mbittered rivals on both sides of the partisan line clashed again last week after controversy arose over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys in 2006. Democrats used accusations of partisanship allegedly motivating the firings as further example that Alberto Gonzales flouts the law carrying out the agenda of the White House, while a typically befuddled President Bush defended Gonzales as "the fastest mouse in all Me-hee-co."

Administration insiders apologize for the president's gaff by citing his travels in Mexico to meet country President Felipe Calderon, and watching an excessive amount of Warner Brothers cartoons to escape negative media coverage. While Bush's actual statements excused Gonzales' questionable legal activities as the only way he could bring the cheese to the native population of his starving country, even if it meant defying the mean gringo pussy cat, White House spokesperson Tony Snow had a different take on the president's surreal blubberings.

"The president has always had high respect for Attorney General Gonzales, and has always believed him the best man for the job," said Snow, ignoring sarcastic reporter cries of "Arriba! Arriba! �ndale!" "Still, we recognize the possibility of impropriety in the office of the Attorney General and expect Attorney General Gonzales to account for the actions of his staff. In short, Gonzales' got some 'splainin' to do!"

Snow's alleged joke was met with some boos and not a single trace of laughter.

Also not laughing are representatives of the Democratic leadership in Congress, many of whom are calling for Gonzales' firing as the controversy builds. The negative press for the AG follows last week's admission by the FBI that the bureau underreported the amount of domestic spying it was performing under the Patriot Act. The fire under the AG's ass was stoked even hotter when it was revealed Gonzales and the Attorney General's office fired 8 U.S. Attorneys in 2006 for alleged refusals to prosecute cases of voter fraud. The cases of voter fraud cited were incidents in which ex-convicts and other pro-Democratic throngs were allowed to cast votes and not purged from voter rolls, which is something Republicans really like to do to all non-white voters.

Gonzales may end up taking the fall for the firings as heat continues to build around his office and, more importantly, evidence emerges tying the White House to the alleged politically motivated shit-cannings. Communications between former White House attorney Harriet Miers and Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson came to light this week showing that Miers (and presumably the administration) were contemplating firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys and replacing them, while Gonzales opposed the measure and conceivably thought targeting specific pains-in-the-ass to the White House would be sufficient. To no one's surprise, Sampson resigned Tuesday to go live in a private scapegoat community somewhere.

In the wake of all these recent controversies, Democrats have called for the firing of Gonzales, but the real surprise is the Democrats think there's maybe one conservative kid in the mailroom of the White House they think shouldn't be fired; they found unlikely support Wednesday from New Hampshire Republican Sen. John Sununu, son of former White House Chief of Staff under George Bush Sr. John "Leaving on a Federally-Funded Jet Plane" Sununu. Claiming Gonzales should be replaced by a more aggressive leader, possibly someone part werewolf.

Though we didn't bother asking him, we assume if Alberto Gonzales did resign to save the administration some embarrassment, President Bush would not be adverse to nominating his cousin Slowpoke Rodriguez as a replacement.

inding all requests for funding troops in Iraq and Afghanistan impeded by the new Democratic Congress, President Bush resorted to the only weapon at his disposal Friday: Requesting even more troops, more specifically, 4,000 new soldiers with the explicit purpose of conquering Congress.

Astounded Democratic leadership responded quickly, telling the press Saturday, "Of course, any action that brings greater safety to our nation will be considered. But for crying out loud, of course we're not going to approve that. I mean, get a clue."

Critics of the White House were quick to condemn what they called a "call for a military coup" from the president as "unconstitutional."

The White House responded with a brief memo stating: "We'll let the militarily-supported Congress establish what's constitutional and what's not."

Some have been quick to characterize the measure as an attempt, however ill-conceived, by the White House to demonstrate the Democratic Congress is unwilling to work with them. Okay, it was just one guy who said that—political and pizza pundit Jefferson Shavers III.

"It's really a no-lose situation for the president," said Shavers, revealing his dazzling smile in the quaint atmosphere of his wood-paneled office in mom's garage. "If the Democrats turn down even more requests for troops, even those which would be serving on domestic soil, the president can point to it as further proof Congress just won't cooperate. And if he gives them the troops, they're all going to die. He absolutely can't lose, unless a ridiculously low approval rating demonstrated Americans really aren't supporting the White House military demands anymore."

While most in Congress, where the danger lies, continued to remain silent on the request after its announcement, the administration took the offensive by attempting to paint a picture of an anti-troops sentiment in the Democratic party.

"I come from a different world than my Democratic colleagues, I suppose," said Vice-President Dick Cheney, the gaping orifice of the White House whenever it has to tell America something truly odious. "Where I come from, we support the troops, we don't try to make political ammunition out of the war they're fighting. We supported them when they're in Vietnam. We should support them when they're fighting in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or standing behind you with a rifle and demanding you vote 'yea' on a flag-burning amendment. That's just the way I was raised."

The administration called for an immediate vote on its inappropriately named "Kill Congress" legislation, citing an expected Taliban offensive in the spring that the U.S. would be better prepared for when it could "bypass congressional authority and get as many troops as it needs" to stabilize the region. The bill goes to the House on Monday for a vote, where its chore of passing the house should be comparably to last year's "Snowball in Hell" amendment sponsored by insane Senator Zell Miller (D, GA).

The White House refused comment to the commune, as per usual. Republican governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger was contacted just for an amusing quote in his thick accent, but he turned out to be even more unintelligible over the phone than in person, so we scrapped that plan.

The next power play for all the chips on the table isn't until November of 2008, of course, but I personally find this the most exciting time in any election, sir. For we are entering the Quickening—on both sides of the political line, we're in that glorious moment when the candidates have foolishly announced themselves running for the presidency. The blood has hit the water and the brutal clash has started which will soon leave only two men standing. Four, if you count the tickets on both sides, and we might as well.

The American people all know me as a lifelong Democrat, those who don't know me for Uncle Red's microwave popcorn do, at least. It should hardly be a surprise I'm more interested in the Democratic side of this free-for-all. You might initially think I enjoy watching Republicans shred each other like Spartacus-era gladiators, and I certainly do, but my real thrill is observing the process by which we decide who will be the most bulletproof candidate we can run against the other party, and his little buddy, who is officially referred to in party circles on both sides as "the Gilligan."

Some of you may have a tough time stomaching the blood and gore when it's happening to candidates you like, but I say it's America's natural vetting process for potential presidents. Think of it like beating the shit out of a kid you like in order to make him a better boxer 20 years from now. If that's ever really happened to you, let me tell you now from my own experience that those kids never understand it if they don't get into boxing after high school. But for our candidates, heading into the cruelest arena we have in modern times, it's the best medicine. If only we had attacked John Kerry's Vietnam record during the primaries we could have really prepared him for the horseshit that awaited him in 2004.

I'm personally thankful that Hilary Clinton has strapped on the cat claws this early in the game, and she's going to make mince meat of any who really opposes her on her way to the White House. You can hardly blame her, she had to keep her complaints mostly to herself since back in 1993 when her husband took office. Any woman out there who's ever made the mistake of letting their husband drive somewhere when he didn't know the way should be able to identify—sitting back, watching him fuck up and knowing anything you say is just going to cause more trouble. She certainly wants it bad enough… but can she get it? None of the other Democrats have the balls right now to bring that A-game attack back to her, leaving her soft and vulnerable for the Republican contenders, who aren't about to play kitten games with her like her own party.

The other big contender right now is Barack Obama. He's black, he's from Chicago, and he's only been in the Senate since 1996, which makes him one of the less experienced candidates in the mix. As if he didn't have enough going against him, his middle name's "Hussein." Name a popular Hussein that people like—go ahead. Even if you can, I bet you couldn't name five. He represents a new America to many, an America of diverse cultural backgrounds and the open arms of the Democratic party embracing everyone, across racial, religious, and even party lines. He has no shot in hell. They're playing lightly with him so far, because you can't really say anything negative about a guy who hasn't done much in Congress at all. His real drawback is going to be overcoming a name you simply can't imagine as president. President Obama? Really? Are we ready for that? Maybe if he had received my letter in time he could have changed his name to Chad Scott, always a winner.

That's actually all of the candidates. Sure, there's John Edwards and a few other people we could mention, and maybe I'll waste a column on them next time. In the meantime, let the feast on the candidate flesh continue.

º Last Column: Whatever Happened to Baby Bagel?
º more columns