I think David Brooks and E.J. Dionne both need to keep their hopes in check:
The model for Bush to ponder regarding Gonzales's successor is obvious. When Gerald Ford took over from Richard Nixon, the Justice Department was in shambles, discredited by political abuse and corruption at the top. In naming a new attorney general, Ford turned not to a political crony but to Edward Levi, the president of the University of Chicago. Levi's reputation as a man of integrity who despised the abuse of power almost instantly restored the department's standing.
What distinguishes George Bush, of course, is that he's not taking over for a disgraced president. He is the disgraced president. He's a lame duck with almost no incentive to distinguish himself with an effective cabinet. He has never listened to reason, especially from pundits. And he has a lot to hide. We're not going to get an Edward Levi. And if the president nominates somebody with any redeeming qualities--the Bob Gates of the Justice Department, say--he or she will be hamstrung as a matter of design.
Comments
You're right about Bush, but I would argue that Dionne is doing a valuable pundit type service in defining what the ideal reaction to the situation would be. Ideal types are important even if you know they won't be reached.
Duly noted. You may blame this on my shrill blogger tendency to always frame things as "Bush won't do X because he sucks," rather than "Bush should do X".
But, but... Bush won't do X because he really sucks. :-)
It's really true, so how can one avoid that truth.
The names being tossed around don't give one confidence that the AG-successor will be anything other than safely loyal or safely inert (to prior and future Bush illegalities or unconstitutionalities), or both.
I find it amusing in Dionne's column about how we need an Edward Levi type to replace Gonzales that he never got around to listing any candidate who would meet the criteria.
Post A Comment