Arlen Specter for Attorney General.

[penchief]

I think he'd be perfect.

I'd start a 'yes-or-no' poll if I knew how.

What do most of you think?

I think it's time to start appointing people based on merit instead of ideological loyalty.

Let the republican party show its traditional colors, nominate Specter.

Let all of America collectively will George Bush into nominating Specter.

Whuddaya say?

[Cochise]

It's only a year, but given the Attorney General's position in relation to the WOT, I'd want someone I knew was committed to prosecuting it to the full extent of our capabilities.

[penchief]

It's only a year, but given the Attorney General's position in relation to the WOT, I'd want someone I knew was committed to prosecuting it to the full extent of our capabilities.

I would want somebody that could do that and chew gum at the same time. In other words, you can be tough on terrorism without trampling all over our civil rights.

"AMEN!!!"

"Who said that?"

[patteeu]

That's a nonstarter of an idea. Not only is Specter an unreliable Republican (nevermind conservative), he's from a state with a democrat governor. AFAIK, that governor would be able to fill his senate seat with a democrat. You might as well suggest Patrick Leahy.

[penchief]

That's a nonstarter of an idea. Not only is Specter an unreliable Republican (nevermind conservative), he's from a state with a democrat governor. AFAIK, that governor would be able to fill his senate seat with a democrat. You might as well suggest Patrick Leahy.

Of course, partisan politics is all that matters to you. I was thinking along the lines of integrity. Please forgive me for not suggesting the most bi-partisan republican partisan instead of someone that actually respects the FUKKING LAW!

You're becoming so predictable it's not even funny anymore.

[patteeu]

Being realistic, the President isn't going to be able to get a firebrand conservative through the confirmation process with obstructionist democrats in charge unless he bypasses them and makes a recess appointment which probably wouldn't hurt his already low approval ratings but might hurt his Party. So I don't expect any super controversial figure.

The guy I liked when Gonzales was picked was Bob Barr, but he's left the party and taken too many outspoken positions against the administration so he's not at all realistic either (and he probably never was). The first guy who came to my mind today was Ted Olson, the former solicitor general and guy whose wife, Barbara Olson, famously died in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon (or was killed by the government to cover up their inside job depending on which theory you accept). But I heard Juan Williams with a guest host on the Bill O'Reilly radio program today and he thought Olson would have trouble with the confirmation process because of democrats' resentment of his work on the Bush v Gore election litigation (I know that "Bush v Gore" wasn't the actual case, but you know what I mean). Maybe so, but Olson is a Washington insider who is well respected in legal circles and who has been confirmed before so he's still the guy I'd go with, although to be sure there are no doubt a bunch of guys I've never even heard of who are probably more likely candidates.

But one very surprising thing that Juan Williams said was that contrary to the caricature of Gonzales as a bumbling idiot, Williams thinks that if you needed a lawyer, you'd be happy to have Gonzales take your case. He said that Gonzales never really fit into the elite Washington DC law circles and that that really hurt him in the same way some of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan's homies were hurt when their Presidents brought them to the White House instead of picking establishment insiders. I thought that was a pretty thought-provoking and gracious thing for Williams to say in Gonzales (partial) defense. But I think it's pretty obvious that Gonzales was at the very least a PR nightmare with the way he so obviously parsed language and evaded the intent of his questioners when he was questioned in public.

[patteeu]

Of course, partisan politics is all that matters to you. I was thinking along the lines of integrity. Please forgive me for not suggesting the most bi-partisan republican partisan instead of someone that actually respects the FUKKING LAW!

You're becoming so predictable it's not even funny anymore.

After all the partisanship coming from the democrats for the past 6+ years, you and your democrats don't deserve a nonpartisan. If you want nonpartisans in office then you should appoint them the next time you guys take the Presidency. I won't be holding my breath, but I'll be keeping my eyes open for your posts calling for less partisanship in democrat nominees.

[penchief]

Being realistic, the President isn't going to be able to get a firebrand conservative through the confirmation process with obstructionist democrats in charge unless he bypasses them and makes a recess appointment which probably wouldn't hurt his already low approval ratings but might hurt his Party. So I don't expect any super controversial figure.

The names that have been floated are somewhat controversial to many. Ted Olson? He, along with James Baker, helped to shut down the Florida recount. Not what I'd really call an objective party.

From a moderate's point of view, I'd just like to see someone who IS NOT a political yes-man lacking the objectivity to properly serve justice (see Brownie, see Bremmer, and see Bush).

The guy I liked when Gonzales was picked was Bob Barr, but he's left the party and taken too many outspoken positions against the administration so he's not at all realistic either (and he probably never was). The first guy who came to my mind today was Ted Olson, the former solicitor general and guy whose wife, Barbara Olson, famously died in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon (or was killed by the government to cover up their inside job depending on which theory you accept). But I heard Juan Williams with a guest host on the Bill O'Reilly radio program today and he thought Olson would have trouble with the confirmation process because of democrats' resentment of his work on the Bush v Gore election litigation (I know that "Bush v Gore" wasn't the actual case, but you know what I mean). Maybe so, but Olson is a Washington insider who is well respected in legal circles and who has been confirmed before so he's still the guy I'd go with, although to be sure there are no doubt a bunch of guys I've never even heard of who are probably more likely candidates.

Oh shit. I should have known you'd mention Olson. As you can see, I already responded to him in my first reply (before I read this). Of course we'd have resentment. Gore won that ****ing election. Olson and Baker swooped in and secured victory for the loser, who eventually and tragically maimed this country in pursuit of ideology.

And don't play the sympathy card, either. Barbara Olson was the equivalent of Melanie Morgan or a milder Ann Coulter. She was a partisan hack. Ted Olson is a partisan legal hack. They've been in the Reagan pipeline just as long as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a host of other Reagan Neocons.


But one very surprising thing that Juan Williams said was that contrary to the caricature of Gonzales as a bumbling idiot, Williams thinks that if you needed a lawyer, you'd be happy to have Gonzales take your case. He said that Gonzales never really fit into the elite Washington DC law circles and that that really hurt him in the same way some of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan's homies were hurt when their Presidents brought them to the White House instead of picking establishment insiders. I thought that was a pretty gracious thing for Williams to say in Gonzales (partial) defense. But I think it's pretty obvious that Gonzales was at the very least a PR nightmare with the way he so obviously parsed language and evaded the intent of his questioners when he was questioned in public.

I don't know what to say to this other than I think that it is irrelevent to the damage that Gonzalez has caused to jurisprudence in this country at the federal level. The executive branch has now officially gone Nazi on us (where loyalty to the party outweighs the integrity of justice).

[penchief]

After all the partisanship coming from the democrats for the past 6+ years, you and your democrats don't deserve a nonpartisan. If you want nonpartisans in office then you should appoint them the next time you guys take the Presidency. I won't be holding my breath, but I'll be keeping my eyes open for your posts calling for less partisanship in democrat nominees.

The attacks on this president have been over his conduct of American policy and nothing more. For you to claim otherwise is to be disingenuous, IMO.

If you like, we can take the claims made against this administration and the claims made against the previous administration one by one. We can compare the importance of the issues. And we can weigh and debate the impact and consequences of each's conduct on this country.

In fact, we can compare a lot of things. We'll see who runs out of ammunition first. I guess my point is that you keep using an argument that is only bolstered by the "everybody does the same thing" argument.

But the truth is that everybody doesn't act in the same arrogant self-serving manner. Bush is the only president that I know that ever lied us into invading and occupying another country via intentional lies.

[patteeu]

The attacks on this president have been over his conduct of American policy and nothing more. For you to claim otherwise is to be disingenuous, IMO.

If you like, we can take the claims made against this administration and the claims made against the previous administration one by one. We can compare the importance of the issues. And we can weigh and debate the impact and consequences of each's conduct on this country.

In fact, we can compare a lot of things. We'll see who runs out of ammunition first. I guess my point is that you keep using an argument that is only bolstered by the "everybody does the same thing" argument.

But the truth is that everybody doesn't act in the same arrogant self-serving manner. Bush is the only president that I know that ever lied us into invading and occupying another country via intentional lies.

No thanks. The last thing I want to start right now is an endless argument between two guys who can't agree on which direction is up.

But I will say once again that from my pov, the Bush administration tried to reach out to democrats in the beginning, but the furor among democrats as a result of Bush v Gore and the later, regrettable decision by democrats to hitch their political fortunes to failure in Iraq has earned them very little consideration in my book.

[penchief]

No thanks. The last thing I want to start right now is an endless argument between two guys who can't agree on which direction is up.

But I will say once again that from my pov, the Bush administration tried to reach out to democrats in the beginning, but the furor among democrats as a result of Bush v Gore and the later, regrettable decision by democrats to hitch their political fortunes to failure in Iraq has earned them very little consideration in my book.

They did not try to reach out to democrats. Their main tools was rhetoric. The same rhetoric they used on you and me. They lied to this country. They knew what they were doing. And they've been covering it up ever since.

If they had truly been reaching out to dems the results would have been different. Yet the results belied Bush's claim to be the, "compassionate conservative" and a "uniter, not a divider."

I think it's pretty safe to say that Bush has been exposed on those fundamental claims. He has been exposed by the insincerity of those slogans. How can anyone expect him to be honest about partisan policies ever again? The answer is that nobody does. Not even you. So don't pretend.

They've eroded our civil liberties and our privacy while tyring to sell our ports to Arabs and allowing our borders to be overrun by illegals.

Even the "Oh but we haven't been attacked" claim is irrelevant. When weighing their woeful and tawdry explanations when it comes to border and port security, one can only conclude one of two things.

1. The threat is overplayed.

or

2. Terrorists can't sneak accross the border or fly planes anymore.

They've been the biggest proponents of corporate welfare to include shipping jobs overseas and moving mailboxes off-shore to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, which support America's infrastructure (something they benefit immensly from).

The short of it is that they are con men, crooks, and liars. They don't care about the integrity of this country. What they care about is the ability to dictate and the ability to influence the bottom line of those who financed their ascendence to power.

That's a far cry from our founding fathers, thank you.

[Pitt Gorilla]

No thanks. The last thing I want to start right now is an endless argument between two guys who can't agree on which direction is up.

But I will say once again that from my pov, the Bush administration tried to reach out to democrats in the beginning, but the furor among democrats as a result of Bush v Gore and the later, regrettable decision by democrats to hitch their political fortunes to failure in Iraq has earned them very little consideration in my book.Good Lord, pat, that is some real bullshit. Neither side has reached out.

[penchief]

No thanks. The last thing I want to start right now is an endless argument between two guys who can't agree on which direction is up.

But I will say once again that from my pov, the Bush administration tried to reach out to democrats in the beginning, but the furor among democrats as a result of Bush v Gore and the later, regrettable decision by democrats to hitch their political fortunes to failure in Iraq has earned them very little consideration in my book.

After I've had time to digest this response, I have to ask myself why a person who takes great pains to water down an argument is unwilling in this instance to debate me on such simple grounds (one-on-one/claim vs. claim). And break each others claims down for everyone to see.

I'm willing, why aren't you?

[banyon]

Being realistic, the President isn't going to be able to get a firebrand conservative through the confirmation process with obstructionist democrats in charge unless he bypasses them and makes a recess appointment which probably wouldn't hurt his already low approval ratings but might hurt his Party. So I don't expect any super controversial figure.

The guy I liked when Gonzales was picked was Bob Barr, but he's left the party and taken too many outspoken positions against the administration so he's not at all realistic either (and he probably never was). The first guy who came to my mind today was Ted Olson, the former solicitor general and guy whose wife, Barbara Olson, famously died in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon (or was killed by the government to cover up their inside job depending on which theory you accept). But I heard Juan Williams with a guest host on the Bill O'Reilly radio program today and he thought Olson would have trouble with the confirmation process because of democrats' resentment of his work on the Bush v Gore election litigation (I know that "Bush v Gore" wasn't the actual case, but you know what I mean). Maybe so, but Olson is a Washington insider who is well respected in legal circles and who has been confirmed before so he's still the guy I'd go with, although to be sure there are no doubt a bunch of guys I've never even heard of who are probably more likely candidates.

But one very surprising thing that Juan Williams said was that contrary to the caricature of Gonzales as a bumbling idiot, Williams thinks that if you needed a lawyer, you'd be happy to have Gonzales take your case. He said that Gonzales never really fit into the elite Washington DC law circles and that that really hurt him in the same way some of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan's homies were hurt when their Presidents brought them to the White House instead of picking establishment insiders. I thought that was a pretty thought-provoking and gracious thing for Williams to say in Gonzales (partial) defense. But I think it's pretty obvious that Gonzales was at the very least a PR nightmare with the way he so obviously parsed language and evaded the intent of his questioners when he was questioned in public.


LOL at your Taco 9-11 disclaimer. It reminds me of the way Alabamans stamp their science textbooks with the "evolution is a theory" disclaimer.

Also, I think the case was actually captioned "Bush v. Gore"

[Adept Havelock]

I'll have to give it some thought as I have mixed feelings about Sen. Specter.

It would be quite amusing to watch the tinfoil hat brigade deal with the fact the new AG was also the chief architect of the Warren Commissions "single bullet theory".

[go bowe]

The names that have been floated are somewhat controversial to many. Ted Olson? He, along with James Baker, helped to shut down the Florida recount. Not what I'd really call an objective party.

From a moderate's point of view, I'd just like to see someone who IS NOT a political yes-man lacking the objectivity to properly serve justice (see Brownie, see Bremmer, and see Bush).



Oh shit. I should have known you'd mention Olson. As you can see, I already responded to him in my first reply (before I read this). Of course we'd have resentment. Gore won that ****ing election. Olson and Baker swooped in and secured victory for the loser, who eventually and tragically maimed this country in pursuit of ideology.

And don't play the sympathy card, either. Barbara Olson was the equivalent of Melanie Morgan or a milder Ann Coulter. She was a partisan hack. Ted Olson is a partisan legal hack. They've been in the Reagan pipeline just as long as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a host of other Reagan Neocons.




I don't know what to say to this other than I think that it is irrelevent to the damage that Gonzalez has caused to jurisprudence in this country at the federal level. The executive branch has now officially gone Nazi on us (where loyalty to the party outweighs the integrity of justice).nazi?

isn't that a little over the top?

in addition, party loyalty has trumped integrity for a long time now, in both partys..

what's new about that?

[patteeu]

After I've had time to digest this response, I have to ask myself why a person who takes great pains to water down an argument is unwilling in this instance to debate me on such simple grounds (one-on-one/claim vs. claim). And break each others claims down for everyone to see.

I'm willing, why aren't you?

Because it's a dumb idea. Please forgive me for being blunt.

I get all the endless argument opportunities I need from Nightwish. I don't want to view you in the same light I view him. You're still fun.

[patteeu]

LOL at your Taco 9-11 disclaimer. It reminds me of the way Alabamans stamp their science textbooks with the "evolution is a theory" disclaimer.

Also, I think the case was actually captioned "Bush v. Gore"

I stand corrected. :)

[Ugly Duck]

It's only a year, but given the Attorney General's position in relation to the WOT, I'd want someone I knew was committed to prosecuting it to the full extent of our capabilities.

Sorry, this is the neocon regime. We'll get some guy that Chimpy knew from college that has no experience, but is very loyal to Monkeyboy. He'll be very committed to "privatization", or "funneling tax dollars to favored corporations with no oversight" Same ol' same ol.'