The New Broom May Need a Few Spikes

Hahaha! She's probably afraid of having to search for another job.... particularly one that pays what she is now earning if she didn't have the experience to get the US Attorney's job to begin with... (if she got it because she was a loyal Republican who kissed the soles of Rove's feet). BTW: I did read the linked article and she does seem to have held some interesting positions.... but that doesn't mean she was effective....

If she had something better lined up she would take it....

Remember the US Attorney firing scandal? You know, the one that was still a problem as recently as--why, look at that!!--September 2008?

Wasn't it the position of the Bush Administration that US Attorneys served at the pleasure of the President?

I mean, I'm sure StockBoySF is right--if she had something better lined up she'd take it. (Even former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can't get himself a job.) The economy being what it is and all.

Shouldn't there be a scrap of intellectual consistency coming from these people?

Or am I, in spite of everything, still naive?

GeorgeSorwell, no you're not being naive. And while you're right that my comment about Ms. Buchanan didn't have anything lined up given the economy, your comments about Gonzalez and intellectual consistency among these people raised another point...

Another reason why high level attorneys in the Bush administration may have a problem finding jobs is because of their lack of ethics..... Law firms go through great pains in avoiding even the possible appearance of conflict of interest. The Bush administration was happy with just doing things that were legal and they could care less about conflicts of interest or even possible conflicts if interest. The legality of something was the standard they used. But then if they wanted to do something illegal (the most notorious being torture) they used redefined terms and had lawyers write after-the-fact legal memos. The job of AG is to protect the American people. The job Gonzales did was to protect the government.

So the problem, as I see it with so many Bush administration lawyers finding jobs, is that their behavior is not very respectable and goes against much of what reputable law firms strive for. Personally I would want an attorney representing my business willing to tell me that what I wanted to do went against regulations.... I wouldn't want an attorney to tell me what I wanted to hear. I pay attorneys for professional advice.

If a Bush administration lawyer came to me for a job (if I had law firm or I was hiring for a corporate counsel position) I would have to bite my tongue to keep from throwing them out of the office.... Not because they are Republicans.... but because they do not know how to act professionally and they abused their power when they had the government behind them. These attorneys may not have done anything illegal, but they did engage in all manner of questionable activity and block various enquiries for political purposes. That's not the type of judgement I want advising me. So it doesn't surprise me that many Bush administration lawyers might have difficulty finding positions. But then again many of them will through connections.... and some law firms will want those sorts of people anyway.

Lastly, which I haven't seen much on... this business about conflict of interest..... I read an article on Obama's appointments and criteria for those appointments. The one thing that jumped out at me is that Obama was looking for people without conflicts of interest or even the appearance of conflicts of interest. Even when there might be an appearance of a conflict of interest part of the process of addressing that is full disclosure of the circumstances and possible conflict. This was a real problem with the Bush administration and it speaks well of Obama that he places high standards on his people.

One of the consistent rants I had about McCain was his bevy of advisors who had (or had been) paid by foreign governments. I felt that McCain's advisers had a conflict of interest and as an example, old Shaskavilli (sp) of the country Georgia whined that he had expected more support from McCain because he thought that what he was getting in paying one of McCain's advisers was McCain's ear. If McCain has advisers who were lobbyists for foreign governments, then would his advisers (who do not take the same oath as McCain) place their interests first or that of the US? And where does one draw the line? An adviser may give advice on something he doesn't think jeopardizes US national security, but who makes that decision?

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how Ms. Buchanan's job situation pans out.