If it wasn’t so predictable…well you know.

Opposition among Democrats to Michael B. Mukasey’s nomination as attorney general grew Wednesday, heightening the intrigue surrounding a confirmation that once seemed assured.

In sometimes passionate debate on the Senate floor, two more Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, said they would vote against Mukasey when the committee takes up his nomination Tuesday.

While praising Mukasey as a desirable alternative to predecessor Alberto R. Gonzales, both men said they could not support his nomination to head the Justice Department because of his continuing refusal to pass what has become a litmus test for Democrats in the nomination debate: declaring that an interrogation method known as water-boarding is not only repugnant but illegal.

What will the senior Senator from New York do?

A crucial, but officially undecided, vote is that of Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer, an ardent Mukasey supporter who early in the process praised his fellow New Yorker’s integrity and independence, saying he had credentials that the morale-sapped Justice Department needed.

Some observers said they believed it would be difficult for Schumer to oppose the nomination given his previous enthusiastic support. Ironically, one of the most relentless critics of the Bush administration might end up casting the vote that assures the White House-backed nominee is cleared.

Schumer refused to say Wednesday how he would vote. “I’m not going to comment on Judge Mukasey here. I’m reading the letter, I’m going over it,” Schumer told reporters hours after the nominee submitted a package of written answers to questions posed by lawmakers since Mukasey’s confirmation hearing two weeks ago.

The Democrats got the man they said they wanted and still it is not good enough. If they feel this strongly about waterboarding, then write legislation making it illegal and stop playing politics with both the Department of Justice and the nominee.

Is it any wonder people have such low expectations when it comes to Congress?

Here is a copy of the statement Mitch McConnell made on the floor of the Senate regarding the AG nomination and confirmation process. He sure calls it like it is.

Nothing would please me more than to see the hearings to confirm Michael Mukasey as the new Attorney General be conducted in a civil manner.

If Senator Leahy’s remarks to the press hold true, maybe the AG position will be vacant for only a bit longer.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Tuesday he expects retired judge Michael Mukasey to be confirmed as U.S. attorney general, succeeding Alberto Gonzales who resigned under pressure.

On the eve of the Mukasey’s confirmation hearing before Chairman Patrick Leahy’s panel, the senator also said he believes Mukasey, unlike Gonzales, would be independent of the White House.

It remains to be seen if the Judiciary Committee has the ability to put the interest of our country above that of their political careers but there is always hope.

“I don’t see a bombshell,” Leahy said. “Right now from what I have seen, I would expect him to be confirmed.”

Quickly, Senators, quickly.

Maybe Ted Olson did not want the job.

Perhaps he removed himself from the short list of candidates considered for Attorney General, or better yet, maybe he was never really on the list. I never heard from the President or Mr. Olson that this assertion had any teeth.

Did Chuck Schumer get a heads up from one of those career Democrats in the Justice Department that Judge Michael Mukasey was the Presidents choice allowing him to come out along with Senator Reid and let all conservatives know they would support this man if nominated? And did the base buy this trick that the left has used effectively before?

We’ll see exactly how pleased the Democrats are with this choice at the Senate confirmation hearing. I would bet even money that it won’t be a love fest and I would lay the same odds that within the first few months of confirmation something will be done at Justice which will be on the front page of the papers for weeks to come and it won’t be positive.

I have read many blogs today on this issue and while almost everyone admits they know little about this gentleman,(I was enlightened as to his credentials after reading this,) many are simply disappointed because they preferred Ted Olson. If we don’t hold our powder on this and create another foot stomping firestorm it will serve no purpose but trouble for the Right. It will play, once again, right into the hands of some of the most devious politicians Washington has ever known. Maybe if we lose the White House and both houses of Congress remain in the hands of the Democrats some will learn their lesson.

Is Ted Olson a good man, certainly. Was he the only option President Bush had for this position, no. I’d make one last bet, this selection was not about Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid or bloggers opinions or anything in the major media.

There was one man in the end deciding what he felt would be best for the Department of Justice at this time. And I for one will at least allow the Judge the opportunity to succeed before I condemn him. If his nomination proves to have been a mistake it will lie with one man, the President, and I am certain there will not be enough bandwidth, paper or words to make it known.

Many were revved up for a bruising battle in the Senate. Why? It was not their name or reputation which would have been smeared by pompous politicians or the press. Another good man would have been drug through the mud in a dog and pony show. Ted Olson deserves better than that, and if he was in the running maybe the circus atmosphere in Washington convinced him and his family to respectfully decline. I don’t know the backstory and I doubt many others do either.

Conservatives had better be very careful in this last year leading up to a very important election. In January 2009 will it really make any difference who the Presidents chose as his Attorney General, I think not. But our political landscape could be changed for a number of years if we once again jump the shark on this issue.

UPDATE: We won’t even have to wait for the hearings, the Democrats have already begun their maneuvers.

Just hours after President Bush said he will nominate Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge from New York, as his next attorney general, Senate Democrats threatened today to hold up Mr. Mukasey’s confirmation unless the White House turns over some documents they are seeking.

One would hope this would be enough to convince many on the right that the Democrats have chosen to do nothing but obstruct. This type of behavior should anger and unite the Republican base and make them all the more determined to see the President’s nominee confirmed. We’ll see.

Bill Kristol of Weekly Standard and Fox News is saying former federal judge Michael Mukasey will get the nomination to be the next Attorney General.

“I would say he’s a sort of hard — a tough-minded conservative judge who will be a strong attorney general, not a movement conservative. I don’t think he’ll get into social issues, that sort of thing. Those Bush policies are already in place,” Kristol said.

“I think the best thing about him, from a conservative point of view, is he will be an extremely effective witness before Congress when FISA, the eavesdropping program, comes up for reauthorization, as it will in a few months. On all War on Terror issues, he will be to War on Terror issues what (Gen. David) Petraeus is, I think, to military issues, an independent, well-respected person who’s pretty much in agreement with the president’s policies,” he continued.

Asked about the nomination, Sen. Joe Biden, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he doesn’t know anything about the judge, but he will have to pass a Democratic test before being confirmed.

“As long as he can prove — not prove, assert, and I believe that he understands he’s not just the president’s lawyer but the country’s lawyer, I could support him. But I don’t know enough about him, so he has to pass that test for me, go through that filter. Is he going to be the president’s guy? Is he going to — or is he going to stand up and defend the Constitution and be the people’s lawyer as well? And I just don’t know the answer to that,” Biden said on “FOX News Sunday.”

Mukasey already has earned support from liberal Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, a point that Kristol noted has turned off some conservatives. But he said Republican senators will come out in force for him.

“I think every Republican will vote to confirm him. It’s unfortunate that Chuck Schumer respects him, but you can’t do that much about some people saying nice things about you. He is widely respected on both sides of the aisle,” said Kristol, whose article noted that Schumer and the liberal “Alliance for Justice” supported Mukasey only after it became clear that Mukasey was not going to be on the short list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

Kristol and others have noted that many conservatives support former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a tried and true GOP ally, as the next attorney general, but it may be better to avoid a fight in the last 15 months of the administration when an equally good candidate can be picked without an argument.

Mukasey is the judge who appointed a lawyer to Jose Padilla, the man arrested for trying to detonate a dirty bomb.

Supposedly the announcement will come as early as Monday. We’ll see if Kristol is right.

Will we know the name of the nominee for Attorney General at some point within the next week?

It is possible if this report from the Washington Post proves correct.

President Bush is expected to choose a replacement for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales by the middle of next week, and former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson has emerged as one of the leading contenders for the job, according to sources inside and outside the government who are familiar with White House deliberations.

Other candidates still in the running include former deputy attorney general George J. Terwilliger III and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Laurence H. Silberman, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

Others whose names continue to be mentioned in congressional and political circles include Pepsico general counsel Larry D. Thompson, a former deputy attorney general; Solicitor General Paul D. Clement; and Verizon general counsel William P. Barr, who served as attorney general for Bush’s father. A person close to Barr said yesterday, however, that he does not appear to be on the short list of candidates now being considered.

None of these candidates will satisfy the Democrats for one reason or another, but it seems they are already gearing up for a fight if it is Ted Olson.

The persistent mention of Olson as a possible candidate has surprised and upset some Democrats, who view the well-known GOP attorney as a sharp-edged partisan who they contend would not be the best choice for a Justice Department accused of becoming overly politicized. Leahy voted against Olson’s appointment as solicitor general in 2001, citing his “non-responsiveness” to questions about alleged ties to a conservative magazine’s investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

“A lot of Democrats up here would view that as a shocking and unwise choice,” one Senate aide said.

But Olson, who represented Bush in the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election, also is widely admired by members of both parties for his legal skills and sharp intellect. Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton, endorsed Olson for the attorney general’s job in a recent opinion article, calling him “a principled and independent thinker who will focus on the word ‘Justice’ in the Department’s name.”

Let the games begin.

HT: Lucianne

I will not elaborate as the post is only one paragraph and to the point. Check out the names being bandied about at Powerline.

For once Senator Specter and I just might agree.

He may be a beleaguered president, but don’t call him a lame duck yet, as he is still fighting for what he believes.

President Bush has said, in spite of Democrats asking for a say in the Attorney General pick, that he will nominate someone who agrees with his policies.

A half-dozen or so lawyers are being discussed among administration officials as possible candidates to replace Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, but no clear favorite has emerged, and President Bush is willing to fight for the right candidate, administration officials and Republican advisers said yesterday.

Democratic Senate leaders have called on the White House to consult them closely during the selection process, but administration officials warned yesterday that the president intends to nominate an attorney general who agrees with his policies. “It is the president’s prerogative to appoint someone who shares his views,” a senior administration official said.

I suppose we could put Janet Reno back in. She should pass with flying colors.

We could also go the rest of the term with an acting Attorney General if the Senate wants to block his nominee.

Good for you, Mr. President. Now stick to it.

Confirmed as of now The NY Times is reporting Alberto Gonzales has telephoned in his resignation.

WACO, Tex., Aug. 27 — ­ Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the Attorney General’s resignation had not yet been made public.

Captain Ed is live-blogging the Gonzales hearings here. Go over and read if you haven’t had the chance to watch.

It’s important to remember that firing US Attorneys is not a crime. They can be fired for any reason including no reason. It should not be an impeachable offense unless someone finds out the DoJ was trying to cover-up something and I haven’t heard that accusation yet.