In her post, Kate agrees with me that it’s “right to tout Judge Mukasey's early favorable reviews from respected conservatives, including our own indispensable Andy McCarthy” – but I lose Kate when I argue that it is “especially important and helpful” to have an Attorney General who is confirmed by a wide margin because “he will have greater credibility when it comes to advocating for the tools that we need to keep the United States safe from attack.” Kate points out that General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the Senate and, she writes, “many of those Senators who voted ‘aye’ just months ago now deny that the good General has any credibility at all.”

But it strikes me the Petraeus example strengthens my point. Last week, in the debate between Petraeus and leading Democrats, it was a wipe-out: Petraeus won. And one of the reasons he won — apart from his compelling testimony — is that Republicans were able to point out that Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the Senate earlier this year and he was widely praised by Democrats. We heard that point made repeatedly because it was effective. For Democrats to then go after General Petraeus because (a) he’s succeeding and (b) he’s giving an honest assessment of his success deeply hurt Democrats. It explains in part why the attacks against Petraeus blew up in their faces, and why they have decided going after him was an insane idea.

To put it another way: the unanimous support David Petraeus received in January helped him in September.

As a general matter, an Attorney General who is confirmed with 85 votes instead of 51 votes is in a stronger position — and other things being equal I would rather have an AG who was confirmed by an overwhelming margin advocate for the Patriot Act than have an AG who was barely confirmed advocate for the Patriot Act. Now if the cost of the 34 additional votes is you get a nominee who is unwilling to “do much of anything” on behalf of important causes, then it’s clearly not worth the wider margin (think of someone like Ted Bell, President Reagan’s first Secretary of Education, confirmed by the Senate by a 90-2 vote). But if you can get a person who is both principled and receives broad Senate support (think William Bennett, President Reagan’s second Secretary of Education, confirmed 93-0), that’s all to the good. Then it means you’ve made a smart, effective pick.

Hard-fought confirmation battles are sometimes inevitable and worth the price — but it is not the only, or even the best, measure when it comes to judging the qualifications of an individual. I believe Judge Mukasey was a wise choice because I believe he’ll be principled, effective, and conservative — and easily confirmed. And the fact that his confirmation may not qualify as a “hard-fought battle” should not count as a strike against him. As I pointed out in my earlier post, Antonin Scalia – arguably the best and most important appointment of the Reagan years – was confirmed 98-0. Jeane Kirkpatrick was confirmed 81-0. Caspar Weinberger was confirmed 97-2. Et cetera.

We all know that sometimes principled conservatives are made to pay a huge personal and political price, for reasons that are deeply unfair. But being a principled conservative doesn’t always mean one is politically radioactive, either. We shouldn’t run away from political brawls when they are necessary – but neither should we suggest that every worthy nominee will precipitate a pitched confirmation battle.