Leahy's cowardice?

[cali]

Sometimes there are no viable good options for Congressional dems.

A case in point is Leahy and the Mukasey/Keisler situation.

Leahy said that he wouldn't hold a confirmation hearing until he got certain subpoenaed material. Evidently he's changed his mind.

I realize few here will agree with me, but let me lay it out as I see it.

I never thought that Leahy should have said he wouldn't hold a confirmation hearing until he got certain subpoenaed information, and I posted to that effect contemporaneous to his comments. Why? Because it was clear to me that the admin would be happy as a pig in shit to never comply and never have hearings. They prefer Keisler or another bush crony/insider to Mukasey, who has no insider status with the admin. In addition, it became clear, very quickly, that Leahy wasn't going to get any reinforcement on his position from any dem, either on the Committee or not. And he didn't. In fact, Schumer and Reid undercut him, and no one- not Feingold or Kennedy or anyone else- backed him up.

I always thought holding a hearing and asking if Mukasey would order Jeff Taylor to enforce outstanding subpoenas and any contempt citations, as well as asking him to support IG Fein's investigation and appoint an Independent Prosecutor, was a better route to take. At least it would draw the public eye back to the malfeasance of the Justice Department and the administration.

The bottom line is this: The longer Keisler or another bush toady heads the Justice Dept., the more critical evidence will be destroyed or buried, and the more time there will be for collusion with the White House. Keisler truly is the worst of the worst.

Will Mukasey be better? He certainly couldn't be worse, and again, he's not a bush crony/insider. Should he be confirmed? Hard to say without seeing what he has to say on the record.

Should Keisler be allowed to continue running Justice? Hell, no.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Count me in as agreeing with you, cali.

"Sometimes there are no viable good options for Congressional dems."

Sometimes there are, and sometimes there aren't. I wish more people would recognize the difference between the two, and accept the things that can't be changed.

K & R!

[cali]

2. Thanks, Nance!

Discernment of when dems are caving and when they simply don't have any good options, is an important perspective. Wish folks used it more. In any case, I have high anxiety about leaving Keisler in power. He's one of the ultimate bushco cronies.

[2rth2pwr]

3. You're right that Leahy should not have made that threat

but this is a pattern with our leaders in the House and Senate. They continually go around threatening impeachment, hearings, consequences, holding people accountable, etc, etc..

Either they have been making empty promises that they have no intention of keeping just to throw bones to the "base", or they are truly incompetent negotiators.

Take your pick.

[cali]

4. My thinking on that re Leahy is clearly different than yours

I didn't think he should have made that statement because I KNEW that the White House would be perfectly happy continuing to stonewall and hold on to Keisler. I thought he should just have scheduled a hearing for Mukasey.

And I don't feel as if Leahy throws crumbs, or has been anything but a solid rep for my state.

[2rth2pwr]

5. Yes, his negotiting skills are lacking. nt

[Vinca]

6. I think Leahy is being sly like a fox. He's making nice - a little -

with Mukasey to smooth the road after he's sworn in. It's more likely Mukasey will produce the documents Leahy wants because he's not blood brothers with Shrub the way Gonzo was.