« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
The field for Alberto Gonzales' replacement has narrowed to two, with Ted Olson remaining the front runner, The New York Times reports this morning. Olson in unequivocally not the nonpartisan pick Democrats had urged President Bush to make.
As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) puts it to the Times:
“Clearly if you made a list of consensus nominees, Olson wouldn’t appear on that list.... My hope is that the White House would seek some kind of candidate who would be broadly acceptable.”
How staunch of an opposition to Olson's candidacy Democrats would offer is an open question. The Times reports that the administration is betting that Democrats "will pay a political price if they try to block confirmation of a new attorney general. The thinking inside the White House is that Democrats cannot call for new leadership at the Justice Department, then block it."
The case against Olson is considerable. The chief issue driving opposition to Olson's nomination as solicitor general back in 2001 (he very narrowly passed, 51-47) was his role in the so-called Arkansas Project, the well-funded and unscrupulous effort to unseat the Clintons via scandal. Olson sat on the board of directors for The American Spectator, the organ for the effort, but when he was questioned about his role, he downplayed it, leading to accusations that he'd lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee. So you have a confirmed partisan (don't forget his role as representing the administration in Bush v. Gore) who was less than candid in testimony to Congress. Hardly much of an improvement from Gonzales.
But there are some mitigating factors. Olson lost his third wife, Barbara Olson (author of a screed against Hillary Clinton) on 9/11. The Wall Street Journal reports today that the administration could thus gain "an emotional political advantage," with Olson's nomination.
More considerable is Olson's role in the administration as solicitor general. James Comey testified to Congress, for instance, that he'd sought out Olson to serve as a kind of backup for him after the infamous Ashcroft/Gonzales hospital showdown in March, 2004. Because Olson is someone that Comey "respects enormously," as Comey testified, he asked Olson to accompany him to his late-night meeting with Andrew Card in the White House to serve as a witness. Olson's role in that showdown -- he backed Comey in the dispute -- might serve to temper Democrats' view of his past.
On the other hand, the position of solicitor general is much different from that of attorney general. And Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) opposed Olson's nomination as solicitor general back in 2001 because he was unconvinced that Olson's "sharp partisanship over the last several years might not be something that he could leave behind." That doesn't sound like a person who could fix the Justice Department.
Olson isn't the only nominee in the running. George Terwilliger, George H.W. Bush's former deputy attorney general, is still in it. Though the Times reports that Leahy is "cool" to that option and that Terwilliger "may also be criticized for partisanship, given his association with conservatives who have embraced the administration’s expansion of executive powers during wartime."
The Times reports that the other three names floated in the past week have all bowed out. So it seems fair to conclude that this is not a nomination that will go smoothly.
Comments (28)
C-92 wrote on September 12, 2007 10:21 AM:Let's not overlook Olson's role as 'Executive Power Overreach' validator. He argued long and hard for Vice President Cheney's Office to be able to control all records of the ill-fated Energy Task Force. The case ended up in the Supreme Court and was decided in favor of OVP.
It was symbolically and realistically a huge advancement for 'executive power' and the the 'unitary executive theory.'
On a more pedestrian level, the decision blocked the American public from learning more about the Administration's links to Enron and Jack Abramoff.
david wrote on September 12, 2007 10:52 AM:He did not "represent[] the administration in Bush v. Gore," he represented the Republican candidate.
angel wrote on September 12, 2007 11:04 AM:Don't hold confirmation hearings. Just put them off until the white house starts cooperating by turning over documents related to all the scandals. Nothing that says they have to have confirmation hearings to my knowledge.
penalcolony wrote on September 12, 2007 11:05 AM:It may not be down to Olson vs. Terwilliger quite yet. The Times didn't mention Michael Mukasey, a candidate mentioned in quite a few other articles, some published today.
murphy wrote on September 12, 2007 11:09 AM:all this is just crap or nicely put, icing. G.W.B. attacked a nation and is guilty of war crimes. he needs to be impeached. the demo's are still like a bunch of turky's running around looking for cover my ass. all of you folks that are taking the time to get involved here need to think about impeachment and then speak out. sorry about the high horse.
murphy wrote on September 12, 2007 11:10 AM:all this is just crap or nicely put, icing. G.W.B. attacked a nation and is guilty of war crimes. he needs to be impeached. the demo's are still like a bunch of turky's running around looking for cover my ass. all of you folks that are taking the time to get involved here need to think about impeachment and then speak out. sorry about the high horse.
oldtree wrote on September 12, 2007 11:11 AM:Dear Senator; based on this, will you get up off your backside and say no? no, no way, not a chance, no chance in hell, negative. no fucking way, nada, keine, nichts, zip.
well? Does anyone want to go on record by saying no more criminals will even be considered for nomination?
sure. when the bovine air force comes to a town near you. Much like miners, the people of this country fear yet another cave in by spineless politicians. We, the people, are really, really angry
bob wrote on September 12, 2007 11:15 AM:The Dems have to stay strong and block Olson. He is a terrible choice. Look at all of the bad laws he advocated for in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Bush/Cheney Admin.
Bush is nominating from a position of extreme weakness right now. To paraphrase, now is not the time to take your foot off his throat.
Miri11 wrote on September 12, 2007 11:27 AM:If Democrats confirm also they don't deserve to govern. This guy is a GOP dirty tricks operator. He will be even more partisan than Alberto Gonzales.
prmco wrote on September 12, 2007 11:29 AM:I believe that Congress is now or soon to be in recess for a few days for the Jewish holidays, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush make a recess appointment of Olson in the interim to get him in and avoid any debate, for now, betting that debate at a later time, while the Iran campaign is in progress, would be ineffectual.
I hope I'm wrong.
tom wrote on September 12, 2007 11:32 AM:Terwilliger used to be the U.S. Attorney for Vermont, so Leahy is very familiar with him, for whatever that's workth
Left Coaster wrote on September 12, 2007 11:50 AM:Olson has taken a prominent role in the political campaign of a presidential front-runner. That ought to disqualify him right there. He's about as politically charged as you can get.
Lookingforhome wrote on September 12, 2007 11:51 AM:We should also take into account that all Dems may do at this point is make a point by not confirming or blocking -- and they probably should -- but GWB can simply wait them out, maintaining an "acting" AG until he can appoint Olson during the Winter recess.
Unless I misunderstand my Congressional calendar, that's not all that far off...
Lookingforhome wrote on September 12, 2007 11:52 AM:We should also take into account that all Dems may do at this point is make a point by not confirming or blocking -- and they probably should -- but GWB can simply wait them out, maintaining an "acting" AG until he can appoint Olson during the Winter recess.
Unless I misunderstand my Congressional calendar, that's not all that far off...
Django wrote on September 12, 2007 11:53 AM:Who ultimately gets nominated is less important than the concessions extracted from the Administration as the price of confirming ANY nominee. This must include full disclosure of everything demanded re the U.S. Attorney firings, the Ashcroft bedside incident, the Siegelman prosecution, everything - all documents, testimony of Rove, Miers, et al. If they get all that, frankly I don't care who they nominate.
But I'm hardly optimistic.
Lookingforhome wrote on September 12, 2007 11:55 AM:We should also take into account that all Dems may do at this point is make a point by not confirming or blocking -- and they probably should -- but GWB can simply wait them out, maintaining an "acting" AG until he can appoint Olson during the Winter recess.
Unless I misunderstand my Congressional calendar, that's not all that far off...
moondancer wrote on September 12, 2007 12:04 PM:I'd schedule approx 12 weeks of hearings for Olson to cover his part in the Arkansas project, then 12 more for his part in election fraud in 2k.
dcs wrote on September 12, 2007 12:30 PM:Lets see how bad he wants the job.
Recess appointments can be blocked with very limited Senate attendance. Hearings should be held to grill the nominee(s), but they don't need to schedule a vote in committee or in the full Senate. The opposition party has a responsibility to stop bad acts and keep bad actors out of power. Obstruction is not right or wrong, its an available tool. The senate Dems should use it.
Bayareagirl wrote on September 12, 2007 12:47 PM:Isn't Olsen also a partner in the law firm that is representing Rep. Lewis against the DOJ investigation? The same law firm that derailed the Lewis investigation by hiring away the US attorney investigating the case. Obstruction of justice and conflict of interest. He sounds like the perfect choice for the Bush admin. AG.
Reba Shimansky wrote on September 12, 2007 1:15 PM:Ted Olson is a foot soldier of the radical right.
Reba Shimansky wrote on September 12, 2007 1:16 PM:He tried to destroy the careers of 2 of the most beloved democrats of our time Gore and Clinton.
As for his wife she was a laothsome creature who wrote a Hillary bashging book "Hell to Pay." Nobody should shed tears for her death because her husband didn`t. He started seeing other women right after she died and now is married to his fourth wife -Barbara was number three.He cannot be allowed to become Attorney General.
Ted Olson is a foot soldier of the radical right.
Winna wrote on September 12, 2007 1:43 PM:He tried to destroy the careers of 2 of the most beloved democrats of our time Gore and Clinton.
As for his wife she was a laothsome creature who wrote a Hillary bashging book "Hell to Pay." Nobody should shed tears for her death because her husband didn`t. He started seeing other women right after she died and now is married to his fourth wife -Barbara was number three.He cannot be allowed to become Attorney General.
The emotional effect of having lost his wife shouldn't be an issue as Olson has moved on and married again.
kjoe wrote on September 12, 2007 2:54 PM:This could be a subtle reading on what Hillary Clinton's democratic colleague's really think about having her be nominated.
This guy has a history of fucking with her.
kjoe wrote on September 12, 2007 2:55 PM:This could be a subtle reading on what Hillary Clinton's democratic colleague's really think about having her be nominated.
This guy has a history of fucking with her.
Joshua wrote on September 12, 2007 3:34 PM:Good to see this administration still has no qualms with taking advantage of the 9/11 dead for political gains.
JNagarya wrote on September 12, 2007 5:28 PM:Don't hold confirmation hearings. Just put them off until the white house starts cooperating by turning over documents related to all the scandals. Nothing that says they have to have confirmation hearings to my knowledge.
Posted by: angel
Date: September 12, 2007 11:04 AM
President Johnson -- who took office upon the assassination of Lincoln -- was so hated by Congress that it reduced the size of the Supreme Court as to numbers of justices in order to prevent him nominating anyone to it.
JNagarya wrote on September 12, 2007 5:33 PM:If Democrats confirm also they don't deserve to govern. This guy is a GOP dirty tricks operator. He will be even more partisan than Alberto Gonzales.
Posted by: Miri11
Date: September 12, 2007 11:27 AM
He would be equally partisan -- but more intelligent and skilled.
Olson is paart of the faction which is still fighting the Civil War. Perhaps we'll finally get a public discussion of the anti-American "Federalist Society," which is exactly opposite its name: states' rights against the existence of a Federal Constitution and gov't.
Heil Mary wrote on September 13, 2007 2:15 PM:Bluebeard Olson has been widowed 3x. Ballerina Barbara may not even be dead. Because they are Opus Deiers, divorce and an anullment would be forbidden. Fake black ops martyrdom was a perfect way for Barbara to exit their marriage, boost her book sales and help with the Nazi Bush/pedophile Vatican world enslavement agenda. Disinfo blogger Tom Flocco reported that she was arrested in Europe a few years ago with a Vatican passport and counterfeit money. She's too evil to be dead and is probably shacking up with some facsist mogul in Europe. During the Clinton years, I ran into Ted while he was ILLEGALLY leafletting WHITE WOMEN ONLY in the DC subways, urging them to overbreed to prop up "collapsing Social Security". I had seen this same Nazi drivel in The Washington Times, so I got in his face, called him a mother-killing, pedophile sweatshop owner, and reported him to a Metro attendant. He was well-dressed and spoke in a distinctive gravelly voice. I don't know if Metro police caught up with him and I didn't know who he was until after 9/11. He would definitely exploit the DOJ to police the wombs of all women he's not personally screwing (who are allowed contraception and abortions, mind you) because the rest of us are just throwaway broodmares for his pedophile Vatican and Bush oil heists.