[EpicEng]

It is most certainly not. By your definition any appointee is a 'political position'. That term has a real meaning in the circles which matter (i.e., politics), and AG is not considered a political position. That's not to say an AG is completely separate from political realities, but the office is (supposed to be) non-partisan.

[dragonwriter]

> By your definition any appointee is a 'political position'.

Direct Presidential appointees are absolutely political; cabinet members more than most.

> That term has a real meaning in the circles which matter (i.e., politics), and AG is not considered a political position.

It actually has a fairly vague and shifting meaning even within politics, but by virtually any of them the Attorney-General is very much a political position.

[jacquesm]

> That's not to say an AG is completely separate from political realities, but the office is (supposed to be) non-partisan.

That must be why Trump fired Sally Yates then...

/s

Really, it's about as political as it gets. Or did you think Jeff Sessions would so much as be looked at under a Democratic president?

[CydeWeys]

I'm from DC and used to work in politics. Everyone I know from that realm considers political appointees to be political positions, and call them such. The political positions are rough, because churn is pretty much guaranteed every 4-8 years.

[ralfd]

They may be political positions, but are the office holders "politicians"? When they never ran in an election? That was the original question.

[fatbird]

> By your definition any appointee is a 'political position'

Yes, exactly. The appointee is appointed to implement the administration's policies, which are political. During George W. Bush's administration, state Attorneys General were directed to pursue investigations of voter fraud. The eight who did not were fired in 2004 and replaced, which was very unusual.