Carol Platt Liebau: Bipartisanship, Democratic Style

Monday, September 17, 2007

Bipartisanship, Democratic Style

Didn't take long, did it? After President Bush chooses a nominee for Attorney General that's designed to please the Democrats, Senators Leahy and Schumer threaten to hold up his confirmation anyway, until they get some documents they've been seeking.

One can only hope that President Bush really wanted Judge Mukasey for AG. Otherwise, it must be deeply disappointing to be stuck with a confirmation headache for someone that wasn't really his first choice. At that rate, he could have stuck with Ted Olson.

Coming next? The Democrats threaten not to confirm the nominee unless and until he promises to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the US attorneys non-scandal.


Blogger Earth to Carol said...

Bush should turn over the e-mails and let Congress complete its oversight. If Rove did nothing wrong, he has nothing to hide.

5:17 AM  
Blogger Chepe Noyon said...

Oh deary me! Democrats are using their political power to get the President to comply with Senate requests for information appropriate to their Constitutional responsibility for oversight. How rude of them!

Bipartisanship means working together to solve problems, not playing political hardball. Mr. Bush is playing hardball by refusing to turn over documents that the Senate has every right to see, and the Senate is playing hardball right back.

Bipartisanship is a two-way street. If the Democrats are the only ones you expect to behave in a bipartisan fashion, then you aren't being bipartisan.

10:34 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

This from the woman who has never weighed in on the fairness of the "blue-slip rule," the arcane technicality that Orrin Hack used to single-handedly kill dozens of Clinton's nominees to the federal bench. Nope, nothing but complicit silence regarding that partisan maneuver.

Now, when it comes to Democratic senators wanting to use a nominee's confirmation as leverage to gain President Shred-n-Deny's compliance with that little thing called Congressional oversight -- 'Gasp! Look what those cretins are up to now!'

10:07 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

My memory may be confused on this issue, so I'm aware that I may be wrong about this.

But isn't it true that the Democrats in the Senate were actually asking for communications that historically have never been required from the Executive Branch? If so, that's a far cry from "documents that the Senate has every right to see".

8:04 AM  
Blogger Chepe Noyon said...

Greg, it is true that some -- some! -- of the documents requested by the Senate fall within the realm that has traditionally be ascribed to executive privilege. However, Mr. Bush has applied broader claims of executive privilege than precedent supports. If it came to a court fight, the Senate would surely win on some -- some! -- of its demands. But nobody wants a court fight and that appears to be what Mr. Bush is counting on. This conflict will be resolved with traditional bare-knuckles politics, such as threatening to hold the confirmation in abeyance until Mr. Bush caves in.

5:40 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Thanks, Chepe.

7:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home