Here's how Leahy can make it up to us:

[rateyes]

Don't schedule a vote in the Judiciary Committee until he receives EVERYTHING he has subpoenaed, including the testimony of Miers, Rove and Bolten.

Show some courage, Mr. Leahy. Use the power at your disposal to do what you promised to do. Otherwise, just STFU about your opposition to Mukasey, for your words mean nothing without your action. You can keep this from coming to a vote. Knowing that, if there is a vote, Mukasey will be voted out of committee...allowing that vote is, IMO, an equivalent to an endorsement.

Courage requires doing the right thing regardless of the danger or personal consequences.

Courage, Mr. Leahy. It's time to show some.

[babylonsister]

1. Who has the final say, Leahy or Reid? nt

[rateyes]

3. Leahy, at the moment...

he's the chair of the committee it has to be reported from. He doesn't have to call the committee to order.

[MADem]

17. Uh, Leahy doesn't control the Senate schedule or agenda. But hey, whatever. NT

[MiniMe]

18. He does control the committee though. And if it isn't voted on,

it won't come before the Senate

[MADem]

22. And then we get to hear the "up or down vote" whine.

You can't keep stalling his lousy nominees. Unless the "no recess" rule is enacted in earnest.

It will be interesting, with an election year around the corner, to see how the full Senate votes, especially those 22 Senators sitting in incumbent GOP seats that are all on the block in 08.

[rateyes]

19. Uh, Leahy controls the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE hearing

schedule. But, whatever.

[MADem]

20. Well, DUH. But he doesn't make the decision as to when the full Senate advises and consents.

And there's no appointment without that.

But, whatever.

[rateyes]

23. Well, Duh....by the rules it has to be voted on in the Judiciary

Committee before coming to the floor of the Senate. But, again, whatever.

[MADem]

24. Yes, it does. Bully for you for realizing that!

And of course, you DO then realize, that the confirmation happens, not in committee, but by a full Senate vote.

And there's where it will get interesting.

But again, ... whatever.

[rateyes]

25. You do realize that without a vote in committee, there is no

vote on the floor. Leahy can kill this thing.

[MADem]

27. No, Leahy cannot. Unless he Waterboards DiFi and Schumer until they accede to his demands.

When Republican controlled Congresses jerked Clinton's nominees around and refused to give them that "up-er-down vote" that BushCo likes to whine about, Democrats went BALLISTIC.

Of course he can 'kill this thing' with proper inducements, but I think he's making the right call. He sees the big picture and he takes the long view.

Why is it "OK" for Leahy to impose his will (not that he CAN without paying a price) on his committee members? He might be able to play a little quid pro quo (I will vote for your pork if you vote this way for me) but there's just not gonna be any arm twisting here, because those two experienced Senators have banded together to cover for each other, because they want this nom on the floor. And who knows, they could very well be providing cover for the more liberal members of the committee, who might also want that nom on the floor, too, for their own reasons.

It IS disingenuous for us to suggest that when the GOP fucked over Clinton's noms by not putting them on the floor, that was BAD, but when we do it, it's good. And even the "payback" excuse is childish. What we should say, as this nom goes forward, is that Democrats aren't pissy little vengeful whiners, like the GOP was to Clinton.


You can't have it both ways. And I can't imagine that Bush would send up Wussy McHumanRights as a substitute for The Big M, should the committee not send him forward. He's more likely to send up the Marquis de Sade, followed by Sid Vicious, Brutus O'Waterboard and Sledgehammer Thumbscrews III, and then make a HUGE stink about how Leahy and his pals won't let the FULL SENATE make the decision after he's 'bent over backwards' to send a variety of nominees.

I think, no matter what, we're going to end up with a shit AG. We might get the Big M, or we might be stuck, for awhile yet, with the far rightwing reactionary who is currently warming Berto's seat in an acting capacity. In any event, all Congress can do is investigate the shit out of that branch, early and often. If the Big M gets the nod, the one thing he WILL do is hold the line on the definition of waterboarding as 'stress/duress'--at least until Bush can sign all the pardons.

The bigger picture is THIS, though. It will be very interesting to count noses and see who votes FOR the big M, and who votes AGAINST the Big M. And who DUCKS THE VOTE. This one actually could go either way, in the right environment, though admittedly I am not hopeful. There are 22 GOP seats up for grabs in 08--will those guys vote WITH Bush/Torture, or against Bush/Torture? Because the first choice WILL be a centerpiece of any challenger's campaign.

We'll see if those GOP Senators, who like their cozy seats but know they're in hot water right now, will fold like cheap lawn chairs, or trust that BushCo will give them tons of money for campaign ads and slick mailers to overcome this horrid vote.

[paulk]

28. you make an important point that most on this board seem to

have missed -

Bush will be perfectly happy to have the acting AG, who is a certified member of the BFEE, continue to serve. And he also holds the threat of a recess appt. over the heads of the Senate. He could appoint someone a lot worse than Mr. M. He could even appoint the guy "warming the seat" right now.

Bush, as President, holds the trump card here, and trashing the Dems for that (which is all DU seems to exist for anymore) is a waste of time.

Legislation defining waterboarding as torture and illegal is what is needed. That will be the definitive vote, for both fencesitting Dems and those 22 Republicans.

[MADem]

29. THANK you!!!!!! And thank you for your succinct last paragraph.

That legislation needs to have a veto proof majority, too. It needs to be brief, to the point, and declarative. No frou-frou bullshit--just plain and assertive. Something that even a nitwit can understand -- "The Torture, to INCLUDE Waterboarding, is a Crime in America" bill. The bill title needs to be as plain and visceral as the statement "Americans Don't Slaughter Puppies" is.

And Pelosi and Reid need to call in cards, make deals, and use threats (hey, the DNC has pots o'cash for those Senators and Reps up for reelection--the Chair giveth, and the Chair taketh away) to get what they want. I think this vote, at the right time, with the right emphasis, could really put a lot of Republicans in a deep, dark bind. They key, though, is to have an accurate nose count. They can't "think" that so-and-so will vote with them, they have to KNOW.

[paulk]

31. this is a step in the right direction

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48735994_joseph_biden_joe_biden_biden_calls_colleagues_support_his_legislation_banning_waterboarding

[MADem]

32. See, he's no fool. That's EXPERIENCE talking, there.

I'm an undecided voter, but that letter did cause me to put a check by his name. I liked the way he handled that--simply, straightforward, no BS or 'frou frou' as it were:

I write today to seek your support for legislation that prohibits United States personnel from engaging in water-boarding or any other form of torture. On July 25, 2007, I introduced S. 1876, the National Security with Justice Act, which among other things prohibits all United States personnel from using on a detainee any interrogation technique not expressly authorized by the Army Field Manual.

[williesgirl]

2. I agree. He can still stop this. rec'd

[DCKit]

4. They HAVE to vote on it... NO, hopefully.

Otherwise it will be a recess appointment.

[MADem]

6. Not if there ain't no recess. NT

[MADem]

5. Make WHAT up?

You want him to put recalcitrant Senators on the rack and twist? Force them to deny BushCo their 'up or down' vote?

Jesus, that's what the GOP does.

I think NY and CA oughta take responsibility for the individuals they sent to the Senate, myself, rather than whine at the guy from VT who is doing the heavy lifting. If those citizens are unhappy, they'd better start directing their ire in a focused, concentrated and 'critical mass' fashion. Apparently a few disgruntled phone calls and faxes aren't doing it...step up the volume, there.

I'd also be interested in seeing if anyone has done a nose count as to how the full Senate will vote.

And I will also be interested in seeing which Presidential candidates make it back for said vote, too.

[babylonsister]

7. The judiciary committee is voting, not the entire Senate if I understand

this correctly:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/judiciary-committee-to-vote-on-mukasey-on-tuesday-2007-10-31.html

Judiciary Committee sets Mukasey vote for Tuesday
By Manu Raju
October 31, 2007
The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote next Tuesday on the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general.

The vote is expected to be close after panel Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and other Democrats expressed deep concerns over Mukasey’s comments on the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, which simulates drowning. Mukasey condemned the technique but said he does not know whether it constitutes torture.

Leahy said earlier in the week that Mukasey did not appear to have the 10 votes needed to send his nomination to the Senate floor. It is unclear whether that has changed now that Mukasey has submitted responses to the written questions of committee members.

Ranking Republican Arlen Specter (Pa.) has not said how he would vote, but he stated Wednesday that he did not know “how much more (Mukasey) can say than what he said.” Specter added that there is “no doubt the confirmation is at risk ... because he has not answered the question categorically.”

[MADem]

9. Yes. The Committee votes to put the candidate before the FULL SENATE

That's what this vote is about. From your cite: Leahy said earlier in the week that Mukasey did not appear to have the 10 votes needed to send his nomination to the Senate floor.

The full Senate then votes YEA or NAY to confirm or not confirm him.

And if the citizens of CA and NY have trouble with the way their senators, who sit on this committee, intend to vote, they'd better pipe up and gripe TO THEIR SENATORS, not complain that the chairman isn't WATERBOARDING them into voting the "correct" way.

The Judiciary Committee is a vetting committee in this process. They determine if the guy is even minimally/borderline qualified, and the full Senate advises and consents to the appointment.

[Inuca]

8. Leahy could lock...

Feinstein and Schumer in a small room together for a week, and see what happens :-).

[MADem]

10. Or, as I suggested upthread, he could WATERBOARD one or both of them so that they'd vote

the "ideologically correct, but representationally deficient" way.

[Inuca]

11. What about

waterboard one while the other is WATCHING? That should teach him/her a lesson!

[MADem]

12. Yeah, that's the ticket--Get in LINE, DiFi, or you're next, ya see? Heh heh... nt

[cali]

14. God, this has really gotten ridiculous

Acting as if Leahy was some huge failure as chairman, and demanding that he make things up to the OP. It's so whacked.

[MADem]

16. Yep. A course in basic government might indeed be in order, eh? nt

[cali]

21. Some people just aren't interested

they prefer righteous igorance.

[cali]

13. I am so sick of you

attacking one of the Senators who has demonstrated courage. Who the fuck are you? You don't have a clue as to how things work, or what Leahy's done as chairman. That much is clear.

And Leahy has nothing to make up for, and he owes you jackshit.

[Richardo]

15. .

:patriot:

[rateyes]

26. The ignore feature is your friend, cali...

I suggest you use it, and ignore me. It will make you less sick. I believe I just read a thread about how you could no longer support Leahy if he comes out in favor of Mukasey...this after you let him off the hook for allowing hearings on Mukasey because the guy that's the interim AG is worse.

You can't make up your own mind on the matter, and can't handle criticism of your beloved Vermont Senator. If I do it, it makes you sick. But, it's OK for you to do it.

Hmmm. Consistency, thou art a jewel.

[cali]

30. no thanks.

I'll continue to post on any thread I want to. And when Leahy does something I think worthy of criticism, I'll criticize him. I don't because I think he's truly one of the good guys, and does display political courage. I don't spend time criticizng Feingold, Sanders, Kennedy, Kerry and others who are actually fight to restore the Constitution either.

You don't seem to have a clue as to the realities of the Senate.

And I actually supported his holding hearings for Mukasey and thought it was a big mistake for him to say he wouldn't hold hearings unless he got the subpoenaed material. I knew that wasn't going to happen and I knew he wouldn't get any support for NOT holding hearings.

Yes, I and most of my fellow Vermonters, think a lot of Pat Leahy- and we have good reasons for it.

[rateyes]

33. Well, you saying that you're "sick of me" isn't going to

make me tone down my opinions and how I express them. So, if you are glutton for punishment, and want to keep getting sick, then by all means, keep reading my posts. Perhaps, one day, you will wake up to the reality of how our government is SUPPOSED to operate.

I see Mr. Conyers has, for a NINTH TIME, sent another threatening letter, compromising on the "under oath" requirement, saying it's the "final chance."

Just how many "final chances" does one get?