Richard Viguerie Is Kind of Right About Who Bush Should Choose for AG, But for the Wrong Reasons
My favorite right-wing punching bag Richard Viguerie has an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times today in which he proves once again why he’s not in George W, Bush’s cabinet. His free advice to Bush on who he should choose to replace disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has some elements that I actually agree with — but for reasons different from Viguerie’s.
will not shy away from investigating government corruption.
Well, I don’t agree with everything the Goldwater conservative says:
Liberal commentators and, I’m sure, spineless Republican consultants are advising the president to attempt to make peace with such critics as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) by naming a nonpartisan, inoffensive
fellow like Edward Levi, whom President Ford picked as AG in the wake of Watergate and of the 1974 election of a left-wing majority in Congress. Of course, Levi’s appointment did nothing to appease the liberal Democrats and deprived Ford of a legitimate political weapon against Democratic corruption. Levi wasn’t even the “moderate” he was advertised to be; he pushed Ford into appointing to the U.S. Supreme Court the radical John Paul Stevens, who remains there today.
Viguerie says the Democrats cannot be appeased, and he’s probably right, and I do agree with his next suggestion to Bush:
… nominate someone with a record of toughness on law-and-order issues who will not shy away from investigating government corruption (including vote fraud), and who will push for the nomination of highly qualified judges who faithfully follow the law rather than making it up as they go along.
That’s good, sound advice that Bush won’t take because a true law-and-order AG would have to be willing to investigate the party in power and oh, say Dick Cheney and his gang, which ain’t going to happen. But it’s still the description of the kind of AG who should always be sought out, instead of a party-line stoolie.
But then Viguerie goes off the rails back onto his familiar complaint that the Democrats want an activist judiciary — as if the Republicans don’t:
If the Democrats block the confirmation, expose them for their partisanship, for their refusal to be tough on law enforcement out of fear that they will upset their own base, and for their efforts to use the unelected judiciary to create policies that would never be enacted through a democratic process.


