Dodd Sets Pace on Dunking Mukasey

Kudos to Chris Dodd whose third-tier-nothing-to-lose presidential campaign has sprouted him a robust pair of cojones. Dodd became the most prominent Democrat, and the first among
the presidential candidates, to declare he will vote against Bush nominee Michael Mukasey's confirmation as Attorney General.

Angered by Mukasey's Senate testimony last week in which the former federal judge and prosecutor floated a legal "theory" that the President of the United States could, indeed, stand above constitutional statutes, Dodd declared on Monday:

"That is about as basic as it gets," Dodd said. "You must obey the law. Everyone must."

Dodd, along with a slew of other legal and political observers were also dismayed when Mukasey dodged Senators' questions last week about whether or not so-called waterboarding was, in fact, a form of torture. After eluding any straight answer, Mukasey wound up making the incredulous statement that he wasn't quite sure what was meant by the term.

Over the weekend, some leading Senate Democrats ranging from Dianne Feinstein of California to Carl Levin of Michigan engaged in their own form of equivocation, warning they might vote against Mukasey if he doesn't properly clarify his views when he responds to written questions from the Senate later this week.

But Dodd's bold stepping-out on this issue, rejecting any mulligan for a nominee who refuses to call torture by its proper name, seems like it might force the hand of fellow Democrats who might start looking rather silly if they don't turn thumbs down on the newly proposed AG. Within hours of Dodd's statement, fellow candidate and Delaware Senator Joe Biden also said he had made up his mind to vote nay. Campaign spokesmen for John Edwards and Bill Richardson also joined the chorus. And by late Monday night, the campaign of Barack Obama piled on, telling The New York Sun:

"Judge Mukasey has failed to send a clear signal that he understands the legal and moral issues that are at stake for our country, and so I cannot support him." Mr. Obama said even a clarification from Judge Mukasey would be insufficient. "No nominee for attorney general should need a second chance to oppose torture and the unnecessary violation of civil liberties," he said.

After this barrage, Mukasey's nomination might be dead in the water -- if you'll excuse the pun.

Comments

[shockedNawed]

Chris Dodd is beginning to give me a small glimmer of hope.

Let's hope it's only the beginning of greater things to come from the rest of the DEMS, who've been dead-at-wheel for far too long.

[KRANKY]

Can we cut to the chase?
Clearly, Mukasey is another incompetent designed to deflect attention from the source of criminality and unconstitutional behavior.
Just another red-herring, delaying tactic to keep the do-gooders in the Senate distracted.
Has no one in this rarified chamber ever studied psychology?
The criminal bush cannot nominate a qualified AG candidate. If that were to happen, their first act would be to indict and arrest the POTUS, the Veep, and most of the cabinet for crimes against humanity and the Constitution.
Mukasey needs to be challenged about the crimes committed by the previous AG, and not just for tripping over his tongue trying to ignore torture.

[Jeff1958]

Kranky wrote, "The criminal bush cannot nominate a qualified AG candidate. If that were to happen, their first act would be to indict and arrest the POTUS, the Veep, and most of the cabinet for crimes against humanity and the Constituti­on."

EXACTLY! I believe this is also the reason for Bush nominating and appointing cronies, rather than truly qualified individuals. Heck of a job, Brownie, indeed.

[NATIONALSECURITY4US]

AMERICA NEEDS A U.S.A.G. WHO WILL TRULY ARREST

INDICT & PROSECUTE CRIMES - NOT INVOKE CRIMES -

EVEN IF IT GOES AS HIGH AS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT / VICE PRESIDENT.­..


NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW = PERIOD...


A E-MAIL I SENT TO SENATOR LEAHY RECENTLY ABOUT

THIS AS WELL AS OTHER ISSUES CAN BE READ AT:

http://360.yahoo.com/caspereraser1

[massimo1]

I've got to laugh. Did anyone here seriously hope or even think Bush would send anything but another ideological toadie to be confirmed, no matter how well he was disguised? I guess I am not surprised the media really didn't expect this and call it for the bullshit it was from day one.

[naschkatze]

No one here has ever seriously hoped or thought Bush would send anyone good, to cut your quote short, but the Democrats do not have to be enablers. They do not have to confirm anyone if Bush doesn't put up anyone worthwhile.

[slmncty]

The courage to speak out first, take the bold steps to support a judicial branch of government equal to and independent of the other two. Not servant to nor a tool of the administration. Where a conflict of interest to investigate any matter is reason to investigate who has the conflict and why. Those in Conn. are well served by a top tier leader.

[juford]

Maybe I can excuse the pun if you meant barge.