WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 (UPI) -- President Bush's choice of federal appeals court Judge Michael Chertoff to replace Tom Ridge as Homeland Security secretary came as a surprising, but good safe bet to many in Washington when announced by the White House.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that some tough questions that Chertoff could be forced to address.
The conventional wisdom for the nominee is that since he has been confirmed by the Senate three times for other posts -- as a U.S. appellate judge, as assistant attorney general over criminal issues in Bush's first term and to be U.S. attorney in New Jersey -- he will face easy confirmation.
That belief is likely correct as his selection drew mostly positive responses from key senators, including Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; and the two Democratic senators from New Jersey -- Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg -- but there is some trouble that Democrats or individualistic minded Republicans could cause for the Bush administration with the nominee.
Unlike attorney general nominee Alberto Gonzales's nomination, Chertoff's nomination process is not likely to become a Democratic criticism fest over what he plans to do at the position, and more importantly, how he has conducted himself in past government posts, despite some important questions about the nominee's qualifications to head the massive agency.
Given that Senate Democrats appear to have collectedly decided to hold off the big guns until any Bush nominee for the Supreme Court, it remains unclear just how much attention they will pay to such questions as they are looking to not spread themselves too thin politically by attacking presidential nominees just to make a point.
But Homeland Security chief is arguably a more publicly recognizable position these days than attorney general with the litany of color-coded alerts during Bush's first term and could prove a hard-to-resist target.
There are also signs that Senate Democrats could make Chertoff at least somewhat uncomfortable as the push to make the Bush administration squirm to the degree they are able from the minority side on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
The choice of Chertoff as the replacement nominee after former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik withdrew his name Dec. 10 under a cloud of speculation about his personal and professional dealings, shows the Bush administration is clearly hoping that Chertoff's good reputation will help make that issue go away.
But Democrats appear keen to keep the ghost of Kerik alive as long as possible.
"As we learned during the nomination of Bernard Kerik, a thorough confirmation process is a vital part of our democracy," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in response to the announcement. "I am eager to review the record and testimony of Judge Chertoff as this process moves forward."
The Bush White House also clearly hopes that Chertoff's career as a tough prosecutor shows that he has the ability to shake up Homeland Security, which has proven in many ways to be the massive, unwieldy bureaucratic boondoggle that critics of establishing the agency said it would be given that 23 federal agencies with of 183,000 employees and combined budget of $40 billion are still waiting to be made a cohesive whole.
That prosecutorial experience is also being touted as a boon for the republic.
"His energy and intellect put him at the center of many Homeland Security improvements," Bush said of his nominee Tuesday.
But his actions as an assistant attorney general in the early years of the Bush administration are likely to become the subject of his Senate review.
Chertoff was point man at Justice for the post-9/11 policies, including use of the "material witness" statute to detain 762 foreign nationals for immigration violations but no terrorism-related crimes for months. However, he also reportedly raised objections to the use of the military tribunals while at Justice, doing so publicly after he left the post.
But his role in helping draft the USA Patriot Act and argument that alleged terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui did not have a right to confront his accusers in court are likely to bring opposition from civil libertarian groups and questions from their allies on Capitol Hill.
Another significant question that Democrats could bring up is whether his work as a reputedly tough prosecutor make one him good manager? Is managing a single department at the Department of Justice the same as a massive agency still experiencing major growing pains?
In some ways that experience could be an advantage for the post given that he has experience with federal and local law enforcement, but law enforcement is only a small component of an agency that encapsulates a far broader set of priorities.
Chertoff has never managed a staff of more than several hundred, which could be a problem. It is a simple question that is sure to make its way into the Q&A between Democratic senators and the nominee.
More dramatically, the choice of a career lawyer is a strange one to head the Department of Homeland Security given that Bush and congressional Republicans have hammered home the message the defending the nation from domestic terrorist attacks -- the reasoning behind the creation of the agency -- is not a law enforcement issue. This was a central tenant of one of Bush's attacks on Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Chertoff therefore opens the White House to criticism on the issue.
But in the end, the most likely source of any opposition to his nomination will be political.
Chertoff worked as Republican counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee under former Sen. Al D'Amato, R-N.Y., and campaigned against President Clinton in his defeat of GOP nominee Sen. Robert Dole in 1996.
Because of this at least one vote against his nomination can be expected.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. was the single opposing vote in his last two nominations before the senate.
--
(Please send comments to [email protected].)
