It’s no secret that some conservatives (some of who didn’t like Gonzales in the first place) want “Gonzo” gone.

That said the obvious question is “replace him with whom?” Here is were many of them have a grave misconception. That being said their ideal of replacement wouldn’t be anything close to what they would want.

For instance Dean Barnett:

“But we are still left with the incompetence of the Attorney General. He has served the president poorly. What would be an echo of a more dignified bygone era is if Gonzales tendered his resignation because of that simple fact. And let‚Äôs face it ‚Äì it‚Äôs not exactly like the remarkable series of missteps regarding the axed U.S. attorneys were out of character for Gonzales. He has hardly distinguished himself as a defender of the president‚Äôs justifiable wartime policies as the increasingly missed John Ashcroft did. Even before his recent stumbles, Gonzales had been at best a mediocre Attorney General. And that‚Äôs a charitable assessment,

So why keep him around? Denying the Democrats the scalp that they so desperately seek would be a fine thing; given the majority’s increasingly feral nature, it’s likely that Gonzales’ departure would only embolden them.

Alas, at a time of war, and especially during this peculiar war where our system of justice faces such serious challenges, having a lightweight as Attorney General just doesn’t cut it. Some say that the administration wants to keep Gonzales around because it fears a confirmation fight. If this is true, the administration has miscalculated badly. The administration should have learned when John Roberts went up to the Hill that a confirmation fight is nothing to fear if and when you choose the right guy.

The Bush administration should move on from the bumbling and stumbling of the Gonzales era. Needless to say, Gonzales‚Äô successor should be capable of competently dispatching mundane tasks such as firing eight U.S. Attorneys. The administration should also find an Attorney General who will forcefully articulate and defend the administration‚Äôs justifiable and necessary wartime policies. If the Democrats want to have a political battle on terrain so hospitable to Republican interests, all the better.”

Excuse me, but I must have been dreaming (I know Dean must be), because of the great Republican “no show” of 2006, I think that Democrats would have the most say who they would confirm as a new AG. I heard other conservatives today say the same thing. Do they really think they’ll sail such a person through the present Senate with Schumer and Leahy grandstanding all the way? Right!

Look I’ve got my own bones to pick with Gonzo, but considering that I believe Democrats have a “greater than” reason to get rid of him – and that suspicion grows with each day – I’m all the more resiliant to keep him.

Not playing psychic here, but to go out on a limb – it’s not going to be anyone conservatives like, or even close to one who “who will forcefully articulate and defend the administration‚Äôs justifiable and necessary wartime policies”.

UPDATE: Captain Ed notes Gonzales on tonights NBC News with Brian Williams (Terrorist, George Washington? What’s the difference?). Nobody disputes Gonzales fumbled the %&$# ball on the one yard line, the point is that there is a greater at stake here than him – a much greater.

Additionally no one can blame Monica for not wanting to go before the Leahy Witch Trials. They know full well nothing took place, but they don’t care about that. All they care about is harrassing Bush and eventually (mark my words) their coming attempt to impeach him.

Look for it to begin by Summer (Remember, the move began last year under Conyers).

It doesn’t matter that they won’t be able to and will look like the asses they are doing so, but the fact is that if we’re going to lay down and take it, then we can kiss 2008 goodbye.

Like Daddy used to say, WFTU.