1115.org

Sunday morning I was firmly convinced that Bush really wasn’t serious about nominating Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General. It just didn’t seem to be in character. The rumors had clearly been put out, and were swirling:

So far, the White House has stayed quiet about who will replace Gonzales. An announcement is expected this week, and some legal conservatives and Republicans told The Associated Press that the White House appeared to be signaling that Mukasey was Bush’s pick.

This has to be some kind of trick, I thought. Nominating Mukasey would run totally counter to the in-your-face philosophy that has so far governed Bush when it comes to key nominations. Mukasey would practically be a bipartisan choice. And at this stage in Bush’s presidency, it’s really hard to believe that he’s suddenly turned over a new leaf and decided to be the President of all Americans:

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., previously recommended Mukasey for a Supreme Court vacancy.

In June 2005, the liberal Alliance for Justice put Mukasey’s name on a list of four judges who, if chosen for the Supreme Court, would show the president’s “commitment” to picking someone who could be supported by both Democratic and Republican senators.

Nan Aron of the alliance said if Bush nominated Mukasey, the Senate would view it as a “conciliatory” act.

I thought to myself: “Would the Bush we know be able to sleep at night if he nominated Mukasey?” And I constructed an elaborate post, by asking myself: “Okay, so what gives?”

But then by Sunday evening, the “anonymous high-placed sources are whispering” stories had turned into headlines like “ Bush Picks Mukasey As Attorney General” (AP) and “Bush Settles on Mukasey to Replace Gonzales” (WaPo). It’s still not an official announcement, and the second paragraph of the WaPo story (by Michael Abramowitz and Dan Eggen) reads:

The appointment of Mukasey, 66, considered a law-and-order conservative and authority on national security issues, could come as early as Monday morning, the sources said.

Which certainly does make me wonder if the story was actually written by Dana Perino. Surely Abramowitz and Eggen do understand the difference between “appointment” and “nomination”, and are aware which action Bush would actually be taking at this point?

But I’m fully aware that I’m just displaying childish reluctance to abandon my pretty little theory. So I’ll do the professional thing, and firmly let go of it. (And I’m going to be really pissed at myself if it turns out that Bush was just playing us all.)

Still, Mukasey’s presumptive nomination does raise some questions. One still has to ask: “What gives?”

Bush’s base isn’t exactly going to be pleased with Mukasey’s nomination:

“Conservatives might have some serious concerns with Mukasey,” said one Republican close to the White House. “He’s not well known in the community.”

Certainly, the pro-lifers see Mukasey as a suspicious character:

Brian Burch, president of the Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis, said he started getting calls early Saturday from members of his group and other conservative groups who were worried that Bush was getting ready to nominate Mukasey.

“His federal judicial record has been at times hostile to the issues that we care and have concern about, like abortion,” Burch said.

So why is Bush doing this? I cannot imagine he’s anxious to provide his right-wing critics with an opportunity to complain that he meekly gave up on Theodore “Odious” Olson, and allowed the Democrats to pick his Attorney General for him instead. And this is what they’re already whispering in the whispering galleries:

Bush critics see the Mukasey nomination as evidence of Bush’s weakened political clout as he heads into the final 15 months of his presidency.

That can’t sit too well with someone with such a fragile ego as Bush.

I guess it still doesn’t make any sense to me.

*** Update, 7:30 am ***
The White House just made it official: Mukasey it is.