GOP on Mukasey nomination: ‘We’re in an alternate universe’

I think the right-wing frothbots would settle for a steaming dish of ideologue and skip the competent part. They don’t want competent, they want obedient and stupid. (“Hello, Mr. Gonzales!”)

Let the far right fuckheads blather on, demonstrating what bone-headed nitwits they are as they prove the existence of two species of human on the planet: homo sapiens (us) and homo sap (them). Watching them try to figure out how they got snookered (again) is amusing.

It’s too soon to know the WH game. Have they selected someone who is weak, and easily led? WDo they want him to not get confirmed because they have a fire eating ideologue waiting in the wings? Is this a genuine attempt at moderation in the face of a different congressional environment? In this post-Rove WH there may be some attempts at actually governing, but it seems just so unlikely.

The NY Southern District is a very busy court, and definitely not a right-wing hotbed. This nominee may be just a place holder to get through the next sixteen months. He may not have enough fingers to plug all the holes in the dike.

“It also isn’t obvious that he has the management or political skills to run an institution as big and unwieldy as DoJ – the same shortcoming that arguably led to Judge Gonzales’ difficulties,” a conservative lawyer told the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez.

I will make no value judgement on the new nominee’s management/political skills, but pretty much no one in the Bush administration has been up to the job they were nominated for.

Very, very close, petorado (though I like the way you think). The GOP’s sole purpose is to assert, obtain, exercise, and retain political power, and doing the stupidest, most destructive things in the world just happens to be the best way for them to prove to themselves that they’re protecting their political power. “Look, I can do whatever I want, and nobody can stop me! Ha-ha!”

The fact that this often annoys Democrats, however, constitutes *proof* to them that they’re doing the right thing, because when Republicans *don’t* have as much political power as they want, that’s how *they* feel, so if Democrats are annoyed at them, Republicans *must* be doing something right.

god forbid republican senators should have to think for themselves without the wingnuts telling them what to do!

“I am not prepared to delude myself into believing…”

At least Mark Levin admits what he and other wingnuts do on a regular basis: They deliberately delude themselves into believing things.

Contented Conservative Holding Four Aces: I am afraid I have to take issue with your citified, pardon the pun, tastes and aspirations, The Carpetbagger Report. If the country wants this, why can’t the country get it?

Always from a liberal.

Now my head really hurts. 🙁

I think the person to keep a watchful eye on is Peter Keisler, whom Bush elevated to be acting AG in place of Paul Clement, because Clement needs to get ready for the Supreme Court’s upcoming term (did Bush forget about that when he named Clement to be acting AG?).

Keisler is a co-founder of the Federalist Society, led the fight against giving habeas rights to Gitmo detainees, and was allegedly involved in pressuring a career prosecutor in the tobacco case, and has fought to prevent whistleblowers from having protections because it would undermine national security…his name has been submitted 3 times for a federal judgeship, and twice been rejected. His current nomination is still pending. He recently resigned from DOJ to “spend more time with his family,” but has agreed to come out of retirement to serve as acting AG.

Now, doesn’t he sound like exactly the kind of person we need to remove from every nook and cranny of the DOJ? It may be an incentive for Mukasey to be confirmed quickly, but I would like to know whether Keisler will step down once Mukasey is confirmed. If he stays on, I think it will be a clear sign that Mukasey will be nothing but a figurehead, and Keisler will be in place to keep the good work of Gonzales going.

And we will have been punk’d once again.

Preemptive confession: Yes, I *know* “What Digby said.” is generally the easy way to get credit for writing concisely about an issue, but it’s not very, well, creative. On the other hand, as is quite often the case, it’s pretty damn apt here.

“Pat Leahy says that he’s going to hold up the confirmation hearings until the administration releases all the documents its been refusing to release. In response, Bush has appointed a terrible wingnut as acting AG, probably to try to force Leahy’s hand.” (Digby, earlier this evening)

I suppose the next question is, will Leahy & Co. issue contempt citations? This *ain’t* just horsetrading; this is the definition or erasure of Congress’s status as a co-equal branch of government.

“Why is it that every time I see the word consensus used by a liberal I read ’surrender?’”

This has been the unofficial motto of the Bush Administration for the last 7 years and it’s sent our country to HELL in a handbasket.

When I read things like this from conservatives, I wonder who the hell they are and what country they grew up in. Was I the only one paying attention to my High School government class when the whole concepts of “democracy” and “representative government” and “checks and balances” were discussed?

Statements like that make it clear that they aren’t “conservatives” in the manner that political scientists like to classify liberals and conservatives. At best they’re people who think of politics as some kind of spectator sport where they get to cheer when their “side” scores points. At worst they’re jackboot authoritarians who want to see the opposition crushed under the heel of a strong leader.

I swear, people like that make it hard for me maintain my beliefs in “one person, one vote” forms of government. Sometimes I wonder if there aren’t some people who really are just too stupid to vote.