Dodd To Vote Against Mukasey for Attorney General
Chris Dodd has just become the first Democrat to say he's voting against Michael Mukasey for AG. His reason: Mukasey's assertion that the President can overrule a Federal statute when the country's defenses are at risk.
Dodd's campaign emails over the following statement:
"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."
As on FISA, Dodd is again staking out a forward position on a critical legal and Constitutional question facing the country in a way sure to win him plaudits from Dem activists. What will the other Dem Senators running for President say on this?
Comments (18)
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 10:36 AM:Dodd was on "Meet the Press" yesterday and is at ZERO % in the polls (even Stephen Colbert is at 2.3%). Enough Democrats will vote for Mukasey (not "Musakey", Greg) to confirm -- will you liberals revolt at that point? Didn't think so.
wrapper wrote on October 29, 2007 10:50 AM:Looks like it's time to send the third $50 check to the good Senator.
Nancy wrote on October 29, 2007 11:01 AM:With these two important initiatives, Dodd is illustrating true leadership to Democrats and the vital importance of his and other marginal candidacies. We need his voice on the national stage even if he hasn't a prayer of electoral victory.
audit the polls wrote on October 29, 2007 11:02 AM:the only reason Bush hasn't been impeached is his time is coming to a close. Allowing him to appoint this crook to AG would be a horror. God bless Dodd.
Jack D, please stop using phony corporate polls to boost corporate agendas. Meet the Press is owned by GE.
Daniel wrote on October 29, 2007 11:04 AM:Chris Dodd has emerged as quite a surprise in the Democratic primary. In September he announced his support for lifting the embargo on Cuba. He followed that up by leading on the issue of Iraq throughout September, being the first presidential candidate to announce he would oppose any bill that would not set firm deadline for withdrawal. Then came his promise to filibuster the FISA bill if the immunity for telephone companies is maintained.
Robbo wrote on October 29, 2007 11:36 AM:Sweet. He continues to get it right--and he continues to be completely invisible to the national press. What's wrong here?
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 11:40 AM:That's right, all polls are phony -- back to the topic of voting for Attorney General: if Hillary votes to confirm Musakey, will you libs pledge not to vote for her on November 4, 2008?
Jazmac wrote on October 29, 2007 12:19 PM:Yes.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 12:24 PM:Thank you, Jazmac, for standing by your principles -- do I hear another?
audit the polls wrote on October 29, 2007 12:34 PM:not if rudy steals the nomination, but what am I saying? I live in NY. My vote doesn't count, thanks to the electoral college,
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 12:44 PM:May I remind you all that the OTHER Senator from New York recommended Mukasey for the job?
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01772.html
There's no way that Makasey won't be confirmed -- the Dems are simply delaying the inevitable -- I hope then you will finally understand that they have betrayed you.
bob wrote on October 29, 2007 12:49 PM:I think it's pretty obvious that all of the Dem candidates for President will end up voting against Mukasey. After his answers on torture and executive power, they simply have no choice if they want to continue running viable campaigns. Obama can't afford to anger his voters again right when he is starting to get some traction in Iowa, and Clinton will move in lockstep in order to avoid allowing any space in between them.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 12:55 PM:So, bob, if Hillary votes to confirm Mukasey, will you pledge not to vote for her on November 4, 2008?
Todd wrote on October 29, 2007 1:10 PM:I love the comments from Jake - it's always so black and white for the Limbaugh lovers. I don't like Mukaskey or Hillary particularly, but I do agree with them on some issues. I do like a lot, but not all, of Dodd's positions. I can even find things I like about GWB for Christ's sake. But unless I agree with the individual on EVERY single point, I am not standing by my principles. The fact that so many principled republicans share Giuliani,Thompson, GWB and Cheney et al's principles EXACTLY is frightening. Every democrat I know would be open to the idea of CONSIDERING a pro-life Democratic candidate if they felt that that individual's other traits made them a worthy candidate. The nature of politics is compromise. This aint so on the right...
In the end, us liberals will have to make some compromises, because no one candidate reflects the entire electorate's opinions all of the time - unless he (or she) is a Republican, of course.
Jake D. wrote on October 29, 2007 1:15 PM:Todd:
I love your posts as well -- no one is perfect, even Rush Limbaugh, but it is clear that enough Democrats will vote for Mukasey to confirm -- I'm simply asking if this is the straw that breaks the liberals' backs: will you finally wake up and realize the Dems have betrayed you?
audit the polls wrote on October 29, 2007 1:51 PM:jack d yeah, I realize the dems have betrayed us. Our system sucks. We need more than 2 parties. One only has to be fractionally better than the other to a fraction of 1 or 2 states to take power.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 29, 2007 4:05 PM:First: Thank you, Senator Dodd for seeing the wisdom in joining with Senator Sanders on this point.
Second: Does anyone think that Dodd needs do the right thing about the trade deal with Peru and add his voice to John Edwards in decrying the destructive nature of such a deal . . . Or should he join the Clinton Corporate Conspiritors Club and advocate for further trashing of America's economic future?
Third: Do you think Jake D. would be so quick to support waterboard as a conversation tool if his wife . . . No, that is absurb. Who would marry him and not have already murdered or bobbetted him in his sleep . . . His dog . . . No, that's absurb. There is zero evidence that he would care one iota for anything dependant on him or anything else . . . His own sorry back-side . . . No, that's absurd. He obviously enjoys being battered and would probably bring his own ball-gag . . . I guess I got no point on #3. Sigh.
readerOfTeaLeaves wrote on October 29, 2007 9:16 PM:So nice to see from Jake D's comments that 'bullying and threatening' are still in vogue on blog comments, despite the fact that Rove is no longer a WH employee.
Leadership doesn't always look like 'instant victory'. Bush and Rove have run up a long list of Pyrrhic victories; maybe Jake D's judgment has been affected by too many years of watching long term losses be 'marketed' and reported as short term gains.
Mukasey was a refreshing change after Lying Gonzo, but Dodd's performing a significant national service. And I strongly suspect that he has the full membership of the American Bar Association at his back.
I'd not paid much attention to Dodd's candidacy, he's showing 'principled leadership'. NO ONE was articulating this issue until Dodd stuck his political neck out on the basis of principle, and he's already changed the views of many.
Hats off to Dodd.
