Leahy to announce whether he will vote for Mukasey, today at 3 pm

<snip>

All that said, Sen. Leahy has announced that he will reveal his position on Mukasey today at 3 PM. And if he decides to support Mukasey (the most Leahy has said so far is that he's "concerned"), a lot of pressure would be off Schumer. But as The New York Times notes, no one has been in a rush to rescue him:

Mr. Leahy is one of several lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who seem to be quietly enjoying the spectacle of Mr. Schumer in this political predicament.
Mr. Leahy, smiling broadly outside the Senate chamber on Thursday, refrained from needling Mr. Schumer. “I don’t think I have ever seen him in a pickle,” he said.


Note: There was a crucial aside in the Post's piece this morning. And that was that if a yes-no vote on Mukasey fails, "Judiciary Republicans are likely to seek to forward the nomination with a neutral or negative recommendation to the full Senate for a confirmation vote." In other words (as we explained yesterday), if the votes aren't there for Mukasey to pass with a straight yes-no vote, it's still possible that Mukasey could go to the full Senate for a vote, where his confirmation is virtually assured.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004628.php


I just want to add, that I'm hopeful that he'll vote no. I heard him on vpr the other night and he used some very strong language.

Who is going to face the wrath of the Democrats, especially those here on DU?

I KNOW THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO CAVE!!!

Will it be Leahy or Schumer?

or Feinstein- or even Feingold, than Leahy. As I said, I heard him the night before last on vpr and he did everything short of saying he wouldn't vote for him. I hope I'm right.

It only takes 1 Democrat to turn this thing in *'s favor, right?

I assume he has enough to pass the whole Senate, so long as they get 1 Democrat other than Joe on their side.

prerogative.

Somehow I can't imagine it would be Feingold that tips this in IDIOT'S favor.

"As all of my colleagues on this Committee know, I believe that Presidents are entitled to a great deal of deference in their cabinet nominations."

He voted for Roberts, but not Alito, Ashcroft, but not Gonzales. several fed judges that weren't great. I don't think either Leahy or Feingold will vote him out of committee, but it's a possibility.

Casting a vote that effectively tips this in *'s favor, is quite another.

I never thought I'd say this, but Ashcroft turned out to be far superior than Gonzales. At least Ashcroft stood up to the King, while Gonzales stood at his bedside practically forcing him to sign something he didn't think was legal.

6 years ago I could never have imagined I'd feel nostalgic for Ashcroft.

I wrote to him (he's my senator) yesterday urging him to vote against Mukasey. Maybe he's starting to realize that Bush is incapable of appointing anyone who isn't just a yes-man for him.

"As all of my colleagues on this Committee know, I believe that Presidents are entitled to a great deal of deference in their cabinet nominations."

He voted for Roberts, but not Alito, Ashcroft, but not Gonzales. several fed judges that weren't great. I don't think either Leahy or Feingold will vote him out of committee, but it's a possibility.
"the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled

Leahy also voted for Roberts but voted against Ashcroft and several judges that Feingold voted for.

Though I believe he voted against Gonzales. I could be wrong on that.

He has shown a complete inability to nominate anybody who is competant.

maybe he can quietly talk Schumer over too.

I really believe he believes the DoJ doesn't need someone like this Murkasey toady to be in charge.