And here's how the dysfunctional Democrats screwed it up, according to Ed Morrisey:

Instead of appointing Ted Olson, the apparent first choice of the White House, Schumer pushed for Mukasey as a "consensus candidate" -- and won.

If the Democrats had left it at that, they could have claimed a significant victory over the White House. Instead, they engaged in a fruitless colloquy over whether waterboarding was illegal -- when Congress has the power to make it explicitly illegal at any time. Not only did that irony escape them, but towards the end of the debate, the White House announced that only three detainees had ever been waterboarded, and the practice was forbidden after 2003 in any case.

Leading Democrats demanded the withdrawal of Mukasey anyway. All of the Democratic presidential candidates insisted on it. The Bush administration made clear that the AG post would get filled in the recess if Mukasey didn't win confirmation, and likely by someone a lot less palatable than Mukasey. Schumer, who pushed Mukasey in the first place, had to find a wingman in Feinstein to get the Democrats out of the large hole in which he'd placed them.

Instead of looking like they control the appointment process, this exercise just confirms for the Democratic Party base that their Congress has assumed a mostly-supine position vis-a-vis George Bush. What an absurd piece of political theater. As Casey Stengel once said of the Mets, can't anyone in the Senate Democratic caucus play this game?

And here's how the dysfunctional Democrats screwed it up, according to Ed Morrisey:

Instead of appointing Ted Olson, the apparent first choice of the White House, Schumer pushed for Mukasey as a "consensus candidate" -- and won.

If the Democrats had left it at that, they could have claimed a significant victory over the White House. Instead, they engaged in a fruitless colloquy over whether waterboarding was illegal -- when Congress has the power to make it explicitly illegal at any time. Not only did that irony escape them, but towards the end of the debate, the White House announced that only three detainees had ever been waterboarded, and the practice was forbidden after 2003 in any case.

Leading Democrats demanded the withdrawal of Mukasey anyway. All of the Democratic presidential candidates insisted on it. The Bush administration made clear that the AG post would get filled in the recess if Mukasey didn't win confirmation, and likely by someone a lot less palatable than Mukasey. Schumer, who pushed Mukasey in the first place, had to find a wingman in Feinstein to get the Democrats out of the large hole in which he'd placed them.

Instead of looking like they control the appointment process, this exercise just confirms for the Democratic Party base that their Congress has assumed a mostly-supine position vis-a-vis George Bush. What an absurd piece of political theater. As Casey Stengel once said of the Mets, can't anyone in the Senate Democratic caucus play this game?

It's pretty simple. You make a law against it. So why haven't they? Maybe they'd just rather yammer endlessly about it instead. Kinda like here at Salon.

It's pretty simple. You make a law against it. So why haven't they? Maybe they'd just rather yammer endlessly about it instead. Kinda like here at Salon.

I'm really not upset. More like bored. I posted the only thoughtful article on waterboarding that I've been able to find about ten sets of comments back, if you're interested. It's called "Waterboading and Hiroshima: Did the Allies in World War II "lower themselves to the level of their enemies?"

It was from an article posted at real clear politics earlier today. And it blew me away with it's historical perspective -- something I haven't found in -- what -- five days of Joan Walsh rehashes on the evils of waterboarding at Salon? Not to mention the new video feature. Yippee!

The fact is, if the Democratic Congress wants to make waterboarding illegal they CAN, simply by legislating against it. So do it already.

It's just gotten so tedious here lately. Nothing but shouting and BDS gone wild.

"As I was wrapping up this post I noticed that Bush's disapproval rating is now higher than Richard Nixon's at his worst. Imagine how Schumer and Feinstein would be groveling if they had to deal with a lawless president who was popular too."

Polls have rated the performance of our Deomocratic Congress lower than Bush's for some time now, Joan. Wake up and smell the Starbucks.

Ed Morrisey put it simply:

Instead of appointing Ted Olson, the apparent first choice of the White House, Schumer pushed for Mukasey as a "consensus candidate" -- and won.

If the Democrats had left it at that, they could have claimed a significant victory over the White House. Instead, they engaged in a fruitless colloquy over whether waterboarding was illegal -- when Congress has the power to make it explicitly illegal at any time. Not only did that irony escape them, but towards the end of the debate, the White House announced that only three detainees had ever been waterboarded, and the practice was forbidden after 2003 in any case.

Leading Democrats demanded the withdrawal of Mukasey anyway. All of the Democratic presidential candidates insisted on it. The Bush administration made clear that the AG post would get filled in the recess if Mukasey didn't win confirmation, and likely by someone a lot less palatable than Mukasey. Schumer, who pushed Mukasey in the first place, had to find a wingman in Feinstein to get the Democrats out of the large hole in which he'd placed them.

Instead of looking like they control the appointment process, this exercise just confirms for the Democratic Party base that their Congress has assumed a mostly-supine position vis-a-vis George Bush. What an absurd piece of political theater. As Casey Stengel once said of the Mets, can't anyone in the Senate Democratic caucus play this game?

that was almost amusing. Z-z-z-z-z-z