Fishing for what?

Earlier this week the Senate Democrats acted to undo changes in the Patriot Act on the replacement of U.S. attorneys as proposed by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to return the appointment power of interim U.S. attorneys to federal district judges.

Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight U.S. Attorney's remains an issue for which he is under fire. Democrats are outraged. Recall that President Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorney's during his administration and that was taken as the 'prerogative of the president'. Today, President Bush made an unprecedented offer to Senate Democrats who are intent on investigating his administration's removal of the attorneys. The president would allow informal closed-door interviews between appropriate committee members and White House staff. Later in the day, however, Democrats declined the offer. So much for working together. Apparently subpoenas will be served. At this writing, they want Karl Rove and Harriet Meyers on the witness stand, under oath for questioning. The president referred to the framers separation of powers as the Democrats appear to be attempting to run both the executive and legislative branches of government. What specifically are the Democrats looking for and how far afield might their questioning go?

Oddly, Sen. Feinstein, in a June 2006 letter to Attorney General Gonzales expressed her concern over the restrictive nationwide guidelines that Carol Lam had laid out for prosecuting immigration cases. Lam is one of the attorney's who was tapped to resign. So why the outrage?

In an article by Clarice Feldman titled Jerry Springering Governance at American Thinker the author puts it this way; “Some worry that the steady drip drip of manufactured, substance-free scandals will, like the Wilson fandango, persuade voters that this most honest of Administrations is crooked. Others worry that the ginned-up faux outrage at faux scandals will so wear down the Administration that it will destroy its power to accomplish anything.”