It would be useful to know the extent of Mukasey's actual knowledge about official torture policy, or any White House policy for that matter. On the one hand, White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto says Mukasey "has not been read into classified programs and wouldn't be until he has been sworn in as attorney general." And on the other hand, as you note, Mukasey says he won't put the "careers or freedom [of interrogators] at risk simply because I want to be congenial." So which is it? His words sound like someone "read into" policy to some degree else his evasive defense makes little sense. Much like the secret wiretapping program, the White House--and its nominee-- withholds information, on some level, from Congress even while expecting Congressional approval for said nominee and program, preferably with no questions asked.

That end-of-September poll, along with past polling data, illustrates again the dislocation between reality and the fantastical world of the Beltway. It's as if the Democrats fear a backlash from a public that doesn't exist and is oblivious to the demands of the one that does. Perhaps they're receiving their polling data only from Republicans now.

When all else fails--as in, gee, I really can't think of an effective way to make my argument--invoke the specter of Hitler and the Nazis. I suppose this has replaced Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

So President Bush, like a recalcitrant schoolboy, is frustrated at not getting his way after six years of beating up the substitute teacher. The Democrats have had a full year to box his ears but have chosen the meeker path of the newly minted first year teacher. But now, perhaps, they've learned a few things about bullies. Congress, show that ruler, smack the desk a few times, and start teaching. Finals are in one year.

Too bad Gillespie chose the phrase "less than a year ago" regarding that vote else he might have had something. A savvy reporter would've leaped at that and asked, "oh, that vote was taken after Democrats took control of the Senate?" As for the "we don't know [that waterboarding] is used by the government," again a reporter might have wondered aloud, "then why was that vote you mentioned rejected by the Senate?" Gillespie's clever, clever only demonstrates how on-the-same-page Mukasey is.

The reporter didn't claim, as Perino argued, that Hughes' "achievements" were responsible for the Pew polling data. But the outgoing undersecretary certainly doesn't help matters. Hughes' rhetorical skills were on display at her final press conference today where, asked if last month's shooting deaths of 17 Iraqis would affect Muslim opinion of the U.S., she observed--with all the compassion she could presumably muster--"negative events never help."

The Cheney/Addington marriage that gave birth to this twisted minority report and its belief in an imperial presidency puts paid to the fiction, from this Administration's perspective, of separation of powers. The report, its authors and conclusions are now commonly known and no longer the stuff of dusty archives. And this awareness, in conjunction with Mr. Mukasey's sorry, weak-kneed responses meant to sound impressively like those of a sharp legal mind, ought to be sufficient to any member of Congress (but especially those on the Judiciary Committee) to strike his nomination with the sharp blow of rejection. If necessary, they should hold up to ridicule the words of these two who inhabit the Vice-President's office, these well-regarded Constitutional scholars who opine on matters of presidential authority and congressional limits. It's not the place of the President to determine which laws are worthy of being obeyed nor is it the place of Cheney and Addington to determine the scope of constitutional executive authority. That power belongs to the judicial branch of government despite the opinion issued from the bench of the Vice President.

Of course it's the deficit that's supposed to decline over the next five years, not the debt as Duncan claims. Not that it matters in any case since this stuff is really about demographics. As Baby Boomers retire Social Security, and especially Medicare, shoot upward where the sky's the limit. Of course, by then people like Bush and Duncan will be history--and so, too, will be the benefits I just mentioned.

Of his vote-to-come, Schumer says, "I'm not going to have a public discussion on it." God forbid we have a public discussion about the public's business.

Of course the sudden upsurge in outrage over waterboarding is artificial. These are politicians who, as we know, follow the public rather than lead them. The complicity of the Democrats over the past six years is clear and indefensible. They behaved so because they feared the "weak on terror" slurs reflexively shouted by Republicans. This is the same thing as saying they did not believe--in a political context, let it be noted, and certainly not driven by conviction--that opposition existed in sufficient numbers to support rejection of such policies. So the current makeover ought not to come as a surprise. The very air scents with opposition and happily the polls confirm it. The lesson here is that public engagement is the ignition for political change. We know the path we take in its absence.

It's remarkable that a State Dept. official would be so flippant about a disintegrating--and nuclear armed-- Pakistan. It's less remarkable but no less ridiculous to hear Sec.y Rice say "I think his decision sets Pakistan back in the considerable progress it made toward democratic change." Does that progress include the military coup that brought Musharraf to power some eight years ago? Woe is us, I'm thinking.