What a ridiculous story in today’s NYTimes about the administration’s search for a new Attorney General.

The president’s problem here is not an excess of partisanship. It is an embarrassment of riches. I had my piece to say about Judge Mukasey yesterday. (I think it’s important that people learn about him because he is less well known than the other candidates.) The subjects of today’s report by Phil Shennon and David Johnston are Ted Olson and George Terwilliger. I am privileged to know both of them. They are not just extraordinary attorneys — of the grade that leave the rest of us lawyer types in awe at their skills. They are great men. They are great patriots who, like Judge Mukasey, are exactly what we have in mind when we talk about the Justice Department’s rich traditions. When Senator Schumer and others talk about the Department’s reputation for integrity and prudent enforcement of our laws … it’s worth bearing in mind that these are the guys who forged and preserved that reputation in the modern era.

What the Times and some on the Judiciary Committee don’t seem to grasp is that having a political point of view does not mean a person will have the slightest difficulty fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution. This is odd because senators all have pretty sharp partisan elbows yet would no doubt tell you that they can carry out their legislative functions and make policy in complete objectivity — that there’s a time for partisanship and a time for statesmanship.

I have pretty strong political views. For the most part, through my nearly 20 years at the Justice Department, they didn’t make a damn bit of difference. Law enforcement is much less about ideology than it is about judgment, fairness and probity. Yes, it involves defending the institutional prerogatives of the executive branch — but that is the case regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in the White House.

No matter what his or her politics may be, an Attorney General has to lead and persuade lawyers, lawmakers and judges across the ideological spectrum. That is about mastery of what the law is, not whatever view one may have about what it ought to be. In my years as a boss at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York, I was privileged to supervise liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, and the gamut in between. It made for great debates over lunch or drinks; but when it was time to perform our jobs, it was quality that mattered — a lawyer’s ability to apply the law to the facts and be persuasive. That is not a liberal or conservative attribute.

This country would be so fortunate to have Ted Olson, George Terwilliger or Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, it’s hard to fathom that there could be debate about that. It’s like asking if A-Rod is good enough to play on your team.