry....haven't heard many Repubs laughing at McCain and he's about as crazy as you can get before being officially declared senile.
I think you make a good point. Chris Matthews nailed it when he said that the man looks like he is "left naked to face his enemies."
I also kinda wish our pal Bill Richardson hadn't told The Hill that, if he's honest about it, the only reason he hasn't called for the AG to step down yet is that they're both Hispanic so he's giving him the "benefit of the doubt." Ouch. I'm hoping he clears that one up quickly.
To be honest I'd prefer Gonzales stay right where he is.
Any damage to be done has already been done. If he steps down, Bush gets to appoint someone else who may be worse, fer sure it won't be anyone significantly better...we're talking about Bush right? If he stays....he's an ongoing black eye for the Republican party, doesn't hurt my feelings at all.
I have a hard time feeling sympathy, for lack of a better word, for Gonzalez. He did mess up, his best defense was "I don't recall" (sad it 46 times yesterday), and he should be fired. Even if he is a sacrificial lamb.
They're eating Al to keep from eating George. Besides, most of them held their noses when they approved him to begin with. I think it's quite funny that they now have to rub their own noses in it.
As usual, I am uncommonly unqualified on commenting about the issue at hand. Nevertheless, it never stoped me before and neither will it now.
Based on your record, Mama mia, I am willing to believe, that Gonzo is getting partially gonged because of his race. However, based on my source (the seats of my pants), I believe that his obvious and embarrasing lack of experience and credentials to occupy such a high post is costing his job. He was and still is Bush's bagman and this fact didn't go unnoticed by most of legistlators on either side of the aisle.
As you pointed out, his holding on to the job will cost a lot to repubs, and they know it. I have the feeling, that once in a while the moment comes when most of us are able to excercise color blindness to it's fullest. Gonzo/Bush are making it very easy.
Whatever the reason Gonzales isn't getting much support from Republicans, I'll be glad to see him go because:
(1) He pushed the Patriot Act until it has almost extinguished the 4th Amendment.
(2) He has grossly transgressed the right of privacy of people via his wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, etc.
He's too dangerous to be Attorney General.
He's too dangerous to be Attorney General.
That's a fact but I worry about who Bush might put in his place, this one is already pretty much de-fanged, a new one would not be.
'Course in my perfect world we'd just boot Bush & Cheney and this would become a moot point.
The Indians call them apples, the blacks call them oreos, I'm sure the Mexicans have a word for someone who is colored on the outside, white on the inside. Gonzales is a toady, no matter what his race is.
I've enjoyed this discussion, and have just two observations.
A. I'm totally surprised that Wizard, who is usually very cautious and circumspect about his latent Republican-isms, opened himself up to such an extent. He totally deserved what he got.
B. Gonzo, to my southern Californian sensibilities, comes across more as Texan than as Mexican. That's always been the case. If there's a stereotyping and prejudicial streak in my body at play in this instance, it's asking rhetorically how and how long some semi-articulate cowboy can be so positioned to lecture the world on how quaint the Geneva Conventions are.
Vigilante: I hadn't really given his ethnicity much thought until a)everyone else made it an issue and b)I tried viewing the situation from the republican POV....put a whole different light on the matter.
The contemptuous, sneering tone they took with him is one they normally reserve for Democrats so it struck me as extremely odd and out of character for them.
You raised a worthy point. I was just commenting on my tangent, Mama.
Post a Comment