Kennedy Against Mukasey, McCain Voices Support For Mukasey

Comments (16)

Thrackazog wrote on November 1, 2007 3:37 PM:

I know we can't count our chickens before they're hatched, but does anyone really expect Feingold to support this dishonest fencesitter?

Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 3:42 PM:

Two-Face McCain wishes that he was waterboarded in Vietnam.

MarcNYC wrote on November 1, 2007 4:11 PM:

It looks more and more like it's going to come down to Schumer. I am a constituent and emailed his office last week asking him to vote no. I have gotten back only a form letter saying "thank for writing". This response and the incredibly unusual sight of him ducking a camera cannot be a good sign.

CalD wrote on November 1, 2007 4:12 PM:

I just posted this list of the senate Judiciary Committee members in the previous thread on this topic, but I'll repeat it here along with the request that maybe TPM could bold these names in your list.

Charman:

Patrick J. Leahy

Democrats:

Edward M. Kennedy
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Herb Kohl
Dianne Feinstein
Russell D. Feingold
Charles E. Schumer
Richard J. Durbin
Benjamin L. Cardin
Sheldon Whitehouse

Republicans:

Arlen Specter
Orrin G. Hatch
Charles E. Grassley
Jon Kyl
Jeff Sessions
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Sam Brownback
Tom Coburn

CalD wrote on November 1, 2007 4:15 PM:

Oops. Never mind. I see now that you have the committee members asterisked. Yes, me blind.

Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 4:53 PM:

Call your (Judiciary Committee Democratic) Senators!

johnd wrote on November 1, 2007 5:08 PM:

Bush is loving this. For 7 years Dems have been waging these battles on Bush appointees. The only ones we've won have been the result of objections from the right being strong enough to supplement Democratic opposition.

Note to observers: The President and Vice President make the policy, period.

No matter how many centrist Republicans who furrow their brow about Bush's policies and survive the nomination by promising to be a voice of reason in the administration's appointee corps, the result is the same. More full speed ahead Bush bad policy and skullduggery. No one with the exception of some 2nd tier political aid or a retiring general or two has brought any conscience into the Bush inner circle or even just quit over their bad policies.

I'm of the opinion that Dems should simply confirm all of Bushs cronies and tell the country that they suck but Bush is going to continue to run the country badly no matter how long they delay his ill advised appontments. It's much better to let these goofs get in and make a run at Bush when they inevitably step outside the law under Bush's direction. Maybe one of them will flip at some point.

Case in point is Gonzales. Ashcroft was a pretty gruesome example of authoritarian policy in my opinion, but when the real Bush suckup Gonzales came to town is when Democrats made headway in getting the public to actually see some of the gutterness going on.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 1, 2007 5:10 PM:

Here's a script for your call:

I oppose Mukasey's nomination for U.S. Attorney's General and as a constituent I urge you to do the same.

The U.S. Army Manual defines the practice of waterboarding as torture. Water-boarding is not a "simulation" of death. Water-boarding is controlled suffocation by water. The Geneva Conventions define water-boarding as torture and a crime.

Mukasey's unwillingness to publicly recognize this basic fact has disastrous implications for the rule of law in America and abroad. Mukasey's express unwillingness to acknowledge that water-boarding as torture is a ratification of the use of torture within America.

The U.S. Attorney's General is charged with enforcing the rule of law and maintaining justice in America. Confirming Mukasey for U.S. Attorney's General would bring shame to the nation.

It is my fervent hope and desire that your vote on this matter reflect the truth in this matter. Vote to support justice in America. Vote to oppose Mukasey's nomination for U.S. Attorney's General.

Alguien wrote on November 1, 2007 5:53 PM:

I have told my senators that if they really "support our troops", as the like to claim, they can't possibly vote to confirm Mukasey.
That would openly declare that waterboarding American soldiers may be carried out with total impunity because even the AG thinks it is not torture.
What kind of a message is that???

hoppy wrote on November 1, 2007 6:14 PM:

All 9 Repubs will vote to confirm Mukasey. Feinstein will join them. Say hello to AG Mukasey. Torture will continue to be American government policy, and Bush will be our de-facto King. It's only for another year though.

Mari wrote on November 1, 2007 6:19 PM:

For Senator McCain to point out that waterboarding is so clearly over the line and is in fact, torture and then, to buckle under and agree to vote for the guy who equivocates on waterboarding definition shows that he has lost his clarity on what is right and wrong for our great nation. In the 2000 election, while still a Republican, this is the guy whose name I wrote in. Now he, in an effort to suck in the Bushbots, has sold his soul by waffling on whether it is torture or not. McCain has sold his soul and he will never again be a bright light in my eyes. That he suffered so profoundly in such a selfless way so he could guarantee that all his men could get out of that hell-hole prison in Vietnam still thrills me. But that guy has been replaced with a deal maker who seems like a stranger to me.

DanielH wrote on November 1, 2007 6:23 PM:

Feinstein will never vote against Mukasey.

Sully18 wrote on November 1, 2007 7:26 PM:

Perhaps Mr Mukasey will develop some balls after his confirmation,and do the right/lawful thing.If that were to happen....

Hong Kong Chevy wrote on November 2, 2007 2:49 AM:

If it comes to a vote, we need no more than 3 of the undecideds to move to the 'for' camp, otherwise he will be confirmed.

The other possibility would be some sort of procedural block. The Rethugs are filibustering virtually everything. I don't see a reason not to filibuster Mulkasey's nomination if we don't have the votes to defeat him with a straight vote.

True, it's a smaller deal than the despicable excuses for Supreme Court Justices who the Dems stupidly allowed in, but even for the limited time he would serve, we should not have an AG who won't commit to upholding the rule of law.

Chris Andersen wrote on November 2, 2007 3:37 PM:

"I know we can't count our chickens before they're hatched, but does anyone really expect Feingold to support this dishonest fencesitter?"

Feingold, unfortunately, has a tradition of giving the President carte blanche when it comes to nominations. He generally subscribes to the notion that Presidents should be able to have whoever they want on their cabinent. He has only once or twice voted against a Bush nominee and I think that was only in the most extreme cases.

Don't count on him being a "no"

Anonymous wrote on November 5, 2007 6:37 PM:

if Leahy opposes the nomination, why can't he -- as Senate Judiciary Chairman -- block the action/review and keep it in committee? Indeed, even if Bush were to have a recess appointment for the next AG, the Congress still has the power to remove that AG with impeachment.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)