"Technocratic Liberalism Gets the Scalps, But Doesn't Change Policy"
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1017

With this obvious exceptions of Bush and Cheney themselves, since the midterms virtually every major Bush administration figure involved in a major scandal has been forced out. All of these changes were the result of public and congressional pressure on the administration, in the form of elections, congressional investigations, media scandals, and repeatedly low approval ratings.

My first reaction to this list is note that Democratic electoral success and subsequent investigations have led to a significant amount of resignations, but has not resulted in a significant change in Bush administration policy. I think this is connected to progressive campaigns against the Bush administration focusing on individuals committing criminal, incompetent, and unethical acts, rather than on a core set of values as to how government should be run. To put it one way, the progressive campaigns against Bush administration scandals have largely been waged from a practical, technocratic liberal perspective, where the central values of government are not debated and only competence and pragmatic problem solving are foregrounded as values. In other words, progressives seem to be targeting individuals who have engaged in criminal, incompetent and unethical acts, rather than engaging in a attack on the ideological bent of the Bush administration itself.

Of course, while Bowers has perfectly captured what's wrong with how the Democrats have proceeded to date, he has also inadverantly indicated what's different here.

Connect the two unconnected parts Bowers talks about, and you highlight Glenn's most unique and particular strength--he combines the precise description and documentation of the "criminal, incompetent, and unethical acts" with constant reference to the broader framework of "a core set of values" embodied in our constitutional order.

Oh, yeah! Constitutional law! What a concept!

I think the best outcome for the nation is the appointment of a DOJ professional, like Craig Morford. The problem is that the morale of the professionals is down the toilet, to the point that lawyers are starting to make snarky lawyer jokes at their expense in non-professional settings, and that really hurts, because most of them aren't political, just real firebrands about catching wrong-doers.

An earlier commenter says Morford is a Bushista, which, if true, would disqualify him from serving that purpose, but I have never seen anything to say he is anything other than a fine prosecutor with good to excellent administrative credentials.

I haven't read all the posts yet; I can't believe I'd be the first to ask exactly what you mean when you say:

One would hope, though not necessarily expect, that Harry Reid and company would treat that as the serious violation of their agreement that it would be and respond with full retaliation.

At least to judge from recent history, "full retaliation" by the new Demo congress isn't a whole lot for Bush to live in fear of.

...to say the worst possible thing under the circumstances and leave me sure that the Dems will fuck it all up AGAIN.

From that Washington Post article, he says that the “Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations.”

So, they will not “obstruct or impede,” eh? How reassuring. Shumer and his yes men will do everything they can to cooperate with Bush to make sure this whole ordeal goes smoothly for him. They won’t put up a fight. Oh, no. If they were to “obstruct or impede,” the Republicans might call them names, like “partisan” or “politicizers”!

So Schumer is not going to use positive, strong language. He is not going to say “We will do whatever we need to do to restore checks and balances to our broken system”; he is not going to say, “We will fight to make sure another corrupt crony is not appointed to one of the most critical positions in government.”

No, Schumer has given a clear linguistic signal that he will continue to play the same old game.

Chuck Schumer: He can’t even master the Rhetorical Situation, nevermind the Political one.

I applaud Glenn Greenwald for his insightful appraisal of the need for a non-political, thoughtful, intelligent and appropriately experienced attorney to replace the ridiculous Alberto Gomzales. Every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee should receive a copy and be told to read it. How sad that Congress must be suspicious of everything this Administration does. Let the Gonzales fiasco be a warning for the next Admnistration--beware of cronies in high positions.Bravo Mr. Greenwald!

Point taken.

I was actually thinking of Arlen Specter as I wrote my last post but then remembered after posting that Sen. Specter has had nothing like the courage of his convictions lately, nor when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Instead he has been as reliable a water carrier for the Bushies as they could ask: rubber stamping their appointments and keeping dissent to a minimum from the other side of the table. Chairman Leahy seems to be made of different stock and can effectively block any Bush nominee from even coming before the Committee for a hearing. Let's pray he does so, because any nominee from the Inner Circle of the White House is going to be rotten to the core by definition. However I do take pleasure in the fact that two big rats have fled this sinking ship.

Read what Schumer said again...

“Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations.”

Now, read it again...

“Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations.”

If he was going to cave, there was no requirement for Schumer to add the bolded words to his declaration. IOW, as long as they (Dems) are confident the nominee will put the rule of law above political considerations, the Dems won't obstruct the confirmation. If they don't have that confidence, all bets are off and the fight's on. Isn't that all we can ask of them?