Presidential Candidates Skip Mukasey Vote

Comments (28)

CalD wrote on November 9, 2007 8:26 AM:

Probably figured out at the last minute that they were all planning to wear the same outfit. This one did look like a pretty foregone conclusion anyway though.

pmorlan wrote on November 9, 2007 8:29 AM:

Ok, so we have 4 Democratic Senators running to LEAD the country and yet they didn't bother to show up for this important debate & vote? Why weren't they on the Senate floor leading the debate?

What is wrong with this picture?

Legalize wrote on November 9, 2007 8:46 AM:

Edwards should be hammering all 4 of them today.

Dave Pooser wrote on November 9, 2007 8:51 AM:

>Ok, so we have 4 Democratic Senators running
>to LEAD the country and yet they didn't bother
>to show up for this important debate & vote?

I wonder if this was another Harry Reid special. Remember when he told Obama Kyl-Lieberman wouldn't be coming up in the near future and then as soon as Obama left on a campaign trip brought the bill to the floor? I think everybody, including the Senators in question, was expecting Mukasey to come up next week, and this blindsided them.

(And since Reid's son is Hillary's NV campaign manager, it seems not unreasonable that this was planned so the netroots' candidates would lose some of their luster and Sen. Clinton doesn't have to take a stand either against the base or against a Broderist "centrism." It's a win-win for her.)

jimijazz wrote on November 9, 2007 9:00 AM:

Doesn't look vey presidential when you avoid a vote of this significance on the next attorney general. It just confirms what I've been saying. Most of the democratic presidential contenders (except for Kucinich) are a bunch of cowards and don't want to let go of that AIPAC money.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 9, 2007 9:18 AM:

While we were heading in a campaign weekend . . . I too wonder if Reid sniped them pack of them . . .

I would hate to think that five folk who expressed reservations/opposition to Mukasey ALL had the chickhawk heart of 'Rush' Limpbug beating in their chests at the same time. No matter how you feel about them, none of them are Norm Coleman.

Reid probably wanted to avoid the messiness of Presidential Candidates filibustering a Presential Nominee . . . Imagine a Candidate or two growing a set and embarassing the Senate leadership . . . Like Kucinich did to Pelosi & Hoyer . . .

horseface wrote on November 9, 2007 9:42 AM:

Im sure they knew what the vote was going to be in this case, knew that the arguments were moot, and knew that their votes would not turn the results. They all came out with statements weeks ago about their position.

Ready 2 Hurl wrote on November 9, 2007 9:50 AM:

It's not at all clear that the candidates even knew about the vote far enough in advance to change their plans.

I tend to agree with Dave Pooser above. Harry Reid either can't coordinate Senate actions with Dem goals or has an ulterior agenda.

Either way, the Dems need to replace the entire leadership in both House and Senate.

Letting this vote "unexpectedly slip in" is absolutely unacceptable.

If the leadership had launched an aggressive, public campaign to reveal Mukasey as just another Bush puppet unwilling to stand up for the Constitution then Dem Senators in red states could have had cover to vote against him.

Glenn wrote on November 9, 2007 9:58 AM:

Oh, enough with the "Reid sandbagging" bullshit, people. He didn't do it to Obama on the Kyl-Lieberman vote, and he didn't do it to these asswipes on the Mukasey vote. They just figure that campaigning to be President is more important than actually doing their jobs. 'Twas ever thus, I'm afraid, but it still sucks.

mamiller wrote on November 9, 2007 10:02 AM:

I had written and urged my senators to do right on this vote as well. But on the other hand, Mukasey's nomination would have been eliminated by the Bush admin if he said waterboarding was torture, and he hasnt said it is NOT torture yet. Maybe it really is the best we can do, if the alternative is a recess appt, right?

Given the level of rhetoric from the current Dem candidates, their lack of collective vision seems a much bigger issue than this particular vote.

loki wrote on November 9, 2007 10:11 AM:

They all should have been there to vote. Color me unimpressed.

KCinDC wrote on November 9, 2007 10:21 AM:

It is odd that all the candidates were absent, which gives credence to the "Harry Reid surprise" explanation. Regardless, what about the Democrats who were present? If they had filibustered (as Republicans certainly would have done if the shoe were on the other foot), then the vote would not have gone forward, since 53 is far short of the 60 required to overcome a filibuster.

Seeryer wrote on November 9, 2007 10:32 AM:

The logical reason this nomination was blocked is because it would have cleared the path for Bush to appoint someone in a recess appointment, with no confirmation. That person would have been much more crony-fied than Mukasey. The symbolism of this vote is regardless of what happened last November, in order for America to have real change, we must look to next November so we can get a Democrat in the White House. Three Branches of Government were eroded, corroded and corrupted over the last 7 years and it takes longer than one year to fix it because you have the majority in Congress. Would it have been better to block the nomination so that someone even less acceptable would be appointed in recess?

KCinDC wrote on November 9, 2007 10:38 AM:

Seeryer, I understand the argument, but the problem is that Mukasey has already demonstrated, between his first and second days of questioning, that he is willing to be browbeaten into following whatever line the White House wants. It seems clear that he's only going to be a figurehead, and the White House will continue running Justice behind the scenes.

So how could a recess-appointed nominee be worse? At least with a recess appointment congressional Democrats wouldn't have given their blessing to whatever outrages occur.

Keith wrote on November 9, 2007 11:11 AM:

This should be laid at the feet of Reid. As I recall, Mukasey's nomination was supposed to be considered next week (or at some time before the Thanksgiving break). Reid announced debate of his nomination at 7:47 PM and the vote was held at 11:04. I think technically, all of them could have gotten back in time (all were in NH or IA), but that's assuming the logistics were perfect (e.g., that there private jet was ready and they were relatively close to it). This isn't the first time Reid has called a vote with such little notice (recall there was 30 minutes notice on KLA). Coupled with his promise to override Dodd's hold on the FISA bill, he truly is a terrible Majority Leader.

willyjsimmons wrote on November 9, 2007 11:15 AM:

This is indeed sad...

and OF COURSE that worthless individual Ben Nelson voted to confirm.

Me thinks I might run for his seat.

Now, someone at TPM needs to dig a little deeper and get statements from each of the Dem candidates ASAP.

Let us see if they co-sign each other, and say they were under the impression the vote was going to be held off?

One would think a nay vote from them was a no-brainer??

Heck, even though McCain is a liar, even he could have gotten away with a nay on this one given the principles involved??

Total confusion.

willyjsimmons wrote on November 9, 2007 11:17 AM:

'Reid announced debate of his nomination at 7:47 PM and the vote was held at 11:04.'

Shenanigans...

kb wrote on November 9, 2007 11:32 AM:

Waterboard anyone who missed the vote or voted for Mukasey confirmation.

www.tshirtinsurgency.com

kis wrote on November 9, 2007 11:40 AM:

There are two ways to look at this.

Either Reid slipped this in with short notice to prevent any of the candidates from getting back to stop it, or Reid did this with FULL knowledge of the candidates as a favor of sorts.

Perhaps none of the candidates actually wanted to vote on the record for/against Mukasey. Reid gave them an excuse...

Praedor Atrebates wrote on November 9, 2007 12:11 PM:

The Dems WOULD have been better off to simply not confirm Mukasey and let Bush pull a recess appointment. Why? Because by agreeing to appoint Mukasey, the Dems are now complicit in the move to render waterboarding NOT torture but merely a harsh interrogation tactic. They "have to" scurry to pass a law now declaring waterboarding specifically illegal...which automatically gives all those involved with waterboarding before they passed the law immunity from prosecution for torture: ex post facto ensues.

If the Dems had simply let Bush recess appoint Mukasey, it would ALL have been on Bush's head. The appointment would NOT have given official imprimateur to the idea that waterboarding is a gray area with regards to torture (it is NOT a gray area) and would NOT have setup a situation where all other countries are now free to declare waterboarding NOT illegal and NOT torture. US statute doesn't apply to other countries, but torture DOES apply universally. The Dems have just taken waterboarding out of the torture realm and placed it into mere parochial law land.

We have officially and fully, with this vote FOR appointment, lost the very last vestige of the shadow of our moral authority. We cannot complain about any other country torturing its people or our soldiers if they are captured. We cannot prosecute any other country civil or military leaders for waterboarding US citizens because waterboarding is going to shortly become just something the US locally outlaws. Feel free to make your own laws on this Rest of the World!

Actually, the best thing for the Dems to do now is NOTHING. NO law specifically banning waterboarding. No immunity (ex post facto) for the torturers in our government.

Any lawyers in the house? Would THIS get around the ex post facto problem if the Congress passed a bill that simply reiterated a known fact? If it simply said that "waterboarding has been recognize worldwide as torture since its use by the Spanish Inquisition. It has been illegal by treaty and US law before now and it will remain illegal by the same henceforth.

Would that make it clear that waterboarding is a flat-out no-no AND is and was illegal on top of it, and thus avoid ex post facto nonsense?

phil james wrote on November 9, 2007 12:40 PM:

So let me see if I have gotten this straight. To be considered a top-flight, electable, appeal-to-the-majority principled opposition party candidate you have to be on record in speeches, debates, news conferences, etc. (all of which are non-binding) as opposing the thug party or at least certain general characteristics of the thug party. BUT! BUT! You needn't be on record...in fact you're much better off if you are not on record... as, IN FACT, actually voting to oppose (or filibustering, or any other tactic that registers clear, unequivocal binding opposition to) the thug party and most especially our high exalted unitary executive and his chosen minions. Have I got that right? Yessireeee, Bob. I am as of this very minute ready to pick up a shovel and following our party's chosen candidate all the way to the White House (cleaning up the requisite horsecrap along the way of course).

cynical jim wrote on November 9, 2007 12:58 PM:

The 4 Democratic Senators who wouldn't back up their empty words are empty suits without the moral convictions necessary to be President. They wanted to avoid the political baggage of the vote. That is shameless on a vote as important as this.

Shame on them.

So who should we vote for now?

noexpert wrote on November 9, 2007 1:01 PM:

Which candidates, if any, have taken a clear position on this issue before the vote. If the missed vote wouldn't have changed the outcome, taking a stand on it counts for something with me.

Jake D wrote on November 9, 2007 1:04 PM:

cynical jim:

May I suggest John Edwards? Or Ron Paul / Ralph Nader?

Praedor Atrebates wrote on November 9, 2007 1:04 PM:

Which candidates, if any, have taken a clear position on this issue before the vote. If the missed vote wouldn't have changed the outcome, taking a stand on it counts for something with me.

That's just it, ANY Dem could have changed the outcome by either simply voting "nay" on cloture and forcing every member to give an explicit "yay" or "nay" on Mukasey and/or led a filibuster. Any one of the senators running for Prez could have initiated a filibuster. C'mon, 53-40! Filibuster screaming to happen...yet it did not. Not even a roll call vote on cloture.

There are NO good Dems, not even Feingold.

phil james wrote on November 9, 2007 1:22 PM:

Are you saying the candidates haven't got the backbone of a garden slug? Is that what you're saying? But wait! They are all on record as being against torture before they declined to actually vote and take a real stand against torture. It's a little like getting an Audit grade on a college course.

kis wrote on November 9, 2007 1:29 PM:

I think their silence on the issue this morning says volumes. Reid did them a favor - or acted with their permission - in scheduling a quick vote so they would have an excuse to miss it.

Jake D wrote on November 9, 2007 1:56 PM:

I have to agree with Praedor Atrebates that there are NO good Dems, not even Feingold.

Post a comment

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