Democrats & Liberals Archives

A NEW Attorney General

After months of twisting in the wind while the cause of justice was dying, Albert Gonzales finally resigned as Attorney General. Now we are awaiting Bush’s nominee. In today’s L.A. Times I read 2 opinion pieces about this, one filled me with nausea, the other filled me with pride.

The nauseous piece is titled "Use the A.G. appointment to pick a fight" and was written by super-conservative Richard A. Viguerie - whose middle initial should be F for fight. Here's a paragraph:

Rather than appease the Democrats -- or, just as bad, pick another Gonzales, someone selected for his personal ties to the Bush organization -- the president should use this appointment to restore his relevancy and revive the Republican coalition by deliberately picking an ideological fight with the Democrats. Here's my advice:

Then he lists his fighting points. But then, fighting is what current-day Republicanism is all about. Fighting is what Republicans do best. Working together? Why? Compromise? What for? Being nice? Don't be ridiculous. If any Republican knows this, it's Viguerie.

The piece that filled me with pride is titled "The next attorney general should unite, not divide" and was written by Senator Patrick Leahy. Here's what he says:

Whomever takes over the Justice Department must end political abuses, writes Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Above all, the new attorney general cannot interpret our laws to mean whatever the president wants them to mean. The departing attorney general showed a lack of independence from the president and the White House. We have seen the disastrous consequences.

The next attorney general must uphold the rule of law on behalf of all of the American people.

The president begins this process. Through his choice for attorney general, he can be a uniter or a divider. For the sake of the Department of Justice and its vital missions on behalf of the American people, this would be an excellent time to work with us to unite the nation.

What a difference. Leahy is interested in justice and unity, not in fighting.

As Leahy says, it is up to the president. Does he want to fight or does he want to improve our system of justice and unite Americans? He will let us know soon when he picks his nominee for Attorney General.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 12, 2007 6:26 PM
Comments
Comment #232662

Pick an ideological fight with democrats? Bush would have to be an idiot. (oh, wait…) Right now the only thing that Bush has going for him is democrat timidity. If he picks a fight dems will be pissed and will probably shoot back-and they’ve got more guns in Congress than Bush does.

On the other hand, he has nothing to lose. He can’t be elected president again and wouldn’t be even if he could. (For that matter, he probably couldn’t be elected dog catcher in most parts of the country.)

The AG should NEVER be a divider. The office of AG really should not be political. It is a law enforcement office. Not a political one. The AG may be nominated by the president but he/she should be loyal to the constitution, not the president. Like a soldier, or a supreme court justice.

Anyway, Bush should pick a uniter and someone who will serve the UNITED STATES well, not GEORGE W. BUSH well. But, then, uniting and compromising has never really been one of Bush’s strong points. Maybe he will discover a legacy?

Posted by: Silima at September 12, 2007 8:20 PM
Comment #232665

The wonderful thing about this coming nomination is the absence of a rubber stamp in the Senate. We still have to question however, whether the Senate will discern on the basis of qualification, or, political disposition.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2007 8:28 PM
Comment #232673

I think everybody agrees that Bush needs to a LOT better that Gonzales with his next AG, but it’s extremely naive to think that Leahy is actually saying anything different from this conservative writer. Leahy wants “unity” and is not interested in fighting? Bull.

It’s like saying that for the sake of “unity” my neighbor should give me half of his pay-check. “Unity” does not mean surrendering one’s rights to an ideological opponent.

Leahy seems perfectly reading to to pick a fight on the basis of what he calls “unity,” but this notion of “unity” is nothing but rhetoric.

Of course, Democrats will and should participate in the confirmation process, as is their right and responsibility under the Constitution as the majority party, but lets not be so naive as to take the rhetoric about “unity” at face value. And let’s not pretend that Democrats like Leahy are going to demand in the future that Republicans have an equal say in picking out Democratic nominees.

Posted by: Liam at September 12, 2007 10:04 PM
Comment #232683

Really what difference does it make who W picks for AG. By the time the appointee makes it through the confirmation process it will be time to resign. Unless of course W decides on an emergency appointment once our representatives backs are turned.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2007 12:55 AM
Comment #232688

Lets remember this when the next Democrat in the White House selects a nominee for this position. No I guess we don’t have to wait since I can tell you what will happen right now. Any opposition to the appointment by Republicans will be labled as picking a fight with the White House and playing politics. Republicans just can’t win because anytime we don’t do what the democrats want we are the problem. Let’s call it like it is, any nominee Bush puts up short of someone who is a known liberal will be opposed by the dems because they feel they are in a good posiiton to squeeze the President politically right now.

Posted by: Carnak at September 13, 2007 1:50 AM
Comment #232689

“We still have to question however, whether the Senate will discern on the basis of qualification, or, political disposition.”

David R. Remer,

You’re generally (IMO not always) pretty fair-handed about placing blame where blame belongs. At this point we can only speculate about an AG nomination, but just think how much BS we’ve heard in the past few days about Petraeus.

It basically boils down to: “why did the Dems ‘confirm’ Petraeus”? Well, he was confirmed on the “basis of qualification” NOT “political disposition”. But certainly the hard questioning Petraeus has been dealing with is just part of a really hard job and there is a strong suspicion that Petraeus is actually quite “political” in his motivations.

You’ll have to excuse me but this wreaks of the same stench as calling the new Dem congress “a do-nothing congress” which you’ve even properly disputed. Petraeus was confirmed because he was qualified! The new AG nominee will be confirmed if he (or she) is qualified and has no past record of politicizing the office.

That hardly means they’ll have free reign over Justice with no oversight. That seems to be a bulwark of this administration: we’ve been elected or appointed, therefore WE NEED NO LONGER ANSWER TO ANYONE —— ANYMORE!

Sorry, that’s not the way it is. We’re not like Iran. We have no supreme leader. Our elected and appointed officials still have to answer the electorate through a series of checks and balances. Sometimes our system falls short, but it’s important that the electorate understands the facts.

Sadly that’s seldom the case.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 13, 2007 2:40 AM
Comment #232692

Carnak,

If what you’re saying is even partly true how the hell did Gonzales get confirmed to begin with? How about Justice Roberts? Or Allito? Or Gates?

Or, this is the creme-de-la-creme, Condi??????????

What about Petraeus?

Democrats have shown a policy of confirming nominees based largely on qualification unless they believe the nominee shows an overt political bias. You Republicans constantly contradict yourselves. You politicize everything and scream like hell if you suspect the Dems are playing the game by your rules.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 13, 2007 2:57 AM
Comment #232704

Kansas Dem, Petreaus was selected by Bush as the person most likely to view the Iraq situation as Bush himself does. That should be obvious prima facia.

It is a position from which the Senate should view any nominee by this President, for any role. Though I wanted to believe Petraeus may provide an objective and sober view of Iraq, it was odds on that his report would be predictable, ‘stay the course’, not because Petraeus is dishonest or lacks integrity, but, because his view of the world is similar to that of Pres. Bush’s or he would not have been Bush’s first choice for nomination.

Whomever Bush nominates for AG, you can bet on two things. First the nominee will be an advocate for the Unitary Executive Theory of American dictatorship, and, their view of the Bush’s performance legally and constitutionally will be defensible.

But, the question remains, will the Senate have the good common professional sense to proceed from these basic assumptions with a high degree of probability? I will reserve judgment to see if they confirm Bush’s first choice for AG.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 13, 2007 8:21 AM
Comment #232710

Carnak

Any opposition to the appointment by Republicans will be labled as picking a fight with the White House and playing politics. Republicans just can’t win because anytime we don’t do what the democrats want we are the problem. Let’s call it like it is, any nominee Bush puts up short of someone who is a known liberal will be opposed by the dems because they feel they are in a good posiiton to squeeze the President politically right now.

Damn man where have you been for the last six years. In light of Bush’s notorious track record of making horrible appointments I would say it is the dems responsibility to ensure that we at least get a nominee who is willing and capable of performing the job devoid of political pressure. Bush being the ineffective leader that he is has continually appointed people by way of friendship and loyalty as opposed to simple qualification. Why knowing what we do after six years of this crap should we simply lay down, play dead and lightly question any pick he might make? Are you seriously suggesting that we should trust him to do the right thing? And if so why?

Posted by: RickIL at September 13, 2007 10:12 AM
Comment #232726

But then, fighting is what current-day Republicanism Democratism is all about.

That statement works both ways Paul. I don’t see any of the Democrats trying to work with the Republicans anymore than I see any of the Republicans trying to work with the Democrats. Both want to fight instead of working together to solve the problems facing this country. That’s called bipartisanship. Not the ‘my way or the highway’ attitude like I’ve seen coming from both sides of the isle.
Bipartisanship is both sides laying aside their differences and working together to solve the problems facing this country. And I sure aint seen that happening.
If Bush does manage to nominate a qualified person (which I doubt) the Democrats can demonstrate their new found ‘bipartisanship’ by approving the nominee within 30 days without all the game playing, mud slinging, and name calling that’s become a disgusting part of the political landscape up their in DC lately.
This would go a hell of a long ways toward proving to me and others that have no faith in either party getting anything right that at least one party is trying to get things straight up there. But then I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen any time in the next 100 years or so.

What a difference. Leahy is interested in justice and unity, not in fighting.

Yeah right!
Just watch Bush nominate someone that won’t lick the Democrats boots.


Posted by: Ron Brown at September 13, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #232733

Sorry guys (Ron, what a load of garbage you posted!!)
anywho
Bush — appoint someone qualified??
After 6-7 years of this crap, what makes anyone think Bush KNOWS what qualified means????

Qualified to Bush/Rove = Repub loyalty
their checklist only includes the nominees position on
Abortion
Lack of Civil Rights
Torture
Imperial Presidency as defined by the “Constitution” (some version Bush has stashed away that no one else has seen!!)
etc

Unfortunately — even IF Bush were to suddenly do a 180 and actually approach someone who was qualified, would that person be so Stupid as to actually accept????
I can’t imagine any ethical person that would be qualified that would want to be associated in any way with THIS administration (guilt by association) — it would be the certain way to ensure destruction of their reputation.

Posted by: Russ at September 13, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #232734

Ron
I love the way you rightwing guys created a mud hole and then blame EVERYONE for its existance
You said

If Bush does manage to nominate a qualified person (which I doubt) the Democrats can demonstrate their new found ‘bipartisanship’ by approving the nominee within 30 days without all the game playing, mud slinging, and name calling that’s become a disgusting part of the political landscape up their in DC lately.


All that has become a mainstay of Wash DC due mainly to your boy in the white house and his dog Rover boy.

Just because the Repugnant Repubs have made the politics as disgusting as it is, don’t sling that paint over everybody!!

Geezh.

Posted by: Russ at September 13, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #232737

I think we missed the boat on Patraeus. I think Patraeus may have been picked by the White House because of his political ambitions. I imagine that the administration felt it would be easier to manipulate a general who has made it known that he wants to run for president in 2012.

I wonder if a general who aspires to be president might be more inclined to exagerate the progress that has occured under his leadership and more demanding that he be allowed to continue his prosecution of the war.

Posted by: jlw at September 13, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #232740

jlw, I did not hear Petraeus exaggerate the progress. Well, except for the criteria he used to define casualties, which may not have been of his origination, I don’t know.

Some military progress has been made in some areas of Iraq while other areas remain dangerous or have become more so. Petraeus was accurate about this. But, if you listen to his entire testimony you will hear him say there is no end in sight, and it is not for him to decide what constitutes victory nor in his capacity to say when it will be achieved. All he can say as a General assigned a mission is, if given sufficient time and resources I will accomplish my mission. What else would you have a General in our military say?

The issue for the American people is whether the costs incurred are worth the mission without a time frame, or, end in sight for many years to come. And that is not an issue for Petraeus to speak to. That is an issue for the American people and their representatives to decide, not our military generals. Their job is to accomplish their mission assigned, with the resources given them by the civilian government, regardless of whether that mission is in fact accomplishable or not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 13, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #232754

I live in argentina and don”t have a tv so i didn”t see any of the generals testimony but if what you posted is accurate i would say he was courageous. how much more could he say in his testimony that could be more condemning than things are no better or worse since the purge in iraq and that he sees no end in sight. am i missing something. what more could he say

Posted by: albert at September 13, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #232756


David R. Your last sentence explains the military position but, the civilian leadership has a responsibliity to support their army to the best of their ability. there are examples in our history where a lack of planning or resources have hurt our military goals.

Yesterday, my sentiment about the General was basicly the same as yours. However, if it is true that General Patreaus has publicly stated that he has political ambitions to run for president in 2012, Such ambitions can cloud the Generals judgement and place his honor in question. In the past, generals who have political aspirations have publicly rebuked their Presidents. It is not a far strech to imagine that a general would embrase his president for the same reason.

Posted by: jlw at September 13, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #232759


I agree with Richard Viguerie. Now is not the time for Bush and the Republicans to back off of their in your face attitude towards the Democrats and the People.

Posted by: jlw at September 13, 2007 6:21 PM
Comment #232772

If General Petraeus really does have political ambitions (something for which there is actually no evidence that I can see), then he’ll need to lead the American forces in Iraq to a satisfactory outcome.

If he can’t deliver, then he has no chance of going anywhere—he’ll just be another Wes Clark type. Medals and a uniform but little else.

If he does deliver, though, then he’ll have proven himself a very able administrator at the least, and will likely be seen as a hero by many. Whether that would lead to people voting for him is an open question though. He’s obviously a very smart guy, but he doesn’t exactly ooze charisma.

In any case, political future or not, it’s in everybody’s best interest that he DOES succeed at his current job. If he has ambitions beyond that, then he’d hardly be the first military person to do so, and I see nothing wrong with it. Our government is filled even now with both Democrats and Republicans (especially in the Senate) who rode their military backgrounds to high office.

Posted by: Liam at September 13, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #232774

Why not pick a fight? Democrats will just roll over and play dead like you always do.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at September 13, 2007 9:32 PM
Comment #232790

Russ, Russ, Russ
There is none so blind as those with the partisan blinders on.
First. Let me assure you I aint no Republican. I never voted for Bush. And while I don’t hate him, I aint all that crazy about him. And I believe that he’s screwed the pouch on more than one occasion.
Second. Evidently you read into my post what ya wanted to read. Go back and read it again. And this time open your mind and take the partisan blinders off. I was blaming both parties (which by the way are both liberal) for making the mess we have up there in DC. Because they both are responsible for it. I know y’all don’t like to hear your favorite party is screwing the pouch and aint doing their job. But facts are facts. Neither party is responsible. And both are playing politics with the future of this country. Both are guilty of name calling and mud slinging. And BOTH parties have made politics disgusting.
Third. Did I ever say that Bush would appoint someone that’s qualified? I personally don’t think he has the brains to pull something like that off intentionally. If he did he’d have done it from the get go. and wouldn’t be looking for his third AG. And no, I don’t believe that anyone truly qualified for the job would except it. At least not from Bush, and this late in the game. If they do then they aint qualified.

Just because the Repugnant Repubs have made ……

And ya want to claim who doesn’t call names?

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 14, 2007 12:22 AM
Comment #232795

Ron Brown said: “And no, I don’t believe that anyone truly qualified for the job would except it. At least not from Bush, and this late in the game. If they do then they aint qualified.”

Now that there is a very interesting piece of reasoning, and the logic of it, deserves some serious contemplation by the Senate Confirmation Committtee.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2007 7:23 AM
Comment #232825

Well, The President has committed America to a fifty year plus tour of duty in Iraq.

Posted by: jlw at September 14, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #232826

Good point Ron, and it makes sense to think that anyone with knowledge, experience, and CHARACTER and CONSCIENCE would consider becoming radioactive by signing on with this bunch now does give cause for some deep contemplation.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 14, 2007 2:09 PM
Comment #232853

jlw…”Well, The President has committed America to a fifty year plus tour of duty in Iraq.”

Please let me remind you that we’re still in Japan, Germany, Korea, and Kosovo. I think all those wars were started by Democrat presidents. We’d still be in Vietnam if the Democrats in congress hadn’t surrendered to the NVA. Why shouldn’t we invest a few years in Iraq to help them defend themselves?

Posted by: Snardius at September 14, 2007 5:32 PM
Comment #232868

Snardius, we’ve already invested a few years, do you mean a few decades? Just what are we defending the Iraqi people from? us? themselves? a few terrorist?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 14, 2007 7:48 PM
Comment #232888

The sad truth is, if Bush picks an ideological fight with his appointment, the Dems will probably use their time-honored tactic of Lying Down and Taking It.

Not that it’ll matter anyway, when everyone knows presidential appointments are based on cronyism above all else.

Posted by: Josh at September 14, 2007 11:11 PM
Comment #232949
Not that it’ll matter anyway, when everyone knows presidential appointments are based on cronyism above all else.

And that’s the hell of it Josh. Every President in my life time has made his appointment based on cronyism. This has lead to some pretty bad decisions being made by both the President and his appointees.
I have to wounder if we’ve ever had anyone truly qualified for the job appointed to any government department.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 15, 2007 10:33 AM
Comment #232953

j2t2Just what are we defending the Iraqi people from? us? themselves? a few terrorist?

Were defending them from Syria, Iran, and al Qaida who would love nothing more than to establish an Islamic caliphate in Baghdad from which they would dominate the entire region. Defeat and surrender in Iraq will have repercussions around the world as every one of our allies as well as all of our enemies, comes to the conclusion that America is, as Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis wrote, “…harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.”

Posted by: Snardius at September 15, 2007 10:39 AM
Comment #232961

Snardius, Isnt that exactly what Saddam Hussein was doing prior to our invasion and occupation of their Country?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 15, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #232966

j2t2 Isnt that exactly what Saddam Hussein was doing prior to our invasion and occupation of their Country?

If you mean Saddam was trying to dominate the region…yes. He was also defying multiple UN resolutions which, if memory serves, the UN gave him multiple opportunities with which to comply. Oh, and he was butchering his own people. When he thumbed his nose at the “international community” and refused to show he had no WMD, we rightfully took him down.

But this thread is about cronyism and the inclination of presidents to award their pals with cushy government jobs. Sorry for the thread drift.

Posted by: Snardius at September 15, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #232969

Paul Siegel Leahy is interested in justice and unity, not in fighting.

Senator Leahy is interested in whatever gets his simpering face on TV…and anything that will further his reelection chances.

Posted by: Snardius at September 15, 2007 11:29 AM
Comment #233100

Paul

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed on Wednesday to block former Solicitor General Theodore Olson from becoming attorney general if President George W. Bush nominates him…”

“He’s a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan,” Reid told Reuters…”

I think it’s Reid who’s picking the fight. What arrogance! This from the head of a party who thought it was OK for JFK to appoint his brother as AG and for Clinton to appoint Janet Reno who thought it was OK to kidnap a six-year-old at gunpoint from a US citizen’s home.

Posted by: Snardius at September 16, 2007 5:51 PM
Comment #233108

By ‘partisan’ does Reid mean that Olsen aint a Democrat?
Or does he mean Olsen won’t kowtow to the Democrats?
Either way the Democrats are sure living up to their promise to work in bipartisanship with the Republicans now aint they?

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 16, 2007 8:23 PM
Comment #233115

With Olson it’s payback. Olson was counsel to Bush when Gore tried to steal the election in 2000. Olson is probably the most qualified candidate and would be a very effective AG…but because he can’t be rolled by the likes of Schumer or Leahy, he has no chance of being confirmed.

Posted by: Snardius at September 16, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #378517

http://www.burbagssale2013.com/ Burberry Outlet
http://www.airmaxshoesfactory.com/ Air Max Shoes
http://www.coachblackfriday2014.com/ Coach Black Friday
http://www.coach-storeoutletonline.com/ Coach Black Friday
http://www.coachcoachoutlet.com/ Coach Cyber Monday
http://www.coachxfactory.com/ Coach Factory
http://www.coach-factoryoutletonline.net/ Coach Outlet Factory
http://www.coach-outletonlineusa.com/ Coach Outlet USA
http://www.coach-pursesfactory.com/ Coach Purses Factory
http://www.coachpurseusa.com/ Coach Purses USA
http://www.coach-storeoutlet.com/ Coach Store Outlet
http://www.coach-pursesonline.com/ Coach Purses On Sale
http://www.monsterbeatsbydres.com/ Monster Beats Outlet
http://www.louis-vuittonblackfriday.com/ Louis Vuitton Outlet
http://www.lv-guccishoesfactory.com/ Louis Vuitton Factory
http://www.marcjacobsonsale.com/ Marc Jacobs On Sale
http://www.mcmworldwides.com/ MCM Outlet
http://www.mcmoutlet-jp.com/ MCM 店铺
http://www.oakleysunglassesfactory.com/ cheap oakley sunglasses
http://www.michaelkorsmas.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michaelkors.so/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michaelkorsfactory-store.com/ Michael Kors Factory
http://www.michaelkorsoutletr.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michael-korsfactoryonline.com/ Michael Kors Factory Online
http://www.newcoachfactoryoutlet.com/ Coach Factory Outlet
http://www.north-faceoutletonlines.net/ North Face Outlet Online
http://www.polo-outletstore.com/ Polo Outlet Store
http://www.ralph-laurenhome.com/ Ralph Lauren UK
http://www.saclongchamppairs.com/ Sac Longchamp Pairs
http://www.tcoachoutletonline.com/ Coach Outlet Online
http://www.the-coachfactoryoutlet.com/ Coach Factory Oultet
http://www.barbour-jacketsoutlet.com/ Barbour Jackets Outlet Online
http://www.canada-gooser.com/ Canada Goose Outlet
http://www.guccishoesuk2014.net/ Gucci Outlet Online
http://www.michaelkorsstates.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.moncler-clearance.com/ Moncler Clearance
http://www.moncler-jacketsoutletonline.com/ Moncler Jackets Outlet Online
http://www.northsclearance.com/ North Clearace Outlet
http://www.polo-ralphlaurensoutlet.com/ Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet Online
http://www.woolrich-clearance.com/ Woolrich Clearance
http://www.cvshopfactory.com/ shop.coachfactory.com
http://www.mksfactoryoutlet.com/ Michael Kors Factory Outlet
http://www.zxcoachoutlet.com/ Coach Outlet Online USA
http://www.thebeatsbydre.com/ Beats by Dre
http://www.newoutletonlinemall.com/ Coach Purses Outlet Online
http://www.clickmichaelkors.com/ Michael Kors USA

Posted by: polo outlet at May 20, 2014 4:24 AM
Post a comment