Bush Expected to Nominate Attorney General Next Week: Leading candidate is Ted Olson

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: Bush Expected to Nominate Attorney General Next Week
Former Solicitor General Is Called a Leading Candidate
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 8, 2007; Page A02

President Bush is expected to choose a replacement for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales by the middle of next week, and former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson has emerged as one of the leading contenders for the job, according to sources inside and outside the government who are familiar with White House deliberations. Other candidates still in the running include former deputy attorney general George J. Terwilliger III and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Laurence H. Silberman, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

Others whose names continue to be mentioned in congressional and political circles include Pepsico general counsel Larry D. Thompson, a former deputy attorney general; Solicitor General Paul D. Clement; and Verizon general counsel William P. Barr, who served as attorney general for Bush's father. A person close to Barr said yesterday, however, that he does not appear to be on the short list of candidates now being considered....

***

The persistent mention of Olson as a possible candidate has surprised and upset some Democrats, who view the well-known GOP attorney as a sharp-edged partisan who they contend would not be the best choice for a Justice Department accused of becoming overly politicized. Leahy voted against Olson's appointment as solicitor general in 2001, citing his "non-responsiveness" to questions about alleged ties to a conservative magazine's investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

"A lot of Democrats up here would view that as a shocking and unwise choice," one Senate aide said.

But Olson, who represented Bush in the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election, also is widely admired by members of both parties for his legal skills and sharp intellect. Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton, endorsed Olson for the attorney general's job in a recent opinion article, calling him "a principled and independent thinker who will focus on the word 'Justice' in the Department's name."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702560.html?hpid=sec-nation

[spanone]

1. he's a fucking partisan.....another screwing of the justice system

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Could anyone POSSIBLY be more partisan??? nt

[liberal N proud]

13. Did you expect anything else from bu$h

His first criteria for selecting anyone for any position in the government is are they a crony of his. If Yes move to question 2
Second is are they under qualified, If Yes, nominate.

[spanone]

45. no I didn't, but I always hold out hope....

fuckers

[MH1]

2. ..

:puke:

Please tell me that nomination will be DOA.

I can just see LIEberman voting for him though.

[cali]

5. It's dead, Jim.

Here's the thing, Leahy has said he won't hold a confirmation hearing until he gets the information he's been stonewalled on, including information about warrentless wire tapping, missing emails, the attorney firings, etc.

[Zodiak]

10. If Leahy is true to his word, then you are correct

We will have no Attorney General all the way through to the elections, unless the Boy King breaks his pact with Reid and recess-appoints one.

[cali]

15. He's been my Senator for years and years

I can't think of a time when he hasn't been true to his word, though sometimes he's moved more slowly than i've liked.

[Zodiak]

23. I've analyzed Leahy's votes

He's one of the good ones....about on par with Kerry and Levin on reliability.

[cali]

27. I've examined your criteria

and don't think it's the best reflection of a Senator's record- not that any of them are.

for instance, I Leahy, unlike Kerry, didn't vote for the IWR, and he was damned prescient about what would happen. He's for defunding the war. Levin ain't. That he voted for Roberts isn't as important to me as those two issues, and oh yeah, he's one of the few in Congress who doesn't parrot "support Israel on everything".

[Zodiak]

33. It's my scale...it works for me, and I report it openly

You can make up your own and put weight to the issues as you see fit (is the Iraq war 5X more important than Roberts?....2X?), and it will match your beliefs to a "T". At least you would have some metric other than "all D's are good and all R's are bad" (or some permutation thereof) as you asserted to me on another thread. Just remember that by weighing them you can be called on the carpet for why you did so over other issues if you choose to report your numbers here. I avoided that by not weighing issues and not picking and choosing...I set criteria and stuck with them.

If you analyzed my method, you will notice that the Iraq war wasn't even on my radar screen because I limited myself to votes on the floor (which never came up in the 109th other than fuding it, which every Senator did). But the numbers and percentages are still much the same regardless. I did the exercise to establish patterns, which were dreadfully apparent when I was done and ran contrary to all of the flowery characterizations of ADA and progressive punch.

After all, what I wanted to know was how "perfect" I wanted my Democrats to be since I was accused all of the time of wanting it....and it turns out that none are perfect and so many are too short of perfect for me to support. Less than 50% on big issues and I'll let you wither on the vine.

Intresting how you cited the Supreme Court being a hugely important issue to you (listed first) on a thread where you say there are other important issues than the Iraq war to you, but here you down-play a Supreme court nomination vote in favor of the war issue vote that I didn't measure (the IWR was the 108th Congress). Perhaps weighing issues isn't such a good idea after all because importance of issues changes from thread to thread on the same day.

And what are you complaining about? That I said that Leahy is one of the good ones? Or that Kerry and Levin are good ones, too? Obviously my criteria were good enough to determine that, so they can't be all that bad, can they?

[cali]

37. You're taking things just a tad personally.

Gee, I don't agree with your scale so you unleash a tirade. As for your patently absurd claim that I think all dems are good and all R's are bad; I don't live in a binary world. Any search of my posts would show ample criticism of dems, and even *gasp* occasional praise of a repuke- like Chaffee or Jeffords.

[Zodiak]

39. Your words

"you unleash a tirade"

"your pathetically absurb claim"

"and even *gasp* occasional"

Who is being personal here? Who is using the language of a personal attack?

I am defending my criteria that you dismissed wthout any examination of fact and you contradicted yourself, which I pointed out. That is not being personal....that is presenting an argument. Your response was personal, however, as these little tidbits show.

I said that your argument was a permutation thereof of all D's are good and all R's are bad, but I can quote it back for you if you like "I can't think of one Democrat who votes with Republicans most of the time", which I disproved according to the scale I use. Other permutuations are "No mtter how bad the Democrat is, a Republican is worse", "Why are you attacking the D...do you want an R to take his office?" or other such unsupported statements that plague this board. I prefer facts to be used rather an assertions in the absence of fact. If such a demand is seen as a peronal attack, then we do not have much to talk about.

[cali]

40. Yeah, I follower your lead

and took things too personally. But I stand by the fact that there are no dems that vote more often with the repubs than with the dems, let alone, many of them. That's not defending dems that being a stickler for facts. Do I think a dem majority is better than a repub majority? Only someone who can't see the forest for the trees would think otherwise.

[Zodiak]

42. Strawman

I never said that I didn't think a Dem majority wasn't better than an R majority, but I did say that it depends on which kinds of Dems you get. Please do not recharacterize my argument just to say I cannot see the forest for the trees. Some of those trees have Dutch Elm disease and threaten the whole forest.

And let's just use one Senator as an example.....prove to me that Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska votes with the progressive or "mainstream" Democratic position most of the time. Do not cite someone else's analysis wihout the full methodology posted as well, please.

And for those that are curious as to what the hck we are talking about, here are the issues I scored from the 109th Congress.

Condi confirm (nay)
Gonzales Confirm (nay)
class action law (nay)
bankruptcy bill (nay)
confirm negroponte (nay)
energy bill (nay)
CAFTA (nay)
CAFTA (2nd vote) (nay)
ohiovote (no to certification, 5 points for at least giving a speech)
firearm manufacturer immunity (nay)
confirmation of radical judges (gang of 14 = 5 pts, voting for one or more of these judges 0)
tax relief act of 2005 (tax cuts for rich) (nay)
deficit reconciliation act (spending cuts for poor) (nay)
Alito cloture (nay)
Alito nomination (nay)
Tax cut protection (favor the rich) (nay)
Extend Patriot Act (nay)
Raise limit on public debt (nay)
Flag burning Amendment (nay)
US-Oman FTA (nay)
Roberts Confirmation (nay)
Gates' confirmation (nay)
Atomic cooperation w/ India (nay)
Border Fence (nay)
Military Commissions act (nay)
Pension protection act (nay...not sure about this one, actually..Feingold and Boxer voted nay)
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (nay)
Child Insterstate Abortion Notification Act (nay)
Stem Cell Enhancement Act (yeah)

And here were the scores:

Harkin (Iowa) 82.75862069
Boxer (California) 82.75862069
Feingold (Wisconsin) 82.75862069
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 77.5862069
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov. 76.66666667
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 75.86206897
Durbin (Illinois) 75.86206897
Akaka (Hawaii) 75.86206897
Sarbanes (Maryland) 72.4137931
Kerry (Massacheusetts) DLC 70.68965517
Leahy (Vermont) 70.68965517
Levin (Michigan) 68.96551724
Mikulski (Maryland) 68.96551724
Reed (Rhode Island) 68.96551724
Biden (Deleware) 67.24137931
Dodd (Connecticut) 65.51724138
Wyden (Oregon) 65.51724138
Dayton (Minnesota) 65.51724138
Obama (Illinois) 63.79310345
Bayh (Indiana) DLC 60.34482759
Murray (Washington) 60.34482759
Schumer (New York) DLC 58.62068966
Inouye (Hawaii) DLC 56.89655172
Bingaman (New Mexico) 56.89655172
Dorgan (North Dakota) DLC 55.17241379
Reid (Nevada) 55.17241379
Byrd (West Virginia) 55.17241379
Clinton (New York) DLC 53.44827586
Menendez (New Jersey) DLC 50
Cantwell (Washington) DLC 48.27586207
Stabenow (Michigan) DLC 46.55172414
Kohl (Wisconsin) DLC 44.82758621
Feinstein (California) DLC 44.82758621
Leiberman (Connecticut) DLC 44.82758621
Rockefeller (West Virginia) 41.37931034
Conrad (North Dakota) DLC 41.37931034
Baucus (Montana) DLC 39.65517241
Carper (Deleware) DLC 34.48275862
Johnson (South Dakota) DLC 31.03448276
Lincoln (Arkansas) DLC 31.03448276
Salazar (Colorado) DLC 24.13793103
Pryor (Arkansas) DLC 22.4137931
Nelson (Florida) DLC 20.68965517
Landrieu (Louisianna) DLC 17.24137931
Nelson (Nebraska) DLC 3.448275862

[spotbird]

18. He'll be confirmed with

the magic 60 votes, just to prove a filibuster was impossible. No Democratic presidential nominee will vote for him.


Same story every time.

[cali]

21. Nope. He won't even get to committee.

bush is an idiot to think he can get this through.

[spotbird]

31. You could be right

the only thing I'm sure of is the selection will not be made based on integrity. If it's not Olson, it will be someone just like him.

[cali]

36. I don't believe Leahy is about to back down:

He's stated publically that he can't hold confirmation hearings until he gets the info he's been demanding and they've been stonewalling, because he needs to know that info in order to see exactly what needs to be fixed.

[spotbird]

43. I'm sooo past optimism

and without it I'm never disappointed.

[bullimiami]

4. i wonder if ted knows where his wife is

she certainly didnt crash into the pentagon and he doesnt seem to be curious about the glaring discrepancies so whats the alternative?

[aquart]

22. Because brown guys aren't clever enough to crash a plane?

Sometimes the racism in this place astounds me.

[bullimiami]

24. you sure can read a lot into nothing.

of course arabs can fly planes.
a 757 sure didnt disappear into that tiny hole in the pentagon though.

[kskiska]

41. He's got a new 4th wife now n/t

[Kip Humphrey]

6. Makes sense...Ted Olson, that long time RNC heavyweight, will keep the fascist coup of the US

on schedule.

[lonestarnot]

7. Good luck with that bushitler.

[KoKo]

8. Olson is probably the cover for who they really want. All the choices are

partisan but they always point one way when their real hope is for the other way.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. You mean, someone will sail through because it'll be said...

Well, at least he/she is not TED OLSON?

[KoKo]

19. That's what i'm thinking....It's been their pattern so far.... n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

32. You could well be right! nt

[spotbird]

35. That sounds familiar,

where have I heard it before?

[Gman]

9. Olsen perjured his self during his confirmation hearing for Solicitor General

when he denied having anything to do with the Arkansas Project. I would think his nomination would be DOA.

Olsen also argued the Bush case before the SCOTUS for Bush v Gore in 2000 that sealed the right wing coup of 2000.

[spotbird]

20. Perjury is a prerequisite

Has there been a Bush administration official who hasn't committed perjury before a Congressional committee? If they've testified, they've lied. Congress doesn't care or expect truthful testimony.

[WinkyDink]

12. I cannot abide that man, even (especially!) unto his very speech.

[Olney Blue]

14. It would be insane for the chimp to send up Ted.

But should we expect anything different?

[Bitwit1234]

16. I don't mean dis-=respect for the dead, but look at his wife who

was killed in the Pentagon plane on 9/11. She was a sharp tongue democrat basher who almost spewed spit when she was bashing democrats. What do you expect her husband to be.

[Gman]

17. Babs was very close with Anthrax Coulter

they were two of a kind.

[UTUSN]

25. After the first "Oh-great" & "Frying-pan-into-fire" comes: What do we expect?!1

Nothing that spews from Shrub is good for the people of the U.S.A., so whether it's his incompetent-crony-houseboy or his accomplished-liar, it's the essence of the Shrub Mal-administration. If only the sleeping, non-voting masses would notice so that there would never again be a Rethug in office, not to mention a Jeb Crow Shrub.

[alfredo]

26. Ted Olsen and the Arkansas Project

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/14/archive/index.html

Ted Olson's Arkansas problem
Despite his evasive disavowals, Salon investigations showed the right-wing consigliere was deeply involved in a sordid plot to bring down President Clinton.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Daryl Lindsey

May 14, 2001 | The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday delayed its vote in the confirmation of Ted Olson as President Bush's solicitor general. The move came after Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., publicly questioned inconsistencies in the answers Olson has provided about his role in the Arkansas Project, a $2.4 million, five-year effort to dig up dirt on President Clinton.

Fearing that his confirmation could be derailed by the allegations, Olson has attempted to downplay his role in the Arkansas Project, but with each new response, he seems to backpedal from his original account even further.

Olson's evasiveness drew a rebuke from the ranking Democrat on the committee. "The credibility of the person appointed to be the Solicitor General is of paramount importance," Leahy warned in a May 4 letter that followed Olson's written responses to additional questions forwarded by the committee following his April 5 confirmation hearing.

[DeepModem Mom]

34. Thanks for that info, alfredo. nt

[leftchick]

28. he will skate through the confirmation hearings easily

There is nothing like a personal tragedy story from Sept. 11 to make democrats cower in submission.

[cali]

29. Just not true.

We're headed for a real clash here. And I've never known Leahy or Feingold to name just two, to cower.

[alfredo]

38. Olsen's only task will be to punish Hillary before the election. That's is

if she is nominated.

[rucky]

30. I have to laugh at NPR...

in their pseudo-prediction that Bush will have to nominate an AG that will reassure congress that he's not using the AG position as his personal attorney (or something like that)

So who does * pick? His PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

[bridgit]

44. sure, they've been talking Olson for weeks now...