Althouse: Ted Olson...

August 21, 2010

Ted Olson...

... "softened"? By his new wife? I find it hard to believe. But if he gets a new haircut and new glasses, then I might believe.

42 comments:

Phil 314 said...: Will this solely be a personal transformation or political one also (a la John Dean); 8/21/10, 3:24 PM
Chennaul said...: Holy crap -isn't that *special* the "New Wife" taking a shot at the dead wife-

“He would have never been able to take the other side,” she said, before adding with a laugh, “He wouldn’t have had a wife after that!”

How the hell does she know that about Barbara Olson...it could be that he would know a lawyer has to be able to argue all sides.

Classy.; 8/21/10, 3:26 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Maybe if his wife was a man, I could understand.

What interested me about the story is how New York Times makes a story about a guess. What kind of journalism is that?; 8/21/10, 3:26 PM
Chennaul said...: edit:it could be that *she* would *understand*..

oy.

What the hell kind of arrogance is that...I'm better than the dead wife because she would do "x" if "y".....according to ME!; 8/21/10, 3:33 PM
pm317 said...: This whole article is a dig at the dead wife -- 'See Ted Olson is a better man because of his new wife.' Distasteful.; 8/21/10, 3:52 PM
Fred4Pres said...: She softened his brain.

Obviously Ted Olson is a smart guy. And I do not disagree with him on policy. But this is not conservative, in that conservatives are not for expanding the 14th amendment judicially. And it is very hard to argue that the ratification of the 14th amendment was ever intended to justify same sex marriage (which is why I expect a nuianced no from Justice Kennedy, although Professor Althouse may be right about him going the other way).; 8/21/10, 3:54 PM
William said...: In order to insure domestic tranquillity, gay marriage is the first conservative position I'd throw under the bus. Lady Booth will undoubtedly reciprocate by re-thinking her position on the capital gains tax.; 8/21/10, 4:01 PM
Trooper York said...: Yet another chance to throw feces on someone who died on 911.

Cedarford must be coming in his pants.; 8/21/10, 4:02 PM
Fred4Pres said...: You want an alternative theory on Lady Booth Olson?

Here it is.

This would make a decent X Files episode.; 8/21/10, 4:02 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Fred4Pres: But this is not conservative, in that conservatives are not for expanding the 14th amendment judicially.

But isn't it conservative in that conservatives are for minding their own business?; 8/21/10, 4:04 PM
Christy said...: My goodness, a conservative who doesn't hate homosexuals! Must be the new wife because that just never happens naturally. /sarcasm

Progressive journalists just don't understand anyone outside their preconceived stereotypes, do they?; 8/21/10, 4:11 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I would think almost every lawyer would remember the two lead lawyers in Bush v. Gore were David Boise and Ted Olson. And not have to google either to find that out.

So I may have to call bullshit on Lady Booth's story. And what kind of dumbass name is Lady anywho?; 8/21/10, 4:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: Olson was terribly hurt on 9/11. I think that he is not over it yet, and that he now stands against hurting other people for no reason.; 8/21/10, 4:18 PM
Scott said...: Washington is Hollywood for the ugly.; 8/21/10, 4:28 PM
Chennaul said...: Damn AJ good catch.

This is from the NYT article that the WSJ is referring to:

“As soon as my friend told me who he was, I went out and got the tapes,” said the woman who is now Lady Booth Olson, referring to the VHS recordings she’d made of C-SPAN’s audio broadcast of Bush v. Gore. “Like every nerdy lawyer, I’d taped them. I took them out and I remembered, ‘Oh my God, he was Bush, not Gore,’ so I called her back and said, ‘This is not going to work.’ ”

Geebus what a dip.; 8/21/10, 4:43 PM
knox said...: He's like John Bolton. Don't want him "softened". Or to have a makeover.; 8/21/10, 4:59 PM
Unknown said...: Methinks they're reaching a tad on the resemblance. The pictures they used don't do Barbara Olson justice.

That said, it wouldn't be the first time a woman turned her husband's brain to mush.

Read the Bible.

Or history.; 8/21/10, 5:00 PM
lemondog said...: How the hell does she know that about Barbara Olson...it could be that he would know a lawyer has to be able to argue all sides.?

Article excerpt:

Booth does say that Olson’s “fierce libertarian streak” explains his support for gay marriage. It’s a good thing, too.

“He would have never been able to take the other side,” she said, before adding with a laugh, “He wouldn’t have had a wife after that!”

I read that as Booth Olsen making reference to herself as the wife he wouldn't have.

Is 'Lady' a nickname? Who names their kid 'Lady'? Maybe a cat or a dog....; 8/21/10, 5:09 PM
Chennaul said...: Oh woah-shoot I think you're right lemondog-I put too much emphasis on the *before*.

Still I thought it was disparaging of her to assume that Barbara Olson and Ted Olson's marriage completely hinged on wether or not he would disapprove of gay marriage.

Now if-I'm reading it she's claiming that their marriage is that-precarious?

I thought lawyers were suppose to be able to argue any side.

She doesn't accept that-and threatens divorce?

It's kind of shallow.; 8/21/10, 5:22 PM
AST said...: Why is becoming more liberal called "softening?" If he became a communist would he be "ultra-soft?"; 8/21/10, 5:30 PM
Unknown said...: Jason (the Commentator), I am all for minding my own business. And I am for gay marriage. I just do not want proponents of it bootstrapping off the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution to get there. When you start messing with expanding equal protection theories, it becomes my business (as well as all citizens).

Go get David Geffen to fund a referendum in California, get the issue for amending the State Constitution back on the ballot and do it. History is on your side. It will pass democratically, you just have to do the heavy lifting.; 8/21/10, 5:43 PM
Unknown said...: Yeah going liberal is becoming soft. It is a fair metaphor/analogy.

Going communist is more along the lines of stiffening, like rigor mortis.; 8/21/10, 5:45 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: suzy: I just do not want proponents of it bootstrapping off the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution to get there. When you start messing with expanding equal protection theories, it becomes my business (as well as all citizens).

So, people having more rights, and taking power away from the government isn't conservative?; 8/21/10, 5:47 PM
Synova said...: "Last year, former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson shocked many with the news that he would join liberal lawyer David Boies in a battle against Prop 8. Many wondered why Olson, who represented George W. Bush in the Florida recount battle, would throw his efforts behind this cause in particular."

This assumes, without saying so, that representing Bush in the Florida recount was all about what Ted Olson wanted, and that the Prop 8 thing is also all about what Ted Olson wanted... so something must have significantly changed what he wanted.

The fundamental assumption is that lawyers twist the law to their own desires. And it's set as the reality on which the remainder of the article will stand.

Oh, and since Bush is evil and gays are good and anyone who supports Bush is hard, then Olson must have become more caring.

Ick.; 8/21/10, 5:51 PM
ricpic said...: I would assume respect in marriage includes respecting a partner who maintains his or her positions rather than kowtowing. I think it's called integrity.; 8/21/10, 6:07 PM
AC245 said...: So, people having more rights, and taking power away from the government isn't conservative?

No, because your framing is disingenuous.

According to your logic, abolishing each and every law that exists would be "conservative", because each law abolished would give individuals more rights (less restriction on what individuals could do!) and take power away from the government (fewer rules for them to enforce!).

But anyone who gives a moment of thought to your idiotic question realizes that what you are describing and advocating is not conservatism, but anarchy.; 8/21/10, 6:18 PM
dbp said...: Part of the confusion with all of this gay marriage issue is, I think, tied-up in the idea that consenting adults should be free to do as they please with each other.

Marriage is a relationship between consenting adults, but it also involves the state in that the state is providing official sanction and recognition for an otherwise private relationship.

Modifications of rules about who can and cannot get married, wouldn't have anything to do with the balance between individual rights and state power. None that are obvious to me at least.; 8/21/10, 6:36 PM
Unknown said...: AST said...

Why is becoming more liberal called "softening?"

The effect on the brain.; 8/21/10, 6:52 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: AC245: But anyone who gives a moment of thought to your idiotic question realizes that what you are describing and advocating is not conservatism, but anarchy.

I think conservatism in America is about seeing how close we can get to anarchy without actually achieving it.; 8/21/10, 6:53 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: dbp: Modifications of rules about who can and cannot get married, wouldn't have anything to do with the balance between individual rights and state power.

It does when the state gives certain rights and privileges with that recognition.; 8/21/10, 6:55 PM
AC245 said...: I think conservatism in America is about seeing how close we can get to anarchy without actually achieving it.

Stupid people think all sorts of stupid things.; 8/21/10, 7:04 PM
sunsong said...: I think conservatism in America is about seeing how close we can get to anarchy without actually achieving it.

If you mean "the government that governs least, governs best" - I sure agree with that :-)

I think the word conservative - like so many words - means different things to different people. And on the extremes - the *hard* right and the *hard* (to try and tie into soft vs hard :-)

don't offer much that is truly helpful to a huge country such as ours. Not only are their minds rigid - their hearts are hard as well, I suspect :-); 8/21/10, 7:16 PM
Penny said...: "He probably is more tolerant of Democrats now. Not that he agrees with them, but there’s no point in being the ant at the picnic.”

Au contraire, my Lady. There would BE no picnic without ants.; 8/21/10, 8:03 PM
rcocean said...: Need to remember that Ted Olsen was Bush I's AG. He approved Souter as the SCOTUS nominee and helped pass the quota bill which kept disparate impact.

He was never a real conservative - more of a Rockefeller Republican.; 8/21/10, 8:46 PM
virgil xenophon said...: rcocean is probably on tgt here. It was his wife Barbara who had the real steel in her spine. Ted had "refined" Rockefeller R. leanings bordering on "squishy."; 8/21/10, 9:16 PM
Penny said...: "He was never a real conservative - more of a Rockefeller Republican."

Any conservative living in an east coast city or suburb knows exactly what you mean.

But face it, when you are down to TWO, and one says he is a "Republican", well then! They MUST be more conservative than their opponent...

...Or not?; 8/21/10, 9:21 PM
dbp said...: Jason (the commenter) said...
It does when the state gives certain rights and privileges with that recognition.

Let's think this through from a practical standpoint.

Same sex marriage allows more people to make a claim on the government-- recognize our marriage. So, some people gain a privilege but hardly at the expense of government power.

On the other side of it are 3rd parties: If some person or organization wanted to provide benefits such as health insurance to spouses and minor children of its employees, it would certainly be compelled to offer the same thing to all married employees. Clearly, their freedom will be infringed upon. There are plenty of other areas as well, such as social security benefits and public school curriculum.

Net, net, it is hard to see how SSM doesn't lead to more rather than less government control over individuals.; 8/21/10, 10:08 PM
Penny said...: "Let's think this through from a practical standpoint."

No money in "practical".

In fact, we are "practically" breaking our necks to be a legally protected minority of one sort or another.; 8/21/10, 11:08 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: dbp: Same sex marriage allows more people to make a claim on the government-- recognize our marriage. So, some people gain a privilege but hardly at the expense of government power.

What you call a privilege I call a right. But does it make your case any firmer to say you want the government handing out privileges based on religious traditions? That's religious discrimination.

Straight people have the right to marry and live with, in this country, their foreign spouse.

Straight people have the right to visit their spouse in the hospital.

Straight people have the right to live in a relationship where property is not an issue, both partners owning everything.

On the other side of it are 3rd parties: If some person or organization wanted to provide benefits such as health insurance to spouses and minor children of its employees, it would certainly be compelled to offer the same thing to all married employees. Clearly, their freedom will be infringed upon.

If a company wants to discriminate against gays or black people, or any other group, I think it should be able to.

However, just because some of our laws are unjust doesn't mean we shouldn't fix other laws which are also unjust.

There are plenty of other areas as well, such as social security benefits and public school curriculum.

In both of these cases the government is the third party.; 8/21/10, 11:20 PM
Penny said...: There is no end to "justice".

Unless it stops with you.; 8/21/10, 11:58 PM
paul a'barge said...: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1173&bih=725&q=Lady+Booth+Olson&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

she's a guy.; 8/22/10, 8:43 AM
dbp said...: Jason (the commenter) said...
What you call a privilege I call a right. But does it make your case any firmer to say you want the government handing out privileges based on religious traditions? That's religious discrimination.

I don't see marriage as either a right or a privilege. It is an institution which benefits society in that it fosters the successful production of new citizens. Religion has nothing to do with it at least as far as I am concerned since I don't believe in God. I think of it kind of like the way one might think of a town's bus service: It will go between residential, retail and work areas--it cannot go from every point to every other point. It is nice for the guy who lives next to a stop, but nonsensical for a lady who lives at the end of a remote dead-end street to think she is being discriminated against when the bus does not come past her house.

If a company wants to discriminate against gays or black people, or any other group, I think it should be able to.

I agree, but this is not going to change. Ever. Adding SSM surely increases the scope of things the government will be able to stick their noses into. Forever.; 8/22/10, 10:32 AM