I've been thinking a lot today about what the Democrats can do about the Gonzales nomination. I do think it would be a mistake to filibuster, or at least signal an intent to filibuster, this nomination. He's a bad guy for all the reasons we know, and his nomination proves that George Bush doesn't actually give a shit about the lives of our soldiers in Iraq. But, there is no shortage of bad guys Bush can put in charge of the JD and so filibustering him will have little actual positive impact. Winning a battle is always nice, but in this case winning achieves little.
The thing is, if the Dems start talking filibuster it will instantly become a process story to the media. They love those, because they're easy, and it will allow them to ignore the substance.
The nomination presents the Dems with a great opportunity. They can use the hearings to shine as much light as they can on what has been transpiring. But, also, they can use them to make the moral case against Gonzales and the man who appointed them. This will take great skill, but it may be possible to demonstrate how inept, morally bankrupt, and corrupt these people really are.
There's little value in filibustering Gonzales, but there is great value in demonstrating just how inappropriate this nomination is.
