Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed has a few words about the recent resignzation of Gonzalez:

With the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, President Bush has an historic opportunity to recover from some of his self-inflicted injuries. He can do this by nominating a principled conservative to be the next Attorney General. Confront the Democrats, don’t ‘reach out’ to them as liberal commentators are urging.

Confronting the Democrats with a highly qualified, truly conservative nominee for Attorney General is the only way to repair some of this damage.

Richard V goes on to list 10 qualified people he thinks would be good for the position:

Chris Cox, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) since 2005. Received his JD from Harvard Law School. Associate Counsel to President Reagan. Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 1989-2005.

Miguel Estrada, nominated in 2001 to U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit (D.C.), but filibustered by Democrats.

Jim Gilmore, former Virginia Attorney General (1993-1997) and Virginia Governor (1998-2002). From 1999 to 2003 chaired the Congressional terrorism commission known as the Gilmore Commission. Chairman of the Republican National Committee in 2001-2002.

Edith Jones, nominated by President Reagan and now chief judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The other finalist for the Supreme Court vacancy given instead to David Souter. Had the honor of being named one of five worst judges in Texas by the liberal Texas Observer.

Ed Meese, Ronald ReaganÂ’s distinguished Attorney General. Though retired, he is active with the Heritage Foundation and would undoubtedly agree to serve his country again for a 17-month interim term.

Ted Olson, U.S. Solicitor General 2001-2004. Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration. Successfully litigated Bush v. Gore. Wife Barbara K. Olson was passenger on hijacked airplane on 9/11.

Priscilla Owen, federal judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Previously a justice on the Texas Supreme Court.

Charles W. Pickering, Sr., appointed by President George H. W. Bush to U.S. District Court for Southern District of Mississippi. In 1976, he chaired the subcommittee of the Republican Platform Committee that called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.

William H. Pryor Jr., Alabama Attorney General from 1997 to 2004. Presently a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Rick Santorum, former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, where he was chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

People who think Bush is a conservative are just wrong. Then again, Bush does have a chance here to show people that he can do some good things. Do you think he'll nominate a conservative (from the list), or do you think, as I suspect, that Bush will nominate someone that will not raise any objections from the Democrats?

Posted by: Ogre at 01:08 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 559 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Olson would be the best choice, in my opinion. Not only does he have the qualifications, but, the libs would have to tie themselves in knots to assualt this guy, as he would have "absolute moral authority." They would try, though, and the country would get to see what mean people they really are.

Posted by: William Teach at August 30, 2007 01:37 PM (NaHh8)

2 Which one, Mary-Kate or the other one? Oh, Ted, right. Indeed, any one on this list would drive liberals crazy -- which can only result in good things!

Posted by: Ogre at August 30, 2007 03:12 PM (oifEm)

3 Meese, Owen, Pickering, and Santorum would be skewered immediately by the dumbocrats, would never get out of committee. However, having Owen up there (isn't she Black, as well?) would put the libs in a bad light, unless the media decided to not televise nor report on the confirmation process.

Posted by: William Teach at August 30, 2007 07:56 PM (NaHh8)

4 Don't worry, the Dems WILL complain. They'll call her Uncle Tom.

Posted by: Ogre at August 30, 2007 09:06 PM (durxh)

5 The main concern of Democrats is they feel that Gonzalez violated the Orin Hatch Act -- civil service positions are supposed to be filled by competent individuals, not just political supporters. The raised eyebrows and (to some) the perceived threat to democracy was the fact that political appointees were dismissed not for being Republican but for not being "loyal Bushies" -- as though American government should be run by Nazis pledging support to "der Fuhrer" instead of the oath of office they took to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The right to a speedy and fair trial is the essence of American liberty; the Gonzalez-led Bush administration's end-run around the U.S. Constitution to detain indefinitely anyone they declare to be "enemy combatants" WITHOUT due process is a scary threat to the self-government Abraham Lincoln pondered whether it would survive or perish from this earth. Skipping the judicial oversight (how hard is it to find a judge who will sign a search warrant?) and trying to establish a parallel tribunal system run by the president (instead of faith in our American Justice System) causes many to worry about the way the president is setting himself up as "judicial, legislative, and executive" branches of government without any checks and balances from the legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government. Of course, if you view American politics as some form of entertainment or intellectual analysis of political power and personalities, then you wouldn't ever concern yourself with the fundamental threats Gonzalez posed to our constitutional form of government.

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at August 31, 2007 05:42 AM (+PoXK)

6 Not really. The main concern Democrats had with Gonzalez was that he would support their socialist ideas. They didn't like him simply because Bush appointed him, and nothing more. Anything else they claimed was just a damn excuse. Claiming that non citizens who attack America are entitled to Constitutional protections is a complete red herring. If the Democrats really believed that, they'd be invading every single country on the planet, trying to impose protections on everyone else. They do not believe that AT ALL. They just don't like anything that might remotely make Bush look successful. A parallel tribunal system? Have you been drinking the Democrat kool-aid? That's simply not true. Name for me one American citizen that was arrested or detained in American lands that was not guilty and prosecuted. It simply hasn't happened. Gonzalez presented no threat to the Constitution. Congress who refuses oversteps their bounds, Presidents who do nothing about that, and judge who allow them to are much more dangerous. And that's assuming we have a Constitution. I do not believe we do. Sure, we have the piece of paper that was signed centuries ago, but we have less than 10 people in all of government who actually follow the rules laid out in that document.

Posted by: Ogre at August 31, 2007 11:54 AM (oifEm)

7 So much to respond to. But, let's start with this: if memory serves, Lincoln suspended Habeaus Corpus during the Civil War, as well as many other civil liberties. So did FDR. Woops! How does Clinton getting rid of 93 federal prosecutors fit in? Woops! Foreign nationals do not get American Rights. As far as entertainment goes, yes, I have read sites like the Democratic Underground, the Kos Kids Konglomerate, and the Huff Post. Gotta love when a lefty mentions Nazi's. Means they really have no coherent argument, plus, it was in their talking points email.

Posted by: William Teach at August 31, 2007 01:13 PM (NaHh8)

8 And it was only the second sentence when the Nazi reference appeared!

Posted by: Ogre at August 31, 2007 01:42 PM (oifEm)

9 The Civil War was fought on American soil and WW II was truly a war that had to be fought until unconditional surrender of the Nazis was achieved. The Iraq War was a war of choice and everything that was predicted to go wrong with that monumental bad decision has come true. Every President appoints his own federal D.A.'s at the beginning of his term. What was unprecedented was Bush did an extra (some say political) replacement in the middle of a term. All of the REPUBLICAN D.A.'s had excellent job reviews, both by Dems and Pubs. Just because you are cynical about our Constitution and Liberty doesn't mean that it is not important. America is an idea as much as anything else. An idea that we can have this discussion without worrying about secret police coming to arrest us in the middle of the night. Or being arrested by a political D.A. and sent to Guantanamo without due process and held indefinitely. As long as Guantanamo exists, the American ideal is tainted. Read the Israeli Constitution for an excellent description of why a democracy can't use torture or treat the enemy without the same consideration its own citizens enjoy. "Sometime a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back, but if it is to stand for anything it cannot use the barbaric practices its enemy uses or else it will lose the moral high ground." I'm glad that you find Dems amusing. Sorry I can't say the same for Pubs. They always seem so mean and more willing to starve those who cannot help themselves than to help them. We could win the hearts and minds of far more people in the world for far less money than $100 billion/year by letting Iraq make their own decision than trying to force our capitalism on them. BlackwaterUSA thugs are a perfect example -- Iraqis want them out of their country but BlackwaterUSA's CEO has inside connections with the Rumsfield-Cheney-Bush neo-cons. Even General Petraeus's Counter-Insurgency Field Manual states "Killing or capturing the wrong Iraqis will do more harm than good." -- and BlackwaterUSA's merc's have killed many thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq. Well, if you don't see the dictatorial (fascist) rule of George W. Bush, then you haven't been paying attention to Bush's power grabs during the first 6 years of his 2 awful terms. Read George Will's column and Alan Greenspan's book. I suppose you would say THEY have turned "liberal" (since you seem so blinded by the R after Bush's name).

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at September 19, 2007 05:51 PM (SK5U6)

10 Wow. You're all over the board on that comment, aren't you? You seem to suffer from BDS, too. Let me correct just two of the rantings -- first, I don't claim, nor I have ever, that Bush is conservative. The Republican Party is NOT conservative. I will never claim they are. Conservatives believe in smaller government -- and neither Bush, Democrats, or Republicans do. There are VERY few elected conservatives. Second, I really get sick of the complete and total lie that "conservatives want to starve people." Shut up. You're full of crap. That's a total out and out lie and anyone who says it damn well knows it.

Posted by: Ogre at September 19, 2007 07:21 PM (oifEm)

11 What's BDS? Name a social service program you endorse. Do you care about the millions of Americans who have no health insurance? What about George Will and Alan Greenspan -- are they not conservative by your definition? Have you read the book "Invasion of the Party Snatchers -- How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP" by Victor Gold? Your comments would be interesting to read.

Posted by: Jean Stables at September 21, 2007 02:37 AM (SK5U6)

12 Total non-sequitor! Caring about people and social services are opposites. If you support social services for people, you care LESS about the people because you don't trust them and you assume they cannot do anything. Social services are about using the force of government -- holding a gun to people's heads -- and taking their earnings to give to someone else. It's NOT about helping ANYONE, it's about forced, unwilling redistribution of wealth. People who care about others do not steal.

Posted by: Ogre at September 21, 2007 11:35 AM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment