On RCP today, Ron Cass looks at the broad implications of Senate Democrats trying to preemptively disqualify Bush's possible picks for Attorney General, including Ted Olson:

Before the Democrats and their friends do lasting damage to the Presidency by undercutting prerogatives of office historically recognized under Democrats and Republicans alike, let's hope that cooler heads prevail, that the rhetorical temperature subsides, and that Senator Reid decides to wait for nominations and hearings - and even votes from his colleagues - before announcing results. That will do far more than high-strung editorials and unilateral pronouncements to advance the rule of law.

In a related, but much more specific critique, Matt Cooper makes "the liberal case" for Ted Olson:

He [Olson] was my lawyer in the CIA leak case for my Supreme Court appeal. I had some disagreements with him which I chronicled in Portfolio. And if I was president, I wouldn't appoint him Attorney General because I'm not a hard-core conservative. But this president is. And Ted Olson, unlike Alberto Gonzales, is incredibly well qualified, maybe the best qualified person, to take the job under a Republican president. What's more, he's right wing but not, I think, reflexively so. [snip]

Maybe Bush would be better off with some national unity type attorney general. But he shouldn't have to neuter himself. He has a right to appoint who he wants if they're within parameters of integrity and competence. Olson more than meets those standards. And if Dems reject him, that's a bad precedent for their presidencies. They ought to be free to appoint liberals who are as partisan and brilliant as Olson.