Hey, good stuff. Thanks Hillary:
“We cannot send a signal that the next attorney general in any way condones torture or believes that the president is unconstrained by law,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
The Democratic front-runner said Mukasey has had plenty of chances to clarify his answers and state his opposition to interrogation techniques. “His failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose his nomination,” Clinton said.
Exactly. Weaseling is just not acceptable from this administration's nominees — indeed, it just has to be considered a disqualifier, particularly on this issue.
Again, both Obama and Hillary follow Chris Dodd's lead. Look, Dodd may or may not have a chance in hell at this thing, but he's really doing a great public service by being out front on issues like this. And that deserves to be noticed, and supported, and talked up, and taken seriously. I mean, we like to make fun of “Doddmania” whenever Chris does something like this — which seems to be pretty frequently — but what's wrong with the guy, exactly, except that somehow he's not a “front-tier” candidate? That's kind of self-fulfilling, isn't it?
I'm genuinely undecided, but from now on, if anyone asks, Chris Dodd is on my short list. Remind me of that — the media won't.
Now, how about that Chris Dodd carbon tax? Anyone else care to sign on to that?
Update: And now Biden opposes Mukasey as well. I'm not aware of statements from Kerry and Kennedy opposing the nomination yet; we've heard statements of “concern” from the likes of Leahy, Whitehouse, Feinstein, Specter, Snowe, and so forth. (Warning — Fox News link.)
Further Doddmania update: Political forecaster Chuck Todd and Marc Armbinder move Dodd into nicest-of-the-damned status, 4th place. This is in spite of Dodd clocking at a nice round 0% in the polls — “a lot of room to grow.” Crazy world. But hey, Wes is on board, and so is John, so attention must be paid.
Every time I see Dodd I am increasingly impressed. And for some reason I’m always surprised that I’m impressed. But here’s a guy who seems to actually change the debate and show real leadership, even when he polls at only, what, 1 or 2 percent.
<
p>
I think it’s a testament to his leadership ability that he can shift the debate on Mukasey and on FISA while polling worse than Kucinich. For all the talk I’ve heard from Kucinich folk about how their guy is in the race so he can bring up issues that wouldn’t otherwise be brought up, or to push the candidates farther to the left or whatever, Chris Dodd actually does it. Dodd is definitely on my short list, and I’m still undecided, too.
the effective conscience of this race. Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t have a large chance of winning, but I can take him seriously. He doesn’t leap on the extreme liberal position out of habit.
<
p>
He has a grasp of education — wouldn’t call it a deep understanding yet — but I’m also finding his name on my short list, and I have gone back to undecided…
What is his deal re: insurance? I’d think a Connecticut Senator would at least be a good ally, and insurance companies aren’t really the type of people I want on my side…
On the last Iraq supplemental appropriation, he spoke out against the bill on the floor of the senate before voting against it – compare that to Clinton and Obama, who both snuck into the chamber at the last minute to quietly cast their “no” votes and slink away. Leadership matters to me, and the top-tier candidates in the senate showed none.
<
p>
Couple that with telecom immunity in the FISA bill, the opposition to Mukasey, and the endorsement of the IAFF, and Dodd’s the one for me! Help him out at the handy link in my sig line…
This midwesterner-turned-Massachusettsian-turned-midwesterner again has come to the conclusion that Chris Dodd is the best choice, chance in hell or no.
<
p>
Come on in, Charley. It’s a good place to be.
<
p>
WF
Doddy is desperate for anything that will elevate him from his terminal rinkydinkdom. So his making noise over this ridiculous non-issue is quite understandable.
But Mrs. Bill Clinton must have engaged a focus group to help her decide where she stands. Hence the delay in her decision to play to the cheap seats.
I’m continually surprised that everyone thinks they can look into politicians’ hearts and report to us on their motives. It is this persistent illusion that contributes to politics becoming a branch of theater criticism.
<
p>
I doubt that there is any evidence whatever that “Doddy’s” “noise” over this “non-issue” is purely a bid for attention, or that Hillary Clinton waits for focus groups to decide her opinions.
<
p>
We demand evidence on policy questions. Why do we accept mere assertion on character questions?
..looking into a candidates heart and discerning their motives is what this process is all about.
<
p>
If you want to take everything that they say at face value, that’s your problem.
You’re just projecting your fantasies onto the candidates and calling it insight.
<
p>
Provide evidence.
Since Gonzalez didn’t do anything the alternative is to leave the office empty because there isn’t anyone who the democrats will approve.
…If the Senate doesn’t confirm him, Bush will do a recess appointment over the T’giving recess.
<
p>
I suspect we’ll see a lot more recess appointments in the future. Even of federal judges. It’s a problem with the recess appointment power–which in the horse-and-buggy days made sense–but it would require a constitutional amendment to change. But neither party wants to change it.
Any judges he appoints with recess appointments will only get a 1-year term. With the Democrats expected to get the White House next year, that basically means Bush would be passing on a chance to pick who gets a lifetime appointment. It would be more politically useful for him to leave the judge positions unfilled and then use the large number of empty seats to try to force the Senate to approve some of his judges.
<
p>
Of course, there is no real downside to a recess appointment for AG. The next president will pick a new one anyway. It’s not like Bush has ever showed that he cares what anyone thinks of his actions.
Any judges he appoints with recess appointments will only get a 1-year term.
<
p>
They will get appointments up to the end of the session of congress. If Bush appoints judges over the T’giving recess, they will be in office for more than a year.
Mukasey should not have to state his opinion as to whether waterboarding is torture.
<
p>
If Congress is hell-bent on saying it is, they should pass a law saying so, which Mukasey will then be obliged to enforce.
<
p>
It seems that those jostling for the Dem nomination are forgetting how laws are passed, as well as the role of the Attorney General.
<
p>
All this is just typical pandering.
<
p>
The justice dept was “obliged to enforce” FISA as well.
What happened?
FISA’s not a good analogy. President Bush’s administration claimed that their warrantless wiretapping fell under executive privilege and wasn’t bound by FISA. It’s a little more complicated than saying one thing is illegal. I’m not saying this was right or wrong, just that it was the case.
<
p>
That is exactly the point. FISA was passed as a reaction to Nixon spying on US citizens. The law was passed with specific context that it applies to the president. It is not complicated at all. It is unacceptable for any president to claim or act as if he is above the law. Bush has been allowed to get away with it so far because his AG was a lap dog that did not do his job.
That is why it's so important for congressional consent of AG nominations. The congress is seeking asurance that this person will actually do his job.
President Bush’s administration claimed that their warrantless wiretapping fell under executive privilege and wasn’t bound by FISA.
<
p>
Bush, as president, is constitutionally obligated to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. See Art II. I’m amazed that so many people seem to be unaware of what the US Constitution actually says.
<
p>
FISA is a law. It can be found at 50 USC 1801 et seq.
I’d like to see Congress pass a law banning waterboarding only because I want to see Bush veto it.
<
p>
In fairness, Mukasey doesn’t know if this is torture because Cheney hasn’t told him what he thinks yet.
I would see that!