Are all the conservatives who oppose this nomination doing so because they support the president? Interestingly enough, Bruce Fein, mentioned in the CNN article, has penned at least one article calling for a Bush impeachment, and derided Nancy Pelosi for taking it off table. How much clout Fein holds in conservative circles I can't say: he's legal counsel for Ron Paul (good), but went into enemy territory at Slate to make his pitch (bad); he worked for Reagan (good), but sounds a bit like the dirty liberals at DU and DailyKos when he argues that impeachment would be good for the US (bad). He sounds a lot like the lifetime Republicans the New Right has alienated in growing numbers in the last five years, who would rather lose and remain philosophically pure than win by name calling and empty slogans.

One thing is for sure, it will be interesting to see what happens to the Republican Party after this election cycle and over the next decade after all of the changes that have happened to it. Can they ever get back to their roots?

   Has the Shrub's political power shrunk since the last election? Well, holy shit, just maybe-- if only there was an expression to capture that idea. Anyone want to take a hand at coining a phrase to describe this unheralded situation?

I don't think the phrase "lame duck" was even mentioned in a single article. Of course, Bush's power shrink is due to more than just his waning time in office.

    The notion that someone "independent" will somehow change this administration's behavior is highly dubious, to say the least. But the media sure does love their catchphrases, so I doubt we'll see or hear too much analysis along these lines.

Of course. It is unreasonable to suggest that a "moderate," "independent," or "Bi-partisan" candidate for this job will fix the problems with this administration. However, AG is a very important (powerful) job, and the in-ability of the administration to nominate & confirm a candidate who would suppress investigations and subpoenas is something of note.