August 31, 2007
Ted Olson for Attorney General (Lanny Davis)
I believe Ted Olson would be an excellent choice for attorney general.
Before I undermine any chance he might have by letting Rush Limbaugh or other Republican conservatives disqualify him because I endorsed him (or infuriate my fellow liberal Democrats by my endorsement), let me add:
I strongly disagree with most of Ted Olson’s political and philosophical positions.
Olson and I served together for a little over a year on President Bush’s five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the Congress in 2004 on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I was the only Democrat on the board. Mr. Olson and I disagreed on some issues, mostly concerning the scope of the board’s mandate under the language of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, which established the board; and the structural position of the board as part of the office of the President. (Briefly: My perception was that the board could and was intended to be completely independent of the White House, and Ted’s view — shared by the rest of the board — was that Congress placed the board in the office of the president and, thus, intended the board to be part of the White House staff structure and not completely independent. My view, Ted’s, and the other board members’ had a legitimate basis in trying to interpret ambiguous congressional intent and wording in the underlying statute.)
There are three important reasons why I believe President Bush should nominate Ted Olson to be attorney general — despite my strong disagreements with him both politically and philosophically.
First, based on my experience with him on the Civil Liberties and Privacy Board and my many conversations with him over the years, I believe he is 100 percent intellectually honest. By that I mean, he applies the same standards of analysis and applies the same set of principles to each issue, regardless of whether the outcome will be a liberal one or a conservative one. I wish there were more people in Washington and in politics I could say that about, on both sides of the ideological and partisan spectrum.
Second, he is extremely smart — and by smart, I mean the ability to pierce through the weeds, get to the core issues quickly, analyze first, second and third levels of issues to see the subtleties and nuances of complicated matters, and reach well-grounded conclusions.
Third, while he feels strongly about his principles, I can say from personal experience that he is a good listener — and sometimes (though I must say rarely) even I was able to change his mind or slightly influence him to reassess his position. In short, while he is a strongly principled conservative, he is also intellectually open-minded and open to new ideas and new interpretations of the facts.
Finally, and most important, Ted Olson is a strong believer in the power of The Law — I capitalized the first letters of these two words because, as I have come to know him, I am certain that The Law is a fundamental principle and a core value in Ted Olson’s belief system. He views the Constitution, the rule of law, and attorneys who are part of the legal system to have a higher duty than partisan causes, personal loyalty, or political philosophy. And I know for a fact that he reveres the U.S. Department of Justice — as an institution that must be above reproach and any taint of politicization.
It is the latter reason why I believe most importantly that Ted Olson is needed now as attorney general, especially in light of the difficulties experienced by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Intentionally or not, the Justice Department’s reputation for integrity above politics, so vital to the perception of the neutral administration of justice, has been undermined in the last several years.
Of course the attorney general has to feel some loyalty and dedication to the president of the United States, who appointed him presumably because their political philosophies are similar. That would be silly to deny — and indeed, unwise to want it to be otherwise, whether a Democratic president or a Republican one.
But Ted Olson’s commitment to The Law — and his institutional investment in the independence and integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice — would permit him to reconcile loyalty to the president who appointed him with complete independence and intellectual integrity regarding the Department of Justice.
It must be remembered that Ted Olson’s career and intellectual growth was greatly influenced by his many years serving in leadership positions at DoJ. For example, in the 1980s, he served Ronald Reagan as an assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel — the intellectual powerhouse position in DoJ, acting, in effect, as the attorney general’s inside law firm. Then he served under President Bush as solicitor general. And I can say from personal experience, he was highly regarded at DoJ by career lawyers from both sides of the aisle. During virtually every one of our visits to the department while I was serving on the privacy board, I was always impressed with the friendly and warm greetings Ted received from career lawyers who I knew had served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
In short, Ted Olson may be wrong on a lot of issues — and I think he is. But he has the intellectual firepower, integrity and — I will use the word that I also experienced during my term on the board — the stubbornness to defend his principles that are exactly what President Bush and the nation need to restore full confidence in the great institution of the U.S. Department of Justice.
To my fellow Democrats: Don’t be too shocked or upset at my endorsement of Ted Olson. We have a Republican president, and he is entitled to, and will get, an attorney general who shares his political philosophy. But in Ted Olson, in my judgment, we will get a principled and independent thinker who will focus on the word “Justice” in the department’s name, even when some in the White House, or members of Congress from both parties, try to pressure him into partisan choices and decisions.
And to those on the Republican conservative right, including the conservative blogosphere and talk show hosts (including Mr. Limbaugh):
Please don’t hold my endorsement of Ted Olson against him. Don’t worry: He is very conservative and very principled, and I disagree with him on most issues. So I am endorsing Mr. Olson in spite of, not because of, his political views; and because of his intellectual excellence and integrity, and not because he might be subject to influence by liberal bleeding hearts like yours truly.
25 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I'd rather see Dr. Mark Levin.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 31, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Isn't Ted Olsen the guy who hardly mourned his wife who died on 9/11? I thought I read that somewhere. I don't know if it is true.
But if I was smart enough to know that WTC7 was imploded, I don't think I could work for the man who allowed my wife to die.
Comment by Gary Anderson — August 31, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Here is a link that disputes Ted Olson's account of Barbara Olson's telephone calls:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html
"06/26/07 - Did American Airlines 77—the flight that, according to the official conspiracy theory about 9/11, struck the Pentagon—have onboard phones? This question is relevant to the possible truth of the official theory, because Ted Olson, who was then the US Solicitor General, claimed that his wife, Barbara Olson, called him twice from this flight using an onboard phone.
He did, to be sure, waver on this point. CNN, which mentioned in a story posted just before midnight on 9/11 that Barbara Olson had used a cell phone to call her husband, reported in a more extensive treatment, posted at 2:06 AM (EDT) on September 12, that Ted Olson had told it that his wife “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77.”1 But on September 14, Olson said on Hannity & Colmes (Fox News) that she had called collect and therefore must have been using the “airplane phone”—because, he surmised, “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”2 On CNN’s Larry King Show later that same day, however, Olson returned to his first version. After saying that the second call from her suddenly went dead, he surmised that this was perhaps “because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”3 On that same day, moreover, Tony Mauro, the Supreme Court correspondent for American Lawyer Media, published an account saying that Barbara Olson “was calling on her cell phone from aboard the jet.”4 Two months later, however, Ted Olson returned to the second version of his story. In the “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture” delivered to the Federalist Society, he said that she used “a telephone in the airplane to [make] those two telephone [calls].”5 This second version was repeated in March 2002. “[C]alling collect,” he told the London Daily Telegraph, his wife “us[ed] the phone in the passengers’ seats.” She called collect, he again surmised, because “she didn’t have her purse” and hence her credit card.6
This revised version of his story has evidently gone virtually unnoticed in the American press. A year after 9/11, for example, CNN was still reporting that Barbara Olson used a cell phone.7 Nevertheless, Ted Olson’s statement to the Federalist Society and the Telegraph—that she called collect using a passenger-seat phone—was apparently his final word on the matter.
The claim that she must have called collect because she did not have her credit card, however, does not make any sense, because a credit card is needed in order to activate a passenger-seat phone.8 If she did not have a credit card, therefore, she could not have used a passenger-seat phone, whether to call collect or otherwise.9
By settling on this version of his story, nevertheless, Olson at least appeared to make defensible his claim that the calls occurred. We say this because of the extremely strong evidence that her reported calls could not have been made on a cell phone, given the cell phone technology in 2001. Cell phone calls from an airliner were, as DRG has argued extensively elsewhere, generally possible only if it was flying slowly and low,10 but Barbara Olson’s first call, according to the 9/11 Commission, occurred “[a]t some point between 9:16 and 9:26,”11 when the plane was flying too fast and too high for cell phone calls to have been possible. According to the Flight Data Recorder information released by the National Transportation Safety Board, the plane at 9:16 would have been over 25,000 feet, which is far too high (as well as too fast: 281 knots [324 mph]), while at 9:26 the plane would have been flying at 324 knots (370 mph), which is much too fast (as well as still too high: almost 14,000 feet).12 By settling on the claim that his wife used an onboard phone instead of a cell phone, Ted Olson avoided this problem."
This guy is not attorney general material Lanny. He can't even get his story right on what kind of phone his wife used to allegedly call him.
Comment by Gary Anderson — August 31, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Here we have the perfect example of why we find ourselves in the dilemma that we are in. The DC clique, mattering not which party, stands by each other. This is the old boys club, who really only care about their careers, and not what's best for this country. Our so called liberal Lanny Davis is supporting a man who helped the thugs steal the 2000 election, which started this whole mess. Thanks Lanny!
Ted Olson is a wingnut. He is so patriotic, smart, and adheres to the rule of law so vehemently, that he supports and promotes the thugs who subvert our government on a daily basis.
Olson's late wife, rest in peace-and I mean that, was a voice of authoritarian hate speak on broadcast TV before she passed away.
The only way things are going to get corrected is if we can flush out the Lanny Davis's of the world, as well as rid ourselves of the "party before country" Republicans. Then and only then, will we have taken our beautiful country back.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 1, 2007 @ 10:09 am
Davis misses the mark.
Olson may well be sincere, he may well be honest and intelligent and he may even be a nice guy, but none of those are qualities in particularly short supply, and none are particularly important in terms of choosing the next Attorney General.
On the contrary, Gonzales' replacement needs to demonstrate political independence from White House meddling in the internal affairs of DoJ. As Davis himself illustrates with his anecdote from his experience on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, there's no way in hell Olson is going to provide DoJ with one micron of independence. He has always worked in very close conjunction with the White House, even when he didn't have to, and there's no reason to believe his behavior will be any different now.
Comment by Wilbur Cross — September 1, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Chris, what method exactly are you suggesting in your "getting rid" quest?
Comment by Igor R. — September 1, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Lanny is a Demcon. To me that is almost worse than being a neocon. I really don't think the Dems realize how low we hold neocons. They need to wake up.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 1, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
I was very disipointed that Lanny Davis is touting Ted Olson for Attorney General as a bastion of principle and integrity.
Didn't this guy particpate in dirty tricks against the Clintons? Yes, he did. That doesn't sound like a man of integrity to me. It seems Mr Olson knows that he must change in image in order to get approval from Congress for any high level appointment so he has become kind and gentle and even greets Dems with a smile and handshake.
Remember the old Irish proverb:
"If you shake hands with the devil you can never let go."
Drop the idea of Ted Olson for any position of authority.
Comment by John Mullins — September 2, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
You know what bothers me Lanny. I know this is your blog, but if you know what happened on 9/11 you should give your knowledge or even your opinions here. I really have lost confidence in you. But as you can see, most here already have.
Be a hero Lanny, tell us what you know. Tell us what Ted Olson knew.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 2, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Why not get David Iglesia? Now that would be some integrity. Therefore we can not expect such from President BunnyPants. Ted Olson is a DC hack. Get a prosecutor from the heartland to appoint AG. Forget the insiders.
Comment by Lester — September 3, 2007 @ 2:14 am
TO Gary — I'm glad you hate neocons, we feel the same way about you. Your rantings here are getting quite predictable. Ever think about coming up with a new rant? The 9/11 conspiracy theory is getting old, especially since you have no real evidence to back up your claims, and your rants that the U.S is trying to steal Iraqi oil is just as bad. I think I speak for a lot of other people when I suggest we all just ignore you, as we would a little kid throwing a temper tantrum.
Comment by John Simmons — September 3, 2007 @ 7:39 am
Yeah John, you do speak for the minority here. Considering that this is a conservative blog and that the hosts have allowed all points of view, and that the majority point of view is not yours says a lot.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 3, 2007 @ 11:49 am
"and your rants that the U.S is trying to steal Iraqi oil is just as bad"
As we now move to replace Maliki with an authoritarian thug, we are running out of alternative explanations. If not for oil, why are we occupying Iran, Gary?
Comment by IHateNeoCrims — September 3, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
The is a "conservative blog"????? Really??? Gary, you are more whacked out than I thought! The Hill is a Liberal paper, most of its commentators are liberals, or closet liberals. You fit right in with the company line.
Comment by John Simmons — September 3, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
What John? Are you smoking bananas? Feehery, Hanretty,Stoddard (I still like her), Christie, Morris, Donatelli, and for crying out loud, John, Armstrong williams are all conservative.
You must be to the right of Dick Cheney.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 3, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Given that Lanny obviously supported Janet Reno, his observation recommendation nothing!
I support Olsen inspite of his recommendation.
How about all those dems calling for Maliki to step down? I guess they all want more "Big Oil" money!!! They can bring in the French for more Oil for Food type programs. LOL!!
It must really upset you Libs to be on the wrong side of history so often.
Comment by John Fort Lauderdale — September 3, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
Igor, it's something that you hate. A clean and honest election.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 4, 2007 @ 6:08 am
Chris, you had no basis to make that claim, that I hate clean and honest elections. You accuse others of being belligerent, but you're a hateful, evil creature.
Comment by Igor R. — September 4, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
GAry — put the pipe down. I made this argument previously:
Stoddard/liberal, Budowsky/liberal, Fenn/liberal, Press, Morris, Davis/liberal, liberal liberal.
Comment by John Simmons — September 4, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
I gave up the pipe many years ago John. But you are to the right of Attila the Hun.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 4, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Thank you, Mr. Davis, for the thoughtful and forthright piece about Olsen. I find the honesty and sense of bonhomie you display to an ideological opponent to be refreshing.
I am philosophically aligned with Olsen, but have enjoyed your reasonable, well-argued, and calm analysis from the other side of the aisle. If you have occassionally mitigated Olsen's thoughts and opinions, you have done the same for me every now and then.
If more of my people and more of yours were so, we would be far better off as a society, and maybe, just maybe, able to tackle some real problems.
And, I disagree with you for purely tactical reasons: I would hate for the right to send to the DoJ, in its current weakened state and under a lame-duck president, someone who would make such a wonderful Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This appointment could prove to be an albatross, damaging Olsen politically and preventing his advance to the pinnacle of The Law.
Comment by David Bartlett — September 5, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Thanks Lanny. Is this the same Ted Olson of the Monica Lewinsky affair? Now you confirm that you belong to the old boys network!
Comment by abiodun — September 5, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Let's go over Olsen's representations to the courts in Florida in 2000 w/r/t whetehr or not the Texas Elections law (which Bush signed into law) was or was not a mirror image of the Florida law that Ted claimed was unconstitutional. this could be fun.
Lots of lies - shameless misrepresentations - from Olsen over the years, whether it was the Arkansas Project or any of a number of other issues.
Olsen is the epitome of loyalty to party over country - he talks a good game about the rule of law, but authoritarians always do. Remember that our civil rights are also law, too.
Olsen is the very last person we need as AG. But I find the chance to have confirmation hearings, and to confron Olsen with his career, to have some potential.
Comment by Xenos — September 9, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Sorry for the typos. Next time I will finish my coffee before ranting.
Comment by Xenos — September 9, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Lanny! Yikes! There is nothing you said or can say that would ever justify Olsen as AG. Do you really the Clintons that much…to back one of their most crazed assasins? Go teach a seminar at the Yale Daily News..or just go away.
Comment by Bob Witkowski — September 12, 2007 @ 11:25 pm