as attorneygate continues to make headlines (my latest favorite is that poor little alberto is having trouble remembering his lies), i'm struck by something.
why isn't every single item on this story referencing how gonzales got to be attorney general in the first place? what some may perceive as bush's blind loyalty to his disastrous AG is actually the furthest thing from it. it's quid pro quo at the very core.
as most DK readers probably know, gonzales was chief counsel to governor bush when bush was called for jury duty. it was gonzales' off-the-record conference with a judge that got bush excused from jury duty thereby allowing him to sidestep potential questions about his 1976 DUI conviction — questions that may have killed any chance of higher office. (a moment here while we collectively think about what could have been...)
anyway, maybe i'm foolishly naive (probably am), but i don't understand why those simple facts aren't an integral part of the narrative. surely there are a number of americans who are wondering how such a bumbling incompetent ascended to the AG post in the first place. then again...
it would be so simple to just add something like the following to every story about gonzales: "Those who question why President Bush is still defending Gonzales may not be aware of the basis for his loyalty. Gonzales was personally responsible for getting Bush excused from jury duty in 1996, virtually ensuring that Bush's 1976 DUI conviction would not come to light."
i realize some would say "it's not relevant," but in the context of a president's duty to ensure the DOJ is being led ethically and responsibly, i think it's absolutely relevant. we should be talking about it online, in print, and in the broadcast media.