Olson To Justice?
Since Alberto Gonzales will clear out his office in four days, the search for a replacement Attorney General qualifies as a high priority. The Bush administration has floated a few names, but reportedly leans toward former Solicitor General Ted Olson -- and already it has generated some heat from Democrats in the Senate:
The White House is closing in on a nominee to replace Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, with former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson considered one of the leading candidates, administration and Congressional officials said Tuesday.Reports of Mr. Olson’s candidacy suggested that President Bush, in choosing the third attorney general of his presidency, might defy calls from Democrats and choose another Republican who is considered a staunch partisan to lead the Justice Department. Mr. Gonzales is departing after being repeatedly accused of allowing political loyalties to blind him to independently enforcing the law.
“Clearly if you made a list of consensus nominees, Olson wouldn’t appear on that list,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who led the Judiciary Committee effort to remove Mr. Gonzales. “My hope is that the White House would seek some kind of candidate who would be broadly acceptable.”
The choice of Mr. Olson, or almost any other candidate on the list, would almost certainly draw opposition from some Senate Democrats. Democratic leaders had called on the White House to find a respected, moderate nominee to restore calm to the Justice Department.
The Democrats may want a "consensus" nominee, but at this point, the Democrats have offered few reasons to believe that they would offer anything but bitter partisanship for any candidate. Senate Democrats do not get to create a list of acceptable choices for presidential appointments, especially for positions that do not have lifetime tenure. While the AG serves the entire nation, it remains the President's prerogative to find someone who will implement his policy choices.
Ted Olson makes a lot of sense for this position. His tenure as Solicitor General was widely praised for its independence as well as its competence. He served President Bush while retaining his own voice and bolstering his reputation for integrity. Olson likely has few political aspirations of his own. At 68, he's an unlikely pick for the Supreme Court, and his assistance with the Giuliani campaign is not likely to garner him any more than an AG nomination in the next administration, assuming Giuliani wins.
More importantly, his high profile insulates him from undue influence from the political side of the White House, as does this point in his legal career. He can be more independent precisely because he has nothing much to gain from allowing the White House to run Justice. With only 16 months to go in the Bush administration, his mandate would focus exclusively on righting the ship at Justice and restoring professionalism and excellence, both of which Olson has demonstrated in abundance during his career.
After hounding Gonzales out of office, the Democrats will be hard pressed to complain about a replacement of Olson's stature. Chuck Schumer aside, Olson's previous confirmation as Solicitor General and subsequent honorable performance would make this appointment sensible enough to avoid all but token resistance. The Bush administration should proceed quickly to make Olson its caretaker AG and return Justice to its historical responsibilities.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on September 12, 2007 10:27 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (26)
Posted by FedUp | September 12, 2007 11:11 AM
Oh, I'm sure the dimmies will find something to complain about - they haven't disappointed me yet! I hope that Olson is nominated and confirmed so that we can move on past this hurdle.
Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 12, 2007 11:16 AM
Olson's confirmation really hinges on one question:
'Will you, or will you not, enforce duly enacted subpoenas against members of the executive branch, to appear before Congress and give testimony?'
If the answer is no, or some sort of equivocation, no confirmation, period.
Posted by sestamibi | September 12, 2007 12:00 PM
I would love to see them pile on a guy who lost his wife on 9/11. There's no level too low to stoop for them.
Posted by Scott | September 12, 2007 12:00 PM
Nominate Olson, or possible someone even more unacceptable. Take the fight to the Democrats. Bush has nothing to lose, DOJ will survive for the next 16 months, and it will make the Dems look petty if they refuse to approve the nomination.
The odds are that the Dems will cave, again. Olson will get the nomination, and Bush will win. Again.
If the Senate does not approve the nomination, all Republican presidential candidates can campaign against a Senate that puts politics ahead of everything.
Win-win all around.
Posted by The Yell | September 12, 2007 12:02 PM
"With only 16 months to go in the Bush administration, his mandate would focus exclusively on righting the ship at Justice and restoring professionalism and excellence, both of which Olson has demonstrated in abundance during his career."
Without, of course, dismissing anybody who won't shape up.
Posted by Ron | September 12, 2007 12:25 PM
They will pile on Olson because his late wife, Barbara, authored two books, "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton", and "The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House". But let them dare bring this fact up. There are several passages in the latter book that will lay a lot of the blame on the Clintons for what happened on 9/11/01, resulting in her death at the Pentagon. Bring it on!
Posted by William Teach | September 12, 2007 12:26 PM
Beat me to it, sestamibi. Olson would have "absolute moral authority," to use the libs own words against them. But, yes, they will try, and their friends in the MSM will make sure not to mention Barbara Olson in their coverage of smear.
Posted by Carol Herman | September 12, 2007 1:05 PM
Oh, this would be so delightful!
Am I encouraged? Well, while Bush is playing poker, you can't read his cards. But if I had to guess? Hand's loaded with spades and aces.
Because I also saw a headline up at DRUDGE, explaining that Bush and Cheney want to go out with a BANG.
When did the chips start falling into place?
Seems to me General Petaeus went out "scouting" hostile territory; where those 'effing congressional indians' were naked, covered in feathers, and slinging bullshit. Instead of arrows.
While the chips on the table piles up.
Off to the side, Olmert and Ehud Barak, tossed in their calling cards. To assad and hamas.
(An Israeli paper is reporting that the hamas characters in gazoo have upped to run into hiding.)
Let 'em hide!
Since DRUDGE is disclosing that syria had, in fact, a secret nuke installation; you can actually wonder if Saddam's WMD's weren't the "seed." And, syria wasn't an ultimate destination for the crap not being found in irak.
The story hasn't been told.
The gutless enemy-media refused to talk about what's real. And, what's their fantasy attempts of having their lawyers steal DC. Where lawyers are known to steal swamps.
But Bush holds his cards, tight.
Sure. I'd love us to ring in Rama-Dama-Ding-Dong.
It seems we've got more than enough facts on our side.
But Bush will wait until the Bonkeys drop everything. And, then? Time's on his side, anyway.
Action ahead? Yes. At Bush's normal rate of speed. (Makes Fred Thompson look "fast," if you get my drift.)
I don't think Bush is gonna let the arab wounds fester.
Imagine this: Bush leaves office, and Turtle Bay topples into the East River. What can be bad?
Yeah! Ted Olsen! The man's reported as saying "he'd take the job if nominated."
So the New Yuk Times went ahead, and published Leaky Leahy's list, instead.
America's dealt with enemies from the time the first settlers set their feet down on American soil, so long ago.
Winston CHurchill said: Americans do everything, first, and then they do the right thing.
I'd really love it if the algore-sore-losers didn't even see it coming.
Ditto, for assad.
While I do know it's hard to turn around a big boat, when you want to maneuver your ships on the water.
OH, well. The Bonkeys have their spade. Supported by Oprah. And, all those limosine liberals. Man, are they setting themselves up.
If this was bowling, they'd be considered the pins that could be formed without human intervention.
Posted by starfleet_dude | September 12, 2007 1:30 PM
Whatever Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) decides may well dictate what the Democrats do, given Feingold supported Ashcroft for AG while opposing Gonzales.
Posted by itsspideyman | September 12, 2007 3:09 PM
Ted Olson is a man of rare quality and absolute integrity recognized on both sides of the aisle. I would love to see him raise his right hand and watch the senators twist in he wind trying to assail his character. The man is bulletproof.
Posted by lexhamfox | September 12, 2007 3:13 PM
Anything would be an improvement over Gazza's imcompetence. Olsen looks like a safe pair of hands and I would expect him to receive bipartisan support.
Posted by starfleet_dude | September 12, 2007 3:35 PM
Ted Olson will not be the next USAG:
After all the trouble over Gonzales, the Democrats are not going to go with a highly partisan appointment by President Bush, nor should they.
Posted by Terry Gain | September 12, 2007 3:50 PM
There is no such thing as duly enacted subpoenas ...
not even in la la leftist land.
the Democrats are not going to go with a highly partisan appointment by President Bush
...
so Bush should nominate someone who is potentially disloyal?
Bush should remind the Dems that Kennedy nominated Kennedy ...
No partisanship there (or maybe just tell them to go to hell).
Posted by The Yell | September 12, 2007 3:54 PM
"Ted Olson will not be confirmed," Reid, D-Nev., said in a written statement. "I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general."
that makes Olson a shoo-in.
Posted by viking01 | September 12, 2007 4:01 PM
Highly partisan? What dimwit writes the DNC talking points? Screamin' Howard Dean?
About those "subpoenas" someone need merely ask if Ted Olson will respect and enforce the Separation of Powers as proscribed by the Constitution and protect the Executive Branch against usurpation by those, er, highly partisan activists such as Reid, Schumer and others who would conspire to violate same?
Posted by starfleet_dude | September 12, 2007 4:09 PM
Olson's nomination (if it's even made now) will never get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee given Reid's announcement, which won't provide an opportunity for grandstanding either. At this point, whenever President Bush appears on TV to push for something it hurts more than helps Republicans so it's a win-win for Democrats to put the kibosh on Olson now.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 12, 2007 4:29 PM
What exactly were Reid's bitches against Olson?
Posted by docjim505 | September 12, 2007 4:38 PM
Del,
He's a Republican, obviously.
PHILIP SHENON and DAVID JOHNSTON, NYT: “Clearly if you made a list of consensus nominees, Olson wouldn’t appear on that list,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who led the Judiciary Committee effort to remove Mr. Gonzales. “My hope is that the White House would seek some kind of candidate who would be broadly acceptable.”
You gotta wonder who that greaseball bastard Trashcan Chuckie would consider to be "broadly acceptable". Janet Reno? Jamie Gorelick? Sandy Burglar? Oh, I know: Ronnie Earle!
Posted by StraightShooter | September 12, 2007 4:40 PM
Oh - that Ted Olson - sure, nominate him. The one who argued against counting votes in Florida in 2000. With all the evidence that Rove selected JD prosecutors on the basis of their efforts to suppress Democratic votes and attack Democratic candidates? Sure you'd like Democrats to roll over and play dead for you.
If Gonzales demonstrated one thing, it is that some AGs are worse than no AG at all. With any luck, half of Bush's remaining cabinet will resign in the next 6 months and we can begin to dig out from under the crud he has piled on the country.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 12, 2007 5:25 PM
StraightShooter said:
"Oh - that Ted Olson - sure, nominate him. The one who argued against counting votes in Florida in 2000"
As opposed to Al Gore, who tried to suppress Florida's military votes? And also tried to cherry-pick Florida votes by county?
The 2000 election is over, and has been for almost 7 years. Get over it.
Or should I say "Move On"? (.org)
Posted by Palamas | September 12, 2007 5:42 PM
Oh - that Ted Olson - sure, nominate him. The one who argued against counting votes in Florida in 2000.
It's a little late to be complaining about that, given that the Senate confirmed Olson for Solicitor General. But then, some people are still fighting the Civil War.
Posted by viking01 | September 12, 2007 6:50 PM
There you have it folks. Bush Derangement Syndrome on display for all to see. It's because Fat Albert got demoted to peddling global warming scams after 2000 and his useful idiots are still beating the disenfranchised drum against Olson.
Democrats have become like Pavlov's conditioned dog. Every time they lose they yelp: Rove! no, Cheney! no no, SwiftBoats! no, FEMA! no, Olson! no, Bush! How dare he win the 2k election after the network presstitutes called it for their beloved simp AlGore before the western half of the nation's polls had closed. Not to mention the Palm Beach Democrat Party official with the voting machine in his trunk. It just ain't fair. Bite lower lip, grimace like Slick, quick glance upward to see if any Clinton suckers bought it.
I well remember seeing all those whiny Liberal losers in Palm Beach and thinking there's definitely some Chads hanging round there that need to be punched out.
Posted by Carol Herman | September 12, 2007 7:07 PM
Always such a pleasure to see your comments posted here, viking01.
Couldn't agree with you more!
For some reason the Bonkeys think Bush runs from fights. Even though he clearly spoke the words: BRING IT ON.
Amazing to watch people misunderestimating the man in the White House!
By the way, there were, in fact, 3 total recounts of ALL of Floriduh's ballots. ANd, Bush won 'em. 3-times.
The bill of goods sore-loser, algore, wanted to do was only have palm beach ballots counted. And, he can throw all the tantrums he likes, it didn't pass muster.
As to Ted Olsen's win in front of the Supreme Court; their boy David Boise LOST. It was an equal flight. And, Boise was thrown in because there was worries about the other "famous" guy ... whose name I don't remember ... Who was on first, before he got scratched.
IF the senators want to re-live history, let 'em.
If the committees want to sit on paperwork? Ya know, those committees aren't constitutional. Bush could try an "appointment" ... while the idiots in congress check their bathroom stalls, looking for paper.
Here. I've got a hand-signal all worked out.
Two. If I can include the Rovian 'thumb to my nose, and fingers set a-waving."
Can the Bonkey's lose, ahead? Talk about a party that lost everything, you'd have to look at the WHIGS. With the survivor, Abraham Lincoln, walking into the republicann tent; since he wanted to be president. And, he knew, by 1860, the WHIGS were a dead party.
Affirmative action, ahead, is gonna sink. Don't know where. Don't know when. But they've already lost mny of their customers. Sending kids to schools where they have to regurgiate everything, sure creates the smells; that you just never forget.
By the way, IF Bush does nominate Ted Olsen, his wife's books will come back on line. She wrote two volumes about Hillary. And, they are not flattering. Couldn't be brought back out, again, at a better time.
I'm excited at the possibilities ahead.
Posted by Rose | September 13, 2007 12:28 AM
I've been quite shocked, myself, at a few of Ted Olsen's more Liberal viewpoints, since Barbara's death, so I quite f ail to see what objection the DIMS could have to him.
I'm sure he will be more than equitable.
Posted by Rose | September 13, 2007 12:33 AM
Posted by sestamibi | September 12, 2007 12:00 PM
I would love to see them pile on a guy who lost his wife on 9/11. There's no level too low to stoop for them.
********************
If I were THEM, THAT is PRECISELY the reason I would use to protest his appointment - that he is too personally involved to be impartial.
Posted by Rose | September 13, 2007 12:42 AM
Ted will do a fine job - bottom line, THAT is precisely why the DIMS will oppose him.
Further undermine all their hard work!