Ah yes, author of the infamous (and arguably unconstitutional) "Thompson Memo".

How could we forget...

But who is Coca-Cola's nominee?

And as Margate suggests, Thompson would have to be pretty damn bored with the cola trade to subject himself to the confirmation hearings.

At least the Thompson memo isn't in effect anymore. Maybe the SEC's investigation of Frito-Lays rev rec practices has him appreciating the privilege a little more.

Mavolio,

Given Fred Thompson's recent statements, including his recent statements backing the firings of the US Attorneys, he'd be unconfirmable. I doubt he'd want the job in any event.

As per Thompson, he's eminently confirmable, but I doubt the administration would want someone that is widely considered fairly independant and moderate.

If we assume there will be a vacancy created by a resignation by Gonzales, what do we think President Bush's objective will be -- to restore confidence in independence and professionalism at the Justice Department, or to get past the immediate political crisis and get on with business? If the former, think of the example of President Ford's selection of Edward H. Levy as a model; if the latter, think of President Nixon's selection of Richard G. Kleindeinst.

The troubles at DOJ are much broader and deeper than the U.S. attorney controversy, and stem from the same root cause: Bush's cynical contempt for the law as something to be gamed to his advantage. There is a festering mess created by the lawyering that rationalized torture and warrantless surveillance, and avoids judicial review or even normal ethical scrutiny.

I think Bush is more like Nixon than Ford, and would have no interest in a truly independent and principled attorney general. A DOJ insider with a record on the accumulated controversies would have confirmation problems. Bush would probably look for an outsider who nevertheless is, in the DOJ vernacular of our time, a "loyal Bushie."

And then the administration can run out the clock: "All this should be done in 'good faith' of course."

Who wants that job?

If we assume there will be a vacancy created by a resignation by Gonzales, what do we think President Bush's objective will be — to restore confidence in independence and professionalism at the Justice Department, or to get past the immediate political crisis and get on with business?

The attorney general should not be independent. He is the adminsitration's chief legal officer. His priorities in litigation and prosecution should be in furtherance of the administration's overall policies. Being part of this or any other administration does not connote lack of professionalism

If the administrations wants to make voter fraud a priority, the local US attorneys should be on board. There is a limit to this, of course. I'm not proposing that the Justice Department ignore corruption and abuse by the party in power. This crosses the line from the independence question to the professionalism question.

Given Fred Thompson's recent statements, including his recent statements backing the firings of the US Attorneys, he'd be unconfirmable.

I was mostly kidding, but those remarks, by the way, consisted of:

There was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys. Of course the Department of Justice was inept in the way they did it, trying to conceal things that didn’t need to be concealed but the U.S. attorneys, like innumerable other public officials serve at the pleasure of the president. He fired eight of his own appointees apparently because they we not aggressive enough in pursuing voting fraud cases.

The Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. They have ethical obligations -- as any professional does -- but not conducting investigations because the one possible result of the investigation might help their boss is not among them.

What if the Administration wants to prosecute "voter fraud" not because it thinks there is a real problem, but rather because the Administration thinks such prosecutions can help the party in future elections?

I am shocked, shocked that politics are involved in, um, politics.

Tony Blankly, no friend to the left, said on the "Left, Right &Center" political radio show today that politics routinely play a role in USA appointments, but once appointed, the White House has to let the USAs do their thing without political interference. Once installed, the USAs may serve at the pleasure of the President, but they are servants of the people's interests, the interests of justice, and the Constitution. To try and re-direct USAs purely for the sake of political gain is to impede justice.

As a footnote on this aging thread, on Meet the Press yesterday Sen. Schumer mentioned Thompson favorably among potential replacements for Gonzales (which probably guarantees it would never happen):

And, Tim, if they--if Attorney General Gonzales steps down, the White House has a real chance to clear the air, to restore faith that the rule of law will come first and politics second in the Justice Department, not the other way around, if they nominate somebody who, by their reputation and career, shows that they put rule of law first, a person like a Michael Mukasey, a person like a Larry Thompson, a person like a Jim Comey. These are conservative Republicans, but they put the rule of law first. And I hope that's what the White House will do.