Gonzales: Not so "irreplaceable"?

Just a few weeks ago, big liberals were saying that Alberto Gonzales was "irreplaceable" and "indispensable" and promising near-apocalyptic horrors if he were fired, impeached, or decided to resign. So why has the President "grudgingly" accepted his resignation?

Here, for instance, is Josh Marshall calling Gonzales "irreplaceable" in The Hill because "the Democratic Senate is never going to give the president another Gonzales":

Impeaching Gonzales, even in his currently debilitated state, would still require the support of almost 20 Republican senators. Not a likely prospect. But if Gonzales goes, the Democratic Senate is never going to give the president another Gonzales — another ethically compromised loyalist who will run the Justice Department with the guiding principle of protecting the president. And that makes him, for the president, quite literally irreplaceable.

Along the same lines, Sidney Blumenthal called Gonzales "indispensable" because "[l]osing [him] would raise the curtain on this era's "White House horrors":

Losing Gonzales would raise the curtain on this era's "White House horrors." So Bush throws executive privilege over everyone he can. The yes man has become the indispensable man.

So who gets confirmed? And do the "horrors" come out? Marshall doesn't acknowledge his previous claim that Bush needs Gonzales in a post on the resignation this morning.

Comments

[Rob]

While we're taking a trip down memory lane, let's pause to remember how John Ashcroft was the left's bête noire before they decided he'd been a brave civil libertarian defending the Constitution from his hospital bed.

[Sean-B]

>>While we're taking a trip down memory lane, let's pause to remember how John Ashcroft was the left's bête noire before they decided he'd been a brave civil libertarian defending the Constitution from his hospital bed.<<

So they must be wrong about Gonzales? Or does that mean that they're hypocrites because they didn't meet your definition of "Ashcroft haters"?

Brendan's post may lead to something or it may not. Pundits have been called on their BS predictions for years (see the definition of a "Friedman unit"), but that doesn't mean anyone's going to be out of a job any time soon. Or they might be right.