Haven’t We Seen this before?

1. Mukasey dodges questions about whether waterboarding is torture

2. Republicans say they are “concerned” about Mukasey’s dodge

3. Senate sends him a description of what it is, and asks him again if it’s torture

4.  Mukasey sends back response saying that he doesn’t like waterboarding personally, but won’t say that it’s torture

5. Republicans come back and say they are satisfied that Mukasey answered the question of whether it was torture or not.

Mukasey clearly didn’t give an answer to the actual question asked (is it torture), rather, tried to muddy things by saying that he found it “personally repugnant” but added “Hypotheticals are different from real life and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical.”

In other words, I think it’s bad, but what I personally think doesn’t matter, and since I didn’t professionally answer whether I thought it was torture, I didn’t actually answer the question asked.

Yet, Graham and Spector are apparently lapping it up.   While I shouldn’t be surprised, one would think it would take more than a blatant non-answer to satisfy them.  I guess they feel that he won’t allow it since he personally feels that it’s “repugnant,” despite the fact that he pretty much said what he personally thinks doesn’t matter.

Of course, the problem with this is, once again, despite all of this, is he the best we’re going to get.  Despite claims on some liberal blogs (or at least their comments section), rejecting Mukasey won’t “force” Bush to nominate anyone better.  He can stick with his acting AG until 2009 if he wants to.

If people feel that Mukasey will be no better than the acting AG, then there is no reason to confirm him.  However, if he is better than the acting AG, and better than anyone else we’re going to get, then it makes sense to confirm him, despite all the problems that have come up in the confirmation hearing because, one way or another, Bush is going to have one of his guys in as Attorney General.  But it’s better to have a less-bad guy in there is possible.

Mukasey opposed by Dodd, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards

It appears that the Blog pressure has put enough sweat on the candidate’s heads that they feel like they have to make this statement, even before Mukasey “clarifies” his statements to the Senate.

Dodd, who has the luxury as an underdog to do these things first, was first:

Mr. Mukasey’s position that the President does not have to heed the law disqualifies him from being the chief attorney for the United States. We have seen for too long, and at great expense to our national security, an Administration that has systematically attacked the rule of law and turned our Justice Department into a poltical wing of the White House. I’m afraid that Mr. Mukasey as Attorney General would be more of the same.

Obama, sensing the wave and feeling the need to beat Edwards on announcing something for once, was second:

I cannot support Judge Mukasey unless he clearly and unequivocally rejects techniques like water-boarding.

But then decided that, since the liberal blogs probably won’t be happy with anything other than bowing down and granting them absolute loyalty, decided to say he was opposing Mukasey, even if he does unequivocally reject waterboarding:

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.

Edwards, sweating that he might come in last place – something he can’t do if he’s in third, and for which there is no excuse for since he’s not even in the Senate, so can demand all sorts of things from it then sit back and relax, was third:

“The credibility of Justice Department has been badly tarnished, and it is now clear that Mukasey is not the man to restore it. The Senate should reject his nomination.

Then Hillary came in, first with a statement somewhat along the lines of Obama’s first:

“Senator Clinton is deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey’s unwillingness to clearly state his views on torture and unchecked executive power,” a spokesman for her Senate office, Philippe Reines, told the Sun in an e-mail yesterday.

Of course, to the left “being deeply troubled” by something, but perhaps waiting for a clarification isn’t enough, so she decides to flat out oppose him:

Judge Mukasey has been given ample opportunity – both at his confirmation hearings and in his subsequent submission to the Judiciary Committee – to clarify his answers and categorically oppose the unacceptable interrogation techniques employed by this Administration. His failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose his nomination.

Of course, this makes Clinton a trangulating poll reader [/saracm]

Also, despite Clinton’s quote, Mukasey hasn’t responded to the Judiciary Committee’s written questions yet, and while his 2nd day of testimony certainly concerned me personally, I’m still not willing to ditch it until he answers those questions.

I think the mad rush to throw Mukasey in the trash before his response to those questions just shows how much of a grip the liberal wing of the party has over the candidates at this point.

Correction: apparently Mukasey has responded (pdf) to a letter sent to him by Senator Leahy on October 18th, but not other letters sent to him by other senators on 22nd, 23rd, or 24th, or follow-ups written to him on the 25th.

Senator Clinton states obvious, liberal blogs complain that it isn’t obvious enough.

Personally, I’m not sure how one can get much clearer than this in regards to retroactive immunity in the FISA bill:

As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently.

I mean, isn’t that basically a logical tautology? No matter what issue, don’t most people support a certain position “unless they can be convinced otherwise?”

However, I guess not fully unexpected, it isn’t obvious enough for many liberal blogs:

Hillary Clinton is now the lone holdout among presidential candidates in the Senate, hedging on whether she will support a filibuster of any bill that contains retroactive immunity rather than just maybe one specific one.

This is almost (almost?!) obsessive parsing. Liberal blogs are so conditioned to bash anything and everything that Clinton does that, no matter what she says, there must be a way to parse it to make it sound like she’s hedging. To them, there is no possible way Clinton isn’t hedging. She could probably come out and say “I will support a filibuster on any bill that includes retroactive immunity” and they would find something wrong with it (what if it’s an amendment? What if they decide to call it something else, huh? Hedge! Hedge!). And, of course there are those who won’t believe what she says, no matter what she says. Why this is the case, I’m not sure, but the left’s hatred of Hillary Clinton is nearly as clinically obsessive as the right’s.

If you think my statement in one of my last posts about them thinking that Clinton would find changing a comma in this paragraph on this page as an excuse to vote for the bill was a joke, think again, as this comment illustrates:

All the Committee has to do is make some minor change — any change — in the bill, and Hillary will be free to say, “The bill has changed, and I can support Telecom Immunity with confidence.”

Of course, first off, they’re confusing Obama’s statement (“I can’t support the bill as is”) with Clinton’s, but of course that’s irrelevant to the point if you get a chance to bash Clinton!

In fact, it’s gotten so bad, I’ve seen a thread where people debated the difference between the words “would” and “will” and how Clinton saying “she would support a filibuster” is hedging versus her saying “she will support a filibuster.” Basically what they’re saying is “OK, Clinton, there is no possible evidence that should change your mind, so you should say that you won’t change your mind on it, no matter what information may possibly be revealed about the program.”

OK, I agree that I can’t think of anything that would make the program OK so that they should be granted immunity, but I can’t absolutely count out the possibility either. The problem is that we don’t know the specifics of the program. In a sense, Clinton is begging the Bush administration to release further information about the program, which is what the Senate wants anyway. I don’t see how that’s bad. And there is hardly a guarantee that any information that they’d release would cause her to change her mind.

Besides, one of liberal’s supposed biggest beefs with Bush is that he takes a position and absolutely sticks by it, no matter what further information is learned. I see that it’s only bad if the other guy does that.

If people want to read the most viriolic stuff on Clinton, skip the right wing blogs and visit some of the comment sections on liberal blogs. Some liberals make it sound like Clinton is worse than Bush. An amazing feat for a politician who gets something like a 70% liberal rating in the Senate, is against the war, and is married to arguably the most popular and successful president in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Addendum: I just thought of this, but aren’t the liberal blogs killing their own momentum.  Today could have been all “the democratic presidential candidates are united against retroactive immunity!” in order to put pressure on Senator Reid to kill it outright.

But no, the liberal wing of the party succumbed to their knee-jerk Clinton-bashing and decided that time was better spent arguing over the grammatical usage of the word “would” rather than, you know, actually trying to create momentum to take the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill so we don’t have to have a filibuster.

Southern Strategy vs. Western Strategy

I don’t see this getting argued much anymore on Daily Kos, unless I just miss it, but I wanted to go back over the arguments of whether the democrats should take on a so-called “southern strategy” or the so-called “western strategy.” Both have their plusses and their minuses.

For the sake of having comparable sample, I have 12 states in each group. The South consists of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Meanwhile, the West consists of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

First, let’s look at the Western Stratedy:

PROS:

The biggest pro here is that there are more immediate pick-up opportunities out west. Out of the 24 states being profiled, only 4 had margins in the 2004 Presidential race within 5 points, 3 of them in the west: New Mexico (1%), Nevada (3%), and Colorado (5%), with a forth, Arizona, with a 10% margin. This would give the Democrats 29 badly needed electoral votes, and 4 states where governors and senators could come from as well (We already have 3 senators from these states)

The west is also often more open to the Democrat’s social liberalism, and has been trending democratic in recent elections.

CONS:

After the initial four states, the road looks rough. After Arizona, the next western states on the list are Montana – where Bush won by 20% – and South Dakota – where he won by 21%. Meanwhile, even though each group has 12 states, the bottom 5, 6 of the bottom 7, and 8 of the bottom 10 states as far as margin of victory for Bush in 2004 are western states.

On top of this, western states just don’t have all that many electoral votes. The four western states that democrats can pretty easily target can only muster 29 electoral votes – only two more than Florida by itself can. Also, in total, the west loses to the south in electoral votes, 161 to 61.

Finally, the west may be hostile to the Democrat’s economic liberalism as the west tends to have a libertarian streak.

Now, onto the Souther Strategy:

PROS:

The pros here seem to be simple: more electoral votes, faster. Even though the South only has one state which was within 5% in 2004 – Florida – that one state has more electoral votes than the three Western state in the same category combined.

Also, while the West only has 29 electoral votes available in states that were within 10%, the south has 46 (with Virginia and Arkansas). Within 20%, the West can only manage 32 electoral votes while the South can give the democrats 118. In fact, all 161 electoral votes can be gained in southern states with margins while only 41 electoral votes can be picked up in the west in states with the same margins.

The south may also be open to democrat’s economic populism.

CONS:

The biggest con is that the democrats would have to set many of their social liberalist policies to the side to effectively campaign in the south. They may be able to survive while keeping abortion an important issue, but things like gay marriage would almost certainly have to be off the table.

Also, 20% in the West may be chipped away easier than 20% in the south just due to long-standing pre-conceived notions that people in the South have of the Democratic party.  This is just aggrivated by the fact that, while some seats were picked up in the South in 2006, the trend has been, overall, discouraging.

A Double Atrios Hit

Eschaton is on my regular blog reading list, because Atrios is smart and writes a lot of good things.  However, he’s also one of the biggest “they don’t get it” violators in the liberal blogosphere as well, and we have a double take of that today.  First off, is this:

Chris Dodd has put out a simple position: he’ll do what’s in his power to stop any bill which gives telecom companies retroactive immunity for their Bush administration sanctioned law breaking. In contrast, Obama and Clinton have put out mush.

He then quotes from Greenwald (who is also feverishly battling for the “they don’t get it” championship award in the liberal blogosphere) about how “weak” Obama’s and Clinton’s statements are.  But let’s actually look at their statements.

Obama:

“Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.”

Greenwald – and Atrios by extension – complain that Obama’s language of “the bill…in it’s current form” gives Obama and out to be able to vote for it if a comma gets deleted in paragraph 3 on page 38.  However, I don’t think Obama will be able to get out of that – not withstanding the heat he’ll take if he were to vote for the bill to begin with – because it’s clear from the statement that the “as is” part of the bill he objects to is the retroactive immunity.

Now, on to Clinton’s statement:

I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven’t seen it so I can’t express an opinion about it. But I don’t trust the Bush Administration with our civil rights and liberties. So I’m going to study it very hard. As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently.

Stepping aside the fact that Clinton said that she couldn’t really give an opinion about the bill, then gave an opinion about it anyway,  she’s pretty clear that she’d support a filibuster “absent additional information” that would convincer her otherwise (ie, the White House handing over info on the program).

I suppose a person could argue that she’s left herself an out to change her position after she’s read the bill and “studied it hard,” but one doesn’t take this step if you are unsure about filibustering, as it’s kind of a cat of the bag type thing.  If you say that you’re going to filibuster and then you don’t, it’s almost worse than saying you weren’t going to filibuster it in the first place.

Clinton would gain very little by saying she’s planning on supporting a filibuster unless she’s really planning on supporting it, and risks throwing away the inroads she’s made in the liberal blogosphere if she goes back on her stance.  I think she and her campaign people are smart enough to know this, and that’s why if she doesn’t filibuster, she’s going to have to have a pretty damn convincing reason why not.

Now, onto the second topic that I think atrios is making a fuss over nothing:

The Blue Dogs are, for the most part, the spoiled whiny children of the Democratic caucus, demanding that it’s perpetually ALL ABOUT THEM even as they cause nothing but grief and heartache for the Democratic family.

…

Still one Democrat dared suggest that some of these bad Democrats who are helping to further the death and destruction in Iraq should have primary challengers and they clutched their pearls and fainted dead away at the horror of it all.

He adds the note that many of the Blue Dogs aren’t paying dues to the DCCC in response to this (even though the Democrat who suggested the Blue Dogs get primary challengers isn’t in the DCCC.

While I don’t think it’s a good thing for the Blue Dogs to withhold funding from the DCCC, I’m not exactly sure why Atrios thinks it is shocking or even unreasonable that Blue Dogs might be upset that members of their own party think that they should be run out of office for not being liberal enough.

Reacting negatively to someone of your own party telling you that you should get a primary challenger now makes you a “baby”?  I’m sure his tone would change if I suggested that Democrats who support defunding the war should get primary challengers from more moderate anti-war democrats since, you know, defunding isn’t any more popular than the war is.

All 4 Democratic Senator Presidential Candidates Join together for FISA Filbuster

This is nothing less than huge, I think.  Of course, it was reported that Dodd would first put a hold on the FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to telecom companies then, when Reid said he’d try to push it to the floor anyway, Dodd said he would filibuster it.

Pretty soon after that, Senator Biden said that he would join in.  Now, under pressure from their supporters, both Obama and Clinton have joined the democratic bandwagon.  Some may criticize them for being late to the party, but at least they came.

Reid is now facing off against all four of his presidential candidates.  That can’t be a comfortable position to be in, and may give other democrats in the Senate the guts to support a filibuster as well.

They don’t get it

This is one reason why I want to find a wall to bash my head against whenever I go to major democratic-leaning liberal blogs nowadays:

House Democrats don’t need the Senate to change course on Iraq. They don’t need to pass Bush’s war funding requests. They can sit on them until Bush is forced to negotiate in good faith.

They just don’t get it. Bush will never, never, never, never, never, ever negotiate in good faith because he doesn’t have to. He’s not up for re-election, he doesn’t care what happens to Republican members of congress, and he’s well aware that if Congress just refuses to past funding, that Congress is the one who is going to get the blame.

I’ve pointed it out over and over again but they just don’t get it. They think that anything the democrats do to “look tough” on Iraq will impress voters no matter what it is, but they either don’t get, or have drunk too much of their own kool-aid and actually believe that the public doesn’t see funding as a sacred cow.

Let’s take a trip down polling lane shall we?

Yes, the cut-off funding (or at the least hold it hostage) crowd has been crowing about the poll by ABC News/Washington Post showing that 67% want the $190 billion request for the war reduced (hell, I want it reduced). What they neglect to mention is that only 3% – yes 3% – said that the Congress shouldn’t approve any of it. That just shows how pathetically small the “cut off funding” movement is, and they all seem to live on the liberal blogs.

Looking back in the summer, we saw numbers like this:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 9-17, 2007 (May 18-23):

Allow All Funding – 28% (15%)
Set Timetable – 61% (69%)
Block All Funding – 8% (13%)

SA Today/Gallup Poll. June 1-3, 2007:

Thinking now specifically about how candidates’ positions on the war in Iraq would affect your vote, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who…Supports legislation that would cut off funding for the war in Iraq

More Likely – 33%
Less Likely – 60%

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007:

“One proposal would not provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to withdraw all its troops by March 2008. Would you favor or oppose that bill?”

Favor – 39%
Oppose – 60%

“Who do you think is MORE responsible for the fact that the U.S. troops currently in Iraq have not yet received additional funds: President Bush, because he vetoed the Iraq funding bill passed by Congress, OR, the Democrats in Congress, because they passed an Iraq funding bill that they knew Bush would veto?”

Bush – 34%
Congress – 44%
Both – 14%

As one can see, poll after poll after poll show that people don’t want defunding, and as much as liberals keep saying that people will “come around” or that “how they ask the question” are making the numbers smaller than they actually, I’ve never seen a significant number of people be in favor of defunding.

And why I think Bush will never negotiate is that last poll – 58% felt that Congress was fully or partly responsible for Bush’s veto (or, more correctly, that they didn’t pass a bill that he wouldn’t veto). Why would that change now, especially since there has been no movement (and possibly even a regression) on the idea that Congress should just withhold funding.

As I’ve long said, this is probably going to be all or nothing. Either Congress will refuse to fund, or they’ll have to give in to Bush, because Bush feels – and I think legitimately so – that he can win a showdown with Congress on withholding funding and so he won’t give in to anything less than what he wants. It’s just depends whether Democrats want to risk their 2008 hopes on drawing a line in the sand in regards to funding.

And Despite liberal blogs saying that Congress’ 11% approval ratings are a dire warning that everyone hates the democrat’s guts, that doesn’t appear true. As I’ve mentioned before, Democrat’s lead on both the generic congressional ballot, as well as who people trust to do more with Iraq – as well in favor of democrats.

And if you actually look at the approval of Democrats in Congress and not Congress in general, that 11% approval number suddenly jumps to 31% with 57% disapproving (and probably a good half of those are pro-war republicans with the rest probably being strongly anti-war democrats) according to a CBS News poll.

Wasn’t there some law that was supposed to stop this?

Wasn’t Bush’s cut down the forest to save the trees initiative supposed to stop things like huge fires destroying the west?

GOP Congressmen: Lose-Lose Situation on Iraq

This is an interesting article in the LA Times on why the expected GOP turn against the war in Congress didn’t materialize in September:

Across the country, other Republican lawmakers who have broken with over the war are under fire from party loyalists.

…

Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change.

“Republicans have to be cognizant of where their base is,” said pollster Bob Wickers, whose company has worked with Republican candidates in a dozen states in recent years.

While most Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq, Republicans remain solidly behind the president and the war. A recent CBS News survey found 58% of Republicans approve of the way Bush is handling the war, compared with just 5% of Democrats and 20% of independents.

GOP politicians have defied that sentiment at their peril.

That’s pretty sad if you think about it. The GOP base is willing to force their party into a 2nd crushing defeat in a row, just so that they can feel like Manly Men™.

The one single, faint hope with all this is that once GOP primaries are over, in an attempt to save their skins in November, GOP congressmen will start turning hard against the war.  However, we thought they’d do that before and they haven’t, so I’m not sure such a move could be described as “expected,” though I could see it.

Otherwise, GOP Congressmen are facing either defeat in their primaries or defeat in the general election.  Obviously either one has the same result, and if some of these anti-war Republicans lose in primaries, it may give the Democratic Party even more opportunities to pick up seats.

Hat tip to TPM.

Mukasey – a second look

I’m starting to agree with Crooks and Liars on this. Mukasey’s first day: Good. Mukasey’s second day: not so good.

The only question is whether can we get anyone better – the Senate is, after all, ultimately at the mercy of President Bush when it comes to what nominees they can review – and if the Senate can’t get anyone better, is Mukasey better than the acting Attorney General that’s currently in place?

It’s situations like these that get the liberal base of the party’s panties in a twist whenever the Senate confirms someone, but the Senate may not have any better option. As much as people would like, there is no “have no Attorney General” option as someone will always be at least the acting AG, and the Senate can’t pick who they want to nominate.

So as much as “rejecting nominees until we get a good one” sounds like a great and noble plan, it starts to fall apart if the person who is acting AG is someone completely horrible. And while confirming someone who looks good but may not be good may not get the committees the information they need or stop torture, refusing to confirm someone most definitely won’t result in that.

The Senate is taking a gamble either way. If they confirm Mukasey, they’re basically gambling that Bush wouldn’t nominate anyone better. If they refuse to confirm Mukasey, they’re risking Mukasey being the best they’re gonna get, and if they reject “the best they’re going to get,” then the Senate is screwed.

This is why I’ve said for a long, long, long time that most of what we want to get done will have to wait until 2009 and a democratic president, despite having a Democratic Congress. In the US government it takes two (branches) to tango, and Bush refuses to dance.