Finally!

First the New York Times and now the Washington Post are reporting that "embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has resigned from his post, ending a controversial cabinet tenure that included clashes with Congress over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and the scope of efforts to spy on U.S. citizens.

"Gonzales' resignation marks the loss of another Bush loyalist at a time when his support in public opinion polls has been lagging. Though Bush had voiced continued support for Gonzales, a longtime ally from Texas, the attorney general's support in Congress had withered after a series of run-ins that prompted some lawmakers to allege he had committed perjury."

And then there's this August 30th capsulization of the Gonzales legacy from that excellent British mag, The Economist:

GOING, GOING, GONZALES

The resignation of George Bush's attorney-general leaves the administration in a
pretty ruinous state

BETTER late than never. On August 27th, with his reputation in ruins and the Justice Department in chaos, Alberto Gonzales finally resigned as attorney-general. The immediate cause of his departure was the firing of nine federal prosecutors. The bigger cause was that he embodied most of the things that Mr Bush's critics find intolerable about his presidency.

Mr Gonzales's departure produced predictable cheers from Democrats. More significant was the reaction of his fellow Republicans. Nobody except Mr Bush seemed to have a good word to say for America's first Hispanic attorney-general. For his part, Mr Gonzales said that he was glad to have lived the American dream (he was one of eight children of an itinerant immigrant labourer). He said that even his worst days at the Department of Justice were better than his father's best days.

The battle over Mr Gonzales was one of the most bitter of Mr Bush's second term, inflaming relations between Congress and the White House, eating up weeks of congressional time and leaving the Department of Justice a dysfunctional shell, with several of its top posts empty and the professional staff more demoralised than at any time since Watergate.

Why did the attorney-general prove such a lightning rod? Mr Gonzales is a polite and inoffensive man. He has moderate views on affirmative action and abortion. His various appearances before congressional committees resembled nothing so much as the clubbing of a baby seal. But "Fredo", as the president liked to call him, was at the centre of two of Mr Bush's most controversial policies.

The first was the politicisation of the federal government. Republicans have long complained that the federal government is stuffed full of dyed-in-the-wool lefties who habitually ignore or subvert Republican policies. The Bush administration did more than complain: it increased the number of political jobs by 12% across the government and boosted the number of political jobs that do not require legislative confirmation by 33%.

The danger of this is that the federal government will degenerate into an arm of the Republican Party. This danger is particularly acute with the Justice Department, whose first duty is to implement the law as impartially as possible. Mr Gonzales raised hackles from the first because he was so close to the White House. His decision to fire nine federal prosecutors in 2006 suggested that he might be trying to cajole others into pursuing Republican policies. And his shifting explanations for his decision--from his insistence that he fired them for incompetence to his later descent into amnesia--sealed his fate.

Mr Bush was also determined to give himself the maximum possible latitude in dealing with terrorists. As the president's legal counsel during his first term, Mr Gonzales gave the green light to the Guantanamo prison camp, secret CIA prison camps, the wiretapping of American citizens and the use of torture. He even described some of the Geneva Conventions as "quaint". Mr Gonzales was not the architect of those policies--that honour probably belongs to Dick Cheney and his then chief counsel, David Addington--but he gave them his imprimatur. And his faltering performance as attorney-general provided the left with a chance of revenge.

FAREWELL TO THE TEXAS RAJ

Mr Bush now has the task of finding a new attorney-general. Several names are already circulating in Washington: Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security; Larry Thompson, a senior vice-president at PepsiCo; Ted Olson, a former solicitor-general; Orrin Hatch, a senator. But it is a measure of the difficulty of the decision that the White House did not produce a name immediately.

Mr Bush wants to preserve as much of his anti-terrorism machinery as possible--particularly a surveillance programme that needs to be reauthorised again in five months. He hates the idea of Congress deciding who should get a job in his administration. But his options are limited. Whoever he chooses will face tough confirmation hearings in a Democratic-controlled Congress that has already feasted on Mr Gonzales's flesh--and will then have barely a year to rebuild a dysfunctional department.

Mr Gonzales's departure marks the end of a strange era in Washington politics: the Texas Raj. Mr Bush rode into town in 2001 surrounded by people who had known each other for years in Austin, who were fiercely loyal to "43", and who had little liking for the customs of the Potomac. But now they have almost all gone, the victims of time (Dan Bartlett), excessive partisanship (Karl Rove, the president's chief adviser, who resigned two weeks ago) and incompetence (Harriet Miers and Mr Gonzales). The only remaining members of the original posse are Margaret Spellings, the secretary of education, and Mr Bush himself. The Bush White House is now largely run by Washington insiders such as Joshua Bolten, his chief of staff, and Ed Gillespie.

But might Mr Gonzales's departure also mark the beginning of a new era of good feeling and reconciliation? Some people certainly think so. The departure of Messrs Rove and Gonzales has removed two of the Democrats' top targets, the argument goes, and the ascendancy of Mr Bolten in the White House creates the possibility of at least some co-operation between White House and Congress. Both parties have an interest in getting the farm bill and the energy bill passed; the Democrats have a wider interest in not appearing to be obstructionist. Mr Bush now has an opportunity to revamp his reputation by adopting a more emollient style.

Yet there are endless problems with this rosy scenario. Mr Cheney remains entrenched in the vice-president's office, along with Mr Addington and other hard-liners. The Democrats are determined to get their revenge for six years of brutal treatment at the hands of the Republicans. They will undoubtedly use the confirmation of a new attorney-general to do as much harm to the Bush administration as possible. They may also continue to harass Mr Gonzales for possible perjury during his hearings. There is a strong likelihood that they will demand the appointment of a special prosecutor in exchange for confirming a new attorney-general. This will ensure months of painful and embarrassing legal inquiries.

Mr Bush also has precious little political capital left, even with his own side, and certainly not enough to relaunch his presidency. The Gonzales fiasco has dealt yet another serious blow to his reputation. Mr Bush ("the decider") prides himself on his ability to pick good men and then allow them to get on with things. But Mr Gonzales was a lightweight crony who was out of his depth. Mr Bush also prides himself on his loyalty to his subordinates. But this loyalty has persuaded him to back friends long after they have become liabilities. Messrs Gonzales and Rove and the rest of the Texas posse now have the luxury of spending their retirements in their home state. Mr Bush has no choice but to spend the next 17 months in Washington. He is not in for a pleasant time.