Obstructionism vs opposition

Abiola over at Foreign Dispatches makes some good points on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be the next US Attorney General.

Rather than waste time and energy in obstructionism guaranteed to play into GOP efforts to undermine the Democratic Party's Hispanic support, why not let the administration have its way, so that the sheer awfulness of Gonzalez' attitude towards civil liberties reveals itself for all to see? That way, when the time comes for him to be put forward as a Supreme Court prospect (and we know that such a time will come - it's just too politically convenient), it'll be easy enough to use Gonzalez' own casual attitude towards constitutional norms to bring him down, with most reasonable people accepting that he is indeed too extreme to deserve such a position.

He notes that: there is plenty of grumbling already going on within the GOP about Gonzalez' nomination, not least by those who are doubtful of the zeal with which he will be ready to oppose abortion and affirmative action, and the only effect of all-out Democratic opposition will be to rally even the grumblers around the candidate (who will end up getting passed anyway), while presenting a campaigning gift to those eager to turn the Hispanic vote into a solidly Republican one.

I agree provided that "letting the administration have its way" means simply that Democrats in the Senate do not fillibuster Gonzales' nomination or otherwise try to block a vote. The Dems should get his thoughts on the record and then simply vote against him.

It's clear that Gonzales has as much contempt for the rule of law as his predecessor if Gonzales thinks treaties like the Geneva Conventions should be ignored simply because his person considers them "quaint." Those who believe in the rule of law would prefer that the Senate officially de-ratify treaties rather than having the attorney general of the day simply dismiss them with a wave of the hand.