What about that compassionate conservatism? Those good Christian values -- thou shall not kill, turn the other cheek, all that nonsense, you know.

What about they hate us for our freedoms; because we are a nation of laws, not men; because we do what's right, not just what's required.  

Try to drown me, I'll tell you whatever the hell it is you want me to say.  Threaten my family with a real threat, same thing.  Just like the neocon philosophy, garbage in results in garbage out.  It's time to just say no.  

But noooooo: You didn't want to listen.  A couple post-ers on other sites said "I've appeared before him and he's OK!", and everyone just kind of rolled over and said "Oh, and he's not (that icky) Ted Olson.  OK, then."

Bush:Gonzales::Giuliani:Mukasey

The latter is the smarter, and therefore more dangerous version, of the former.

Just to give you a little bit of what I wrote about Mukasey there - and this was before he started waffling on waterboarding (I'll add a little emphasis):

3.  He was protecting his own power as a judge.

That was the most important part of his ruling in Padilla, but not for the reasons too many would be thinking.  It's not that he has any great appreciation for preserving the power of the judiciary.  It's that he was more interested in exhibiting that he will preserve and wield the power of whatever office he holds.  

Remember, Kyle Sampson, the pudgy mini-Rove ensconced in the DoJ?  ...  it was Kyle Sampson who also wrote an email advising use of the temporary appointment power for replacing wobbly US Attorneys with Loyal Bushies, in which he said:  "What's the use of having this power if we don't use it?"  Congress will take it away if they figure out why we wanted it.  

This is about power, wielding it, and preserving it.  In the hands and office of the AG.

To get to be a federal judge in NYC (or, for that matter, any large city in the US), one need not just be a darn good lawyer in a city full of darn good lawyers.  One must also be political - no surprise there - and one must be quite tough.  ... Think of a room full of Bruce Cutlers - trying to take over the courtroom.  Judges have to ride herd on that and exert their will to even move their cases.  ...  The personalities, authoritarian tendencies (necessary to keep in check the huge personalities of the lawyers appearing in the court) and the sheer deference afforded federal judges in large cities ... ensure that one of the primary personality traits those federal judges have is the ability to hold, wield and expand their power.  Had they not had that, they would have been roadkill on one of the Avenues long before they ever got appointed as a federal judge.

Now, we are expected to believe that given the unprecedented expansion of power in the AG recently bestowed by the new FISA (among other things) and the rampant power grabs of this Admin, as yet un-undone, a judge (or any other person) whose entire career has been marked by exerting power will not use those powers?  Will not do everything in his ability to preserve those powers?

And a person who is extremely close to the leading candidate of the Rethug party will not exert (or fail to exert) those powers to benefit that candidate or harm his opponent?

And that this person would be appointed by this president to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States even though we're supposed to believe he might be at variance with the philosophy of this President?

Please.  That's why this quote in the article cracked me up:

"They also fear that he'll cave to demands for a special prosecutor," the source said.

He would never have been considered had he not wink-and-nodded that the idea of a special prosecutor, is off the table.

No, if in this jungle Olson was the roaring lion stalking your rights, Mukasey is the snake in the grass that you'll never see until it's way too late.  But, they're both Bush-wielded pointed sticks in your eye.  For that reason, he should be blocked.