It seems unlikely, but David Postman's eye caught mention of Slade Gorton has a possible replacement for Alberto Gonzalez. There are a number of other fellows on the list with closer ties to the federal government and its operations these days, but Slade would in theory be a good fit for a couple reasons:
1) He had a stellar reputation as AG in Washington state. Between that and his public service in the Senate, 9/11 Commission, etc. he's more than qualified.
2) He's a rare, ready-to-serve candidate that could get through a confirmation process in the Democratic Senate without too much of a bloodletting. Senators are rarely unduly harsh to fellow members of that exclusive club short of a truly massive difference in policy or politics. And Slade is a man of character and class who left the Senate with the respect of both sides of the aisle.
Yes, Slade is getting up there in age. But anyone confirmed in the coming months is essentially taking on a placeholder position for a year or so. As such, it's not as consequential as a start-of-the-term nomination, but it's also running a top-tier Cabinet Department for a year. That's not chump change.
All that being said, before anyone leaps to conclusions, Postman's catch of the CNN report was the first I'd heard of it and on first glance I consider it a long shot.
I will say if it did happen there would be a first-rate meltdown in some parts of the local liberal community. Their hate for Slade is the stuff of local political legend. Some of them will go 100% cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs if his name is back in the news. It's like our local version of BDS. Consider yourself warned...whatever the possible entertainment value.
UPDATE: off-topic comments deleted, plus one from our old friend "Steve/Sue/Conservative Not Republican." Readers who want to comment on recent local blogosphere doings with Stefan should take 30 seconds to find the appropriate thread.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 27, 2007 11:19 PM | Email ThisAt least with DM, the postings are long enough that you have time to glance down to see who wrote it, before wasting your time on it.
Posted by: Moondoggie on August 28, 2007 02:53 AMOften, it's the case that people are less despised locally than nationally. Judge Pickering was appointed by Bush to a circuit court and he had many longtime civil rights activists, including the brother of Medgar Evars, and Ed King, a white chaplain from Tougaloo College in the 50s and 60s who was one of the two Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party delegates allowed by the Democrats into their '64 convention.
These men who had devoted their lives to civil rights, especially civil rights for blacks, had known Pickering for years, and vouched for his integrity and character. But Chuck Schumer got up there and called him a racist, so his appointment never got through. Of course, the real reason for opposition to him was that he was pro-life, but it's a lot easier to characterize an old white guy from Mississippi as a racist, so that's what they did.
Truth never matters to many of these people. However, since Gorton is an ex-Senator, yes, he'll get the kid gloves treatment by the Senate, if appointed.
Posted by: pudge on August 28, 2007 07:54 AMYou are aware that he would be appointed and not elected, right?
And you are in need of a serious lesson in manners.
Posted by: jimg on August 28, 2007 08:47 AMAs you can see I want to follow Ted Kennedy's call to enforce US laws. All of them. Because I support Ted Kennedy I will never get selected.
Posted by: David Anfinrud on August 28, 2007 08:57 AMIf any Bush nominee asily earns the Schumer seal of approval, they surely won't meet mine.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 28, 2007 09:27 AMSort of like any middle-of-the-road moderate with the last name of Clinton inspires such derangement among those on the right.
Which Clinton are you referring to?
Posted by: RBW on August 28, 2007 09:46 AMIt sure ain't Hillary: she's a one woman Communist government, so far left she makes a few dictators look downright reasonable
Does it matter? Case in point, Ragnar is already frothing at the mouth.
Yes it does matter. The answer is completely different depending on whether you're referring to Bill or Hillary.
Posted by: RBW on August 28, 2007 10:49 AMI beg to disagree. Hillary is quite a moderate in comparison to some other Dem. candidates (i.e. Kusinich, Edwards).
Yes, she supports lefty things like abortion, stem cell research, but so does a good portion of America (look at Missouri). She's a far cry from the communist lefty that Ragnar (who is most certainly frothing) is describing.
As for the money. I'm sure Bush can count on lots of donations laundered through the system from Saudi princes. They certainly got a deal out of their donations, Bush got rid of a pesky neighbor and supplied them with enough military strength to put them on par with Israel.
Who knows what sort of favorable trade deals China will get come the Presidential reign of Mrs. Clinton. I guess time will tell.
Yes, it looks fishy, but a good political operative will leave no paper trail. Even if she is prosecuted it's merely a distraction from her message at best. Unless the GOP can get their ducks in a row and find a candidate they can agree on it's going to be a cakewalk for Hillary to go from First Lady, to Senator, to PUSA.
As compared to what we have now? Do the names Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, Bernard Ebbers ring a bell? The GOP is no angel when it come campaign donations. Face it both parties are awash with dirty cash. Sadly this is par for the course when running for PUSA.
Some people have tried to change it (McCain 2000) but ended up being a victim of the very thing they tried to stop.
There are other means of achieving the same end goal. Take a look at the the 2004 campaign. Who knows where all that Swift Boat money came from, does anyone in the GOP really care?
Agreed.
She absolutely IS moderate compared to those two nuts (and I fondly refer to Kucinich that way because I was in Cleveland and remember when he was the boy wonder, albeit a very screwy boy wonder, there in his youth). Compared to the Kos bunch, she is "moderate". Compared to the vocal but nutty Seattle moondoggies, she is "moderate". BUT compared to the rest of the country, compared to mainstream America, compared to heartland flyover country, compared to housewives in Oklahoma, Southern good ol' boys, meat and potatoes mid country hard working Americans, the only thing "moderate" about her is a total lack of a distinguishable hairstyle.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 28, 2007 01:10 PMI guess we shall see when she sweeps the election while the GOP implodes on itself like the Dem's did in 2000. The old Republicans are stepping down because they know the end is near. hopefully the next generation will learn from their predecessors mistakes but I'm not holding my breath.
No we'll see IF she sweeps (or squeeks by) the election.....
Posted by: RBW on August 28, 2007 02:17 PMuntil you are able to stand up and say 'enough is enough' instead of demonstrating unflinching loyalty without critique or compromise, it's unclear what credibility these nominees have.
Posted by: dinesh on August 28, 2007 02:42 PMGorton would be a recipe for disaster. I never liked his 911 commission work with Garofalo on the committee. Again, he was Minister of Nice.
Bush should appoint a stonewaller.
Posted by: swatter on August 28, 2007 02:58 PMQuite a bit apparently, she has survived far worse than a minor issue of where her donations came from. Besides she can always return the donations. Though I'd be willing to bet the issue would not die there.
Smokey, would you let Hillary slide on fuzzy campaign donations if she gave the money back?
This makes him actually an ideal candidate for the Bush administration which has yet to find a program not worthy of our tax payer money.
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 28, 2007 07:31 PMReason one he should be AG is that his views on the Indian tribes are fantastic, but that is also Reason one that he could not get confirmed.
Posted by: Doug on August 29, 2007 11:59 AMDo you think he could have done better than then AG Gregoire on the latest fiasco? And no one please lay the blame on the newbie because it would be unfair.
Posted by: swatter on August 29, 2007 12:28 PMWow, Cato, your ignorance knows no bounds, apparently.
The D's won the popular vote for President, picked up at least 4 (that I can remember) Senate Seats, some House Seats, and did well in Gov. contests in 2000. The fact that GWB was able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat against Al Gore was the one bright spot in what was a HORRIBLE year for R's. Sure, Gore should have won big, but other then his tiny loss, it was actually a very good year for D's, hardly an implosion.
Anyhow, your precious Marcy/Darcy won't even make it past the primary, and Rodney Tom will lose to Reichert in the general.
Posted by: Cliff on August 29, 2007 01:50 PMSaying Bush "snatched" anyhing from the "jaws of defeat" implies that Gore should have won for some reason, but that isn't true. To say he "should have won big" is not backed up by any actual facts or reason.
I won't say to you what you said about Cato in re ignorance, though.
As to the rest, well, you're basically right: the GOP lost 4 Senate seats and 2 House seats, and one Governor seat. But to call that a "HORRIBLE year for R's" is a gross overstatement of those facts. The Democrats had just about the most modest gains possible in the House and Governorships, and a very nice gain in the Senate.
Posted by: pudge on August 30, 2007 04:01 PM