Well, Republicans won't be able to block inquiries into Olsen's involvement in the Arkansas Project (a truly non-partisan affair, I'm sure) this time around. It has been awhile since the Soros of the right, Richard Mellon Scaife, was in the spotlight.

Probably not a wise choice on the part of the President. Or is it....?

"Or is it....?"

Who knows? Bush tossed Miers' into the fray for SCOTUS. (?!)

Having lost a family member on 9/11 is relevant how? If anything, it might make one insufficiently impartial, but that's not likely the reason you mention his personal loss, is it...?

Does it really matter who will be Attorney General for the last 15 months of the last Republican administration to exist. Does Ted Olsen really want the resume line of former Attorney General so bad that he will go through with this.

President Bush should just have an acting AG for the last 15 months instead of going through the hassle.

Scary Harry Reid being the usial unreasonible demacratic mindless jackass

I can think of only one candidate that Harry Reid would approve of for AG: Lionel Hutz..

If you libs want a quality appointee how about Janet Reno?

lololol

That's perfect, Peter! The best part, smoking monkeys for everyone!

Having lost a family member on 9/11 is relevant how?

Relevant to his performance on the job? Probably not. Politically relevant? Oh yes. The new AG won't really have any effect on justice in the short time he's the boss, but the political angle will be "Reid is blocking the guy who we think is the most serious on terrorism."

If the Democrats are successful and a terrorist act of any significance happens, they're gonna pay a price. As a conservative I just have to laugh at people who think the Democrats will sweep the elections in '08. They are, and more importantly appear to be, incompetant.

I don't usually follow Dennis Miller; however, he does capture my sentiments with this:
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2865638

mantis ~ If you want to go down Memory Lane during confirmation hearings, be our guests. We actually enjoy it when you feed red meat to the far left.

~~~~~~

uhh ~ I mentioned it to identify Olson for those who don't know.

It obviously sets up an interesting political situation.

If you want to go down Memory Lane during confirmation hearings, be our guests. We actually enjoy it when you feed red meat to the far left.

Well, last I checked I'm not in the Senate, so it's not me who wants to go down memory lane, but Leahy will.

I'm just saying that if Olson is nominated, it will come up again, and this time Hatch won't be able to block it. If you think it's a good thing for the Senate to talk about Clinton's impeachment (and, you know, impeachment in general), well you may just get your wish.

I've seen the Dennis Miller take down on Harry Reid about two dozen times now. It's good every time I see it. All I can say is Miller might have gone too easy on Dingy Harry. Or, as I like to call him, pipsqueak.

If you think it's a good thing for the Senate to talk about Clinton's impeachment (and, you know, impeachment in general), well you may just get your wish.

If the Senate couldn't convict Clinton during impeachment, they wouldn't be able to impeach Bush.

But, I say if the democratics in Congress think Bush should be impeached, then they should do it. I maintain that's the last thing they want.

Talking about impeaching Bush is far more valuable to them than actually attempting to do it. Once it's done, and fails, they no longer have it as a club.

But, that's not surprising. Democratics are experts at talking about what they are going to do.

mantis:

Re: The smoking monkeys episode: I love it when he's in court later and starts talking to his liquor bottle ("Oh you're so sweet...and brown. What's that? You want me to drink you? But I can't...not here.") then dashes out to call his AA sponsor...David Crosby. :-)

On his business card: "Lionel Hutz. Cases won in 30 minutes or your pizza's free."

(OK, I think I've officially flamed this thread...lol)

Mantis
The Bush administration certainly knows where the long knives are in the Olsen confirmation.

I personally don't think the issue of impeachment, whether explicit in the case of Clinton or implicit in the matter of Bush, sways this admin's decision. This president will not be impeached. As John mentioned, it's a suicide play if the Dems try it.

But I agree, Reid is on record, and Leahy will bring it up. Let the facts be known: TAS went to the mat to get Clinton; there was big money behind that effort and they were not successful.

Perhaps Bush can nominate someone who clearly isn't a conservative partisan, but a moderate, or even better someone with no partisan political background at all.

Just kidding. Ha! I almost thought that might happen for a second, myself...

Perhaps Bush can nominate someone who clearly isn't a conservative partisan, but a moderate, or even better someone with no partisan political background at all.

That would not make any difference. The nominee could be the Janet
Reno or Sandy (Sox) Burglar (God forbid) and Dingy Harry, Leaky Leahy and Smucky Schumer would oppose the nomination, because Bush made it. They are the ones that are the partisan hacks and they want nothing more than to get George W Bush out of the White House.

For Reid to making this kind of threat it can only mean one thing - he's already convinced the pick WON'T be Ted Olson. Instead he's expecting a pick more in the mold of John Roberts or Bob Gates. So don't expect Bush to pick a big fight with the Senate Dems over the AG. Sure, they'll pick apart whoever he picks but in the end they'll roll over and let the new AG through as long as he's a well-known Beltway buddy - like Terwilliger, maybe?

So why is Harry Reid complaining about who Bush nominates again? Isn't he going to be better than Gonzales? I mean they wanted Gonzales out pretty bad. So to start complaining about the next guy they put up is just plain stupid.

"I didn't like the last guy and i don't like the next... WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

Whats a bunch of friggin cry-babies..

Impeaching Bush for dereliction of duty in protecting the Constitution would not be a suicide play for the Dems.
It's what the people (remember them?) want.

However, the Dems are too scared and weak to do it.
How long must the American people wait until they can elect someone not in one of these 2 useless and dangerous parties?

Impeaching Bush for dereliction of duty in protecting the Constitution would not be a suicide play for the Dems. It's what the people (remember them?) want.

Show me.

Jim, you can't whine that Ted Olsen isn't qualified. The Attorney General is a partisan position. Democrats give it to liberal partisans and Republicans give it to conservative partisans. It isn't just a "pick the most respected lawyer in the country" position.

Dirk, the Attorney General **isn't** a partisan position.

Bush has made it that - which is among many terrible things he's done to this nation. But the AG runs the Justice Department. And 'Justice' means impartiality, by definition. So the AG, among many other things, should not be clouded by partisan bias, to the best of their ability.

So nominating someone who is so partisanly biased that he actually worked as a lawyer for G. W. Bush - that seems pretty ridiculous for me.

since when isn't a cabinet position a political (thus partisan) position?

this whole idea that the people that the president nominates for this top positions need to be "non-partisan" is bullshit that the democrats are throwing around because they don't want a blatant conservative to be in any kind of public position. it ruins there meme that left-liberalism is the dominant political thought. (it isn't).

it reminds of that crap they pulled when bush was nominating supreme court justices. o'connor's seat is supposed to be a moderate, woman's seat. does that sound familiar? this whole thing is bullshit and bush shouldn't stand for it.

olson is incredibly qualified for the post. if bush wants him there, he should nominate him. and if the democrats object, hammer the shit out of them for being a bunch of cry-baby hypocrites. bastards

besides which, it's not dipshit's call to make, it's bush's. i hope reid loses his next election. he's such a two-faced, opportunistic politician (there ain't a worse insult as far as i am concerned.)

/rant off

be careful, you might one day post on something i have strong feelings about.

Jim:

Dirk, the Attorney General **isn't** a partisan position. Bush has made it that

Janet Reno, Democrat. In fact after performing as one of the worst AG's ever she ran and lost in the primary, (as a Dem) Florida governor's office.

Yep, move along... nothing to see here. (at least for Jim)

AG not a "partisan position"? Jim's in fantasyland yet again.

Bush made the AG into a partisan position? Gee, I guess that is the conclusion that someone with a complete lack of history would come to.

How far right-wing, far-right or otherwise, does this sound.

Olson was the attorney for convicted spy Jonathan Pollard while he was in private practice.

One the other hand he was part of the Arkansas Project whose purpose was to take down clinton. (with cause I might add)

However ke_future has it exactly correct all Cabinet posts are partisan by definition. They serve at the pleasure of the President and almost always are of the same party.

I think it all comes down to the fact that Olson lost his wife on 9/11.

If the Dems are consistent, they will reluctantly admit that this means Olsen has absolute moral authority and therefore cannot be subjected to any criticism of his motives or personal beliefs. End of story.

Of course, who ever said that the Dems were honest or even consistent about what they claim to believe?

They're still mad about 2000, which they did lose.

Too much meat on this bone to leave alone

Impeaching Bush for dereliction of duty in protecting the Constitution would not be a suicide play for the Dems. It's what the people (remember them?) want.

On what basis? Furthermore, one could make that accusation of any President, or for that matter, just about any Senator.

However, the Dems are too scared and weak to do it.They aren't too weak. They might be too scared. But what they are more than anything else is smart enough to know they don't have a case and don't want to resolve the impeachment issue.

How long must the American people wait until they can elect someone not in one of these 2 useless and dangerous parties?

As soon as someone in one of the other useless and dangerous parties actually gets a candidate elected to something greater than county commissioner so the people can see what they stand for.

As long as Libertarian candidates make the feature issue of their campaigns abolishing drug laws, they are going to swim in a sea of futility.

The problem most of these other parties face is they try to build from the top down instead of the bottom up.

Besides, I think too many LP members are whiny butts. As long as they commit those two transgressions, they aren't going to make many inroads.

If the Dems are consistent, they will reluctantly admit that this means Olsen has absolute moral authority and therefore cannot be subjected to any criticism of his motives or personal beliefs. End of story.

Well, not really in the traditional "stuck to it" sense, in the "stuck with her as long as she didn't become a raving lunatic sense" When she became a liability, then she was cast in the trash heap.

WTH happened to my post...I don't think it looked like that in preview.

For democratics absolute moral authority only applies when that person agrees with them. Otherwise they can be safely ignored.

Jack Murtha, Marine, corrupt congresscritter, against the Iraq War = absolute moral authority and wise man.

Sam Johnson, Vietnam POW, Congressman, advocate for Iraq War = who?

Chuck Hagel, Vietnam vet, Sergeant, Senator, against the war = sage, maverick, independent thinker.

John McCain, Vietnam POW, Senator, advocate for the war = just wrong.

John McCain, Vietnam POW, Senator, critic of conduct of war = Maverick, one to be listened to, as long as he's criticizing Bush.

Gee I didn't know that [b]ush was thinking of appointing Cindy Sheehan to be AG marc. Wow1 You must be all in a wad..

Oh, I see now the moral authority of a citizen war-protester should be equated with that of the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Interesting. I also didn't know that someone had the right to be the AG just because his wife was killed on 9/11. Even more interesting.

Jim the Idiot: "Dirk, the Attorney General **isn't** a partisan position."

Hmmm.

Is that why John F. Kennedy put his brother Bobby in the AG position?

Would you call that a "non-partisan" selection?

Wow. How do you think Rove made that happen 47 years ago?

He must have jumped into the "Way-back Machine".

Jim = moron

BTW, for lefty ignoramuses, Bobby Kennedy was the stud who approved the wiretaps for Martin Luther King, and to this day, libs refuse to criticize him or JFK for that.