True Majority, a group begun by Ben and Jerry's ice cream, is offering a free year's worth of ice cream to the reader who accurately predicts the date and time Alberto Gonzales will step down as Attorney General.

Gonzales is now in DC, having canceled a family vacation, to be prepped for his testimony,before a Senate panel on April 17.

Things didn't go too well after Karl Rove's appearance at American University in Washington Tuesday night.

Rove was on the campus to talk to the College Republicans, but when he got outside more than a dozen students began throwing things at him and at his car, an American University spokesperson said.

The students then got on the ground and laid down in front of his car as a protest.he students said security officials picked them up and carried them away so Rove could leave.

There were no arrests and police described the protest as "peaceful."

House Judiciary Chair John Conyers and subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez have written Monica Goodling's lawyer saying they don't think she has a good faith basis for invoking her 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. First off, they say Goodling has to appear and invoke the privilege on a question by question basis.

Then, they write,

The fact that a few Senators and Members of the House have expressed publicly their doubts about the credibility of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in their representations to Congress about the U.S. Attorneys' termination does not in any way excuse your client from answering questions honestly and to the best of her ability. Of course, we expect (as we are sure you do) your client to tell the truth in any interview or testimony. The alleged concern that she may be prosecuted for perjury by the Department of Justice for fully truthful testimony is not only an unjustified basis for invoking the privilege and without reasonable foundation in this case but also so far as we know an unwarranted aspersion against her employer.

More...

There's an in depth profile of Monica Goodling at Law.com today.

It begins with a discussion of her taking the 5th (the only smart position in my opinion) but continues in the section "Born for the Job" with connections to Mark Corallo, Barbara Comstock and the rest of the cabal.

After graduating in 1999, Goodling landed a job at the D.C. headquarters of the Republican National Committee just as the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign was ramping up. Goodling's position put her inside the newly created war room for political opposition research. There, she worked alongside a crew of party faithful who would later shepherd her through the ranks at Justice.

Among Goodling's close associates were Barbara Comstock, head of opposition research for the RNC and later the chief spokeswoman for Ashcroft; Griffin, Comstock's deputy, whom Goodling would later help to win the interim appointment to replace one of the eight ousted U.S. Attorneys in Arkansas; and Mark Corallo, who in 2003 took the helm of the Justice Department's Public Affairs Office after Comstock.

Goodling quickly won Comstock's trust for her hard work and talent for digging up information on tort litigation and judicial nominations. And when Griffin left in 2001, Goodling became Comstock's deputy. They helped prepare Ashcroft and Theodore Olson for their confirmation hearings to be attorney general and solicitor general, respectively.

When Comstock became Ashcroft's spokeswoman in 2002, she brought Goodling along as her deputy. Goodling stayed for three years. In no time, Goodling became "indispensable" to the office, says Corallo, who became Ashcroft's spokesman in 2003. "I have never known anybody that works harder or does better work than her."

She even went along on Ashcroft's traveling road shows.

More...

Karl Rove has emerged unscathed in the justice system so far. But the New York Times puts out its claws today and draws blood.

I can't remember a time during PlameGate, the closest Karl Rove came to being indicted, that the New York Times so lambasted Rove.

Whatever the immediate objective, Mr. Rove seems focused on one overarching goal: creating a permanent Republican majority, even if that means politicizing every aspect of the White House and subverting the governmental functions of the executive branch.

....This was, perhaps, the inevitable result of taking the chief operative of a presidential campaign, one famous for his scorched-earth style, and ensconcing him in the White House — not in a political role, but as a key player in the formation of policy. Mr. Rove never had to submit to Senate confirmation hearings. Yet, from the very start, photographs of cabinet meetings showed him in the background, keeping an enforcer’s eye on the proceedings. After his re-election in 2004, President Bush formally put Mr. Rove in charge of all domestic policy.

The Times says Congress shouldn't let Rove skate on testifying under oath at hearings on the fired U.S. Attorneys.

The investigation of the firings of the United States attorneys seems to be closing in on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who should have been fired weeks ago. But Congress should bring equal scrutiny to the more powerful Mr. Rove. If it does, especially by forcing him to testify in public, it will find that he has been at the vortex of many of the biggest issues they are now investigating.

I think Karl Rove's bigger problem is that Bush is now a lame duck and the media figures his lieutenants are now fair game.

The whole bunch of them are about to see their power dwindle.

It's up to us in 2008 to ensure we get a regime change, not just a name change.

Alternet has an article/interview with Move On leaders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades that I think highlights well the flaws in Move On's approach of late generally and on Iraq specifically. Here is my first post "What Is Move On?, for background on the issue.

Alternet writes:

But after all is said and done, MoveOn is an electoral animal . . . MoveOn, perhaps because of its multiple roles, is sometimes misunderstood: It is a powerful lobbying group; a sometime protest organization

And there's a rub, you can not be a Dem organization, a lobbying group and a protest group. The hats are in conflict. And Move On's public image makes wearing all those hats even more difficult. For better or worse, Move On is perceived as the Left flank. Is it accurate? OF course not. But so it is perceived. Thus, when Move on endorses a position, that postion becomes perceived as the Left position. When Move On adopts the "pragmatic" or "centrist" position, then that position becomes perceived as the Left position. The Overton Window in reverse.

This Washington Post article about the faith-based Monica Goodling probably just scratches the surface.

Part of a generation of young religious conservatives who swept into the federal government after the election of President Bush in 2000, Goodling displayed unblinking devotion to the administration and expected others to do the same.

The only good news in the article:

"The young conservatives who came off the campaign and were new to town with this administration, they've never seen lean times," said a veteran Republican political appointee who declined to be quoted by name saying anything critical of Goodling. "They had no appreciation for what would happen after the Democrats took control and how tough it would be."

How do we get rid of the rest of them?

Via Atrios.com

Specter asked about Attorney General Gonzales' "candor" in saying earlier this month that he was not a part of any discussions on the firings. He asked about the November 27, 2006 meeting "where there were discussions" and Gonzales allegedly attended. Was Gonzales' statement about taking part in no discussions accurate?

"I don't think it's accurate," Sampson said. "He recently clarified it. But he was present at the November 27 meeting."

"So he was involved in discussions in contrast to his statement" this month? Specter asked.

"Yes." Sampson replied.

More...

The Iraq Debacle, and the perceived reesolve of Democrats of late has the Beltway perplexed:

Their aggressiveness and unity on a major foreign-policy challenge to the president is a striking change for a party that has, on many occasions over many years, seemed to be on the defensive on national security issues.

The article also provides textbook examples of how to discuss and NOT discuss the Politics of National Security.

The administration's newest explanation for the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys -- "they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities" -- deliberately blurs the distinction between politics and performance.

Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, in remarks obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, spoke dismissively of Democrats' condemnation of what they call political pressure in the firings. "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," he said. "A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective ... is unsuccessful."

A president may certainly fire a U.S. Attorney who refuses to implement legitimate policy. A president who fires a prosecutor because he or she refused to use the office to influence election outcomes deserves to pay a heavy political price. Today's spin assumes that the public doesn't understand the difference.

We understand.

Via Cheers and Jeers, Bill Maher hits it good:

Valerie Plame was the CIA's operational officer in charge of counter-proliferation. Which means she tracked loose nukes. So, when Bush said, as he once did, that his absolute, number-one priority was preventing terrorists from getting loose nukes, okay, that's what she worked on. That's what she devoted her life to, staying undercover for 20 years, maintaining two identities every goddamn day. This is extraordinary service to your country.

When the going gets tough, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gets going.

A scheduled 15-minute news conference with Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales was quickly cut short in Chicago on Tuesday, with Gonzales leaving the room after just three questions about the controversial dismissal of a group of U.S. attorneys.

He answered a few questions about PurgeGate, but when it got to Monica Goodling, the heat must have been too much, and he left.

Gonzales then was asked how that push for cooperation squares with the decision by his senior counselor Monday not to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Monica Goodling invoked her 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination at the advice of her attorneys.

"I'm not going to comment on the decision by an employee of the department to exercise her constitutional rights," Gonzales said.

How many questions did he answer about the topic before splitting? Three.