Posted by Damozel | TPM provides an answer to the question raised by D. Cupples yesterday: How---or why---did the Democrats permit the confirmation of Michael =Mukasey to happen so resistlessly? (Vote discussed here). Why no filibuster? You'll be relieved---or will you?--- to know that there was, at least allegedly, a strategy and a negotiation, during which Reid bargained with Republican leaders to obtain certain concessions advantageous to the Democrats.
According to TPM---assuming I read it aright---Democrats let Mukasey happen to Democratic voters in order to procure a political advantage.
The aforesaid advantage consisted in being able to time an appropriations bill that they hope they can use as a shield against criticism by the GOP. And that bill did in fact pass.
According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (TPM)
Reid had wanted to get this bill passed before the end of this week, and in fact, the defense bill did come up for a vote late last night and was passed after the Mukasey vote.
One key reason Dem leaders wanted this defense approps bill passed, sources tell me, is that they wanted to be able to argue that they had sent a bill to the President funding the military, if not the war itself....
Reid went into this week with a few primary goals in mind: Get a massive $286 billion farm bill through the Senate, and get action on the Defense Appropriations Bill....Reid entered into closed-door negotiations over the Mukasey confirmation with his Republican counterparts; Reid hoped to use the talks to win quick action on the farm and defense approps bills, sources said. (TPM)
There wasn't a filibuster because the Dems either didn't want it or didn't think it would work, or both
What of the talk that Reid might allow a filibuster of the Mukasey confirmation vote? Asked why this didn't happen, a leadership source claimed that it was because Dem leaders were convinced that Repubs would be able to break off enough Dems to reach the 60 vote threshold and defeat the filibuster.
"They would have gotten 60," the leadership source says, adding: "Some on the Democratic side honestly fundamentally don't believe in filibustering cabinet secretaries. We are on the cusp of a new administration, and we think it will be a Democratic one. Filibustering here would have set a bad precedent." (TPM)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. As TPM points out, the Republicans couldn't care less about precedent; "indeed, they've already been filibustering like nothing else."(TPM)
TPM suggests that there was no filibuster because they wanted that defense appropriations bill to go through, principally because they believe---or allegedly believe---that it will put them in a better position against criticism by the GOP. So the decision was simply politics as usual because---presumably---even those who voted against him don't think the concerns expressed by Senator Patrick Leahy and Feingold are as important as protecting themselves from attacks by Republicans on this appropriations bill.
Critics will point out that Dem worry about GOP attacks was hardly a good enough reason to wave the Mukasey vote through.(TPM)
Yes, I imagine that "critics" will simply see this as a further instance of spinelessness.
Discussion on Memeorandum here.
Discussion by: The Agonist, CANNONFIRE, DownWithTyranny! and Seeing the Forest
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
Mukasey's Views on Torture: More Flexible than Advertised
AG Nominee Mukasey Calls Torture "Antithetical to What America Stands for"
I say 'Torture'; You Say 'Harsh Interrogation Techniques'.... (Updated)
Bush's Nominee for Attorney General: One Democrat's Perspective
LINKED
Reid Allowed Vote On Mukasey In Exchange For Military Funding Bill (TPM)
Democrats, afraid that the GOP will accuse them of "not supporting the troops," continue to fund the war. Troops die. Iraqis die. Iraqis are displaced from their homes. While Democrats are afraid of a completely untrue, ridiculous accusation. Not funding the war = no more troops die. Funding the war = troops die. I mean, WTF? Who is or isn't supporting the troops?
NOBODY can tell me, with a straight face, that bringing troops home is NOT supporting the troops.
Why don't Democrats just laugh at this kind of criticism, and move on? More than half the nation wants to end the war and bring the troops home. So exactly how is the GOP criticism going to hurt the Dems?
So we approve Mukasey, douchebag Mr. 911's former campaign crony. AND, in exchange for that, the GOP LETS us fund the military SOME MORE. Yay!
This military funding bill will not give the DEM leadership any edge when fighting Bush against more military funding. The Dems won't say, "We already gave you $450 billion." They'll say, "You want us to jump? How high?"
Posted by: Omyword! | November 11, 2007 at 04:24 AM