Gonzales round-up

1. Keeping Gonzales from becoming Attorney General is a worthy goal, and not beyond the reach of possibility.

2. Even if he is in the end confirmed, better for the Democrats to line up solidly against him. A party needs to stand for something, and standing against torture and arbitrary executive power isn’t a bad place to stand. In war and politics, take the high ground.

3. If Gonzales won’t provide the documents requested, his nomination should be filibustered. The President is entitled to claim attorney-client privilege, and the Senate is entitled not to vote on his nominees until he waives it.

4. Progress Report has ten excellent questions Gonzales might be asked.

5. Jeffrey Dubner at Tapped makes a good argument for pushing the issue of Gonzales’s responsibilty for the Kerik fiasco. Again, there are lots of documetns that might be asked for, in this case without touching the attorney-client privilege at all, since Gonzales, in vetting potential appointees, wasn’t providing legal advice. (Like Digby, I’m personally less offended by Gonzales’s giving Giuliani’s friend a pass than I am by his authorizing torture in our name and claiming monarchical powers for the President, but, also like Digby, I’m persuaded by Dubner that Kerik may be a more potent issue with potential swing votes, in the Senate and elsewhere.)

6. So far, I haven’t seen lists of Democratic senators who are and aren’t committed against Gonzales, perhaps because to date none are. So if you live in a state with a Democratic senator, take five minutes for a call to Washington. Do it tomorrow.