Comments on: Who’s Michael Mukasey?

By: Michelle Malkin » The Mukasey nomination in jeopardy: Why appeasing Democrats gets you nowhere

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:03:58 +0000

[...] Michael Mukasey was supposed to be a “consensus” attorney general candidate. In September, he was touted as a “safe bet,” in part [...]

By: Michelle Malkin » The Mukasey confirmation hearings

Michelle Malkin » The Mukasey confirmation hearings — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:15:07 +0000

[...] confirmation hearings begin today. A month ago, you may recall, he was billed as the “consensus candidate” and a “safe bet” encouraged by Chuck Schumer’s positive [...]

By: gayle

gayle — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:27:50 +0000

Once again, BUSH panders to the liberals. What a guy – huh.

Ted Olsen would have been an exeptional AG! Since his wife was a victim of 9/11 I would think he’d be TOUGH on terror related issues!

While Bush continues to pander, the left is taking OVER our country.

By: almeehan

almeehan — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:02:17 +0000

Vanilla pudding if Schumer and other vampires think he is ok. Any time they don’t raise a stink, figure they have something on the guy and will confirm him knowing they have the ace up their sleeve. Putrifying ilk all of those leftoids.

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:55:12 +0000

Green Bay:

You’re right about him being a pretty solid conservative. Plus from his record as a judge, he seems to be a rock on the issue of terrorism.

But on the other hand, he was recommended to the bench by liberal Senator Moynihan back when he was nominated for the district court. And he’s out of Rudy’s office.

My guess is he’ll be solid on terrorism but disappoint many on social issues.

By: Dandapani

Dandapani — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:10:05 +0000

As a Conservative, I’m constantly disappointed by the GWB administration, so nothing new here…

By: governmentdrone

governmentdrone — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:11:07 +0000

I’ve got nothing against “hearing a guy out”. On the other hand, why in the world is it that the Republicans are ALWAYS the party that has to compromise on these types of selections? And I do mean ALWAYS. If we don’t start making an issue of ALL appointments – no matter the timing or the office or anything else, then frankly it isn’t going to matter who we elect. This is the reason the liberals rule Washington no matter who is the majority party! They are so embedded in places like State, CIA, the treasury – you name it – the average federal government employee is by and large both Democrat and Liberal.

Nothing is really going to change until Republicans and Conservatives stand up and say “No more! These are the people who most accurately reflect the values we believe in, and we think the majority of Americans believe in, that we are willing to fight for them tooth and nail to the bitter end.” And once they are in office, we have to start demanding that they take a broad broom and sweep the place clean from top to bottom. The reason the Democrats rule is because they are not afraid to do that very thing. And they do it quite well. And have for a long time.

It’s time for “political expediency” to take a long walk off a short pier. It’s time to stand up for what is good and right about this country and to tell the likes of Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and the rest of the bunch that get their marching orders from MoveOn to do just that – move on.

Otherwise, we have nobody to blame but ourselves as we watch the deconstruction of the greatest nation this planet has ever seen.

By: michael griggs

michael griggs — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:19:25 +0000

Lets hear the guy out,why give the Dems and the MSM more TV face time to spew vile things about another presidential pick like Olsen.They are going to bash and crapola on anything the President does or says anyway so I dont blame him for this pick.

By: Old War Dogs

Old War Dogs — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:49:06 +0000

2007.09.17 Politics and National Defense Roundup …

Moonbats on the march: Its bigger than Iraq
Bryan Preston

Michelle and I joined about a thousand patriots who came to Washington on Saturday to protect our war memorials and to show the world that Cindy Sheehan doesnt speak for most Gold Star f…

By: Liberty Pundit

Liberty Pundit — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:36:40 +0000

Bush Set To Nominate New Attorney General…

According to the A.P., he’s nominating Michael B. Mukasey:
President Bush has settled on Micha…
……

By: Why not Ted Olsen : 186 kpersecond

Why not Ted Olsen : 186 kpersecond — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:54:59 +0000

[...] don’t know much about Michael Mukasey so I won’t comment on his credentials see Michell Malkin for that where she quotes the great one, constitutional expert Mark Levin who says; There was a [...]

By: Alphonse

Alphonse — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:45:29 +0000

Conservatives are worried about Mukasey’s 1994 denial of asylum for a Chinese man who said his wife had been forced to have an abortion under that country’s one-child law, which they say indicates he’s weak on pro-life issues.

Don’t you mean Catholics and Evangelicals are worried?

By: Pal2Pal

Pal2Pal — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:43:51 +0000

Anyone with any ties to Schumer or from the Southern District of New York is not okay in my book. Schumer already has control over the Justice Department. Can you say Comey?

By: trinitytim

trinitytim — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:33:46 +0000

Bring him on and let’s see how he holds up to the schumers and leahy’s. Baptisim by fire before we decide. I’m okay with that.

By: Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Bush Picks Michael B. Mukasey For Next Attorney General

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:18:13 +0000

[...] Michelle Malkin doesn’t seem thrilled. [...]