AND NOW THERE ARE THREE REPUGS CALLING FOR GONZALES' OUSTER. OK, WHAT ABOUT ROVE?

I'd like to report that a third shoe dropped on Gonzales' head today when California right-wing Congressman Dana Rohrbacher added his voice to the chorus of Republican legislators howling for the Attorney General's blood. But maybe we should just count House Members as half a vote. There's also some anonymous Republican strategist who says "Gonzales is finished."

At this point the White House seems ready to abandon Gonzales to save Rove, although with every passing hour more evidence comes out that Rove was the mastermind architect behind the whole operation. Over at HuffPo last night, Cenk Uygur wonders what so many of us are wondering now: "What I don't understand is why the American taxpayer has to pay for a political operative to operate out of the White House." He means Rove. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to subpoena him next week.

And, if you missed it, Sydney Blumenthal, has a great expose up at Salon called All Roads Lead to Rove. The short version: "The White House political director was clearly at the center of the partisan plot to fire U.S. attorneys, despite the administration's clumsy attempts to pretend otherwise." Hit the link if you want to read the very cogent case that shows clearly too much emphasis has been put on Gonzales' role and not nearly enough on Rove's.

With the new Gallup poll showing that Cheney's job approval has dropped another half dozen points to the lowest point ever and that by a margin of 3-1 Americans oppose Libby getting a pardon, it looks like this country has had about enough of Bush and his rogue regime. An editorial in this morning's New York Times is talking about how the White House has been (lamely) orchestrating a coverup in the Gozales-Rove politization of the Justice Department.

In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.

In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on “fraud,” the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system.

John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor’s race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. “There was no evidence,” he said, “and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury...”

The United States attorney purge appears to have been prompted by an array of improper political motives. Carol Lam, the San Diego attorney, seems to have been fired to stop her from continuing an investigation that put Republican officials and campaign contributors at risk. These charges, like the accusation that Mr. McKay and other United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, are a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections. It does not justify their firing; it makes their firing a graver offense.