Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat on the committee, said in an interview that despite reservations about Mr. Gonzales, he is likely to be confirmed and with broad Democratic support.
Mr. Schumer said the threshold for winning confirmation to a president's cabinet was far lower than for lifetime nominations to the Supreme Court, which have produced intense battles. "Generally, for an executive branch position the president gets the benefit of the doubt," he said. "The general feeling on the committee is that he has probably met that lowered threshold."
As I noted in the past, another member of committee, Sen. Leahy (minority chairman) also noted that our future attorney general was a fine guy with a lot going for him. As Prof. Froomkin notes:
There is of course an element of political calculation here. Many chickenhearted Senators believe that they expend political capital by opposing cabinet nominations, when in fact opposing the right ones may create it. But even if I'm wrong about that, for some things - torture, fundamental constitutional principles* - the calculations should be left aside.
As far as I?m concerned, Congress was almost as much to blame for Iraq as Bush ? they wrote him a blank check, with the Gulf of Tonkin precedent sitting there in front of them. If there isn?t some serious attempt in Congress to come to grips with the torture scandal in the next year, then some of the torture dirt will stick to them as well.
But, hey, no need to rely on anti-administration law professors to make the case:
A dozen high-ranking retired military officers took the unusual step yesterday of signing a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing "deep concern" over the nomination of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general, marking a rare military foray into the debate over a civilian post. ....
In addition to Shalikashvili, other prominent signatories to the letter include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former chief of the Central Command; former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak; and Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, the Army's first female three-star general. Several, including Shalikashvili, supported the failed presidential candidacy of Democrat John F. Kerry.
Yeah, I know ... the support of the "failed presidential candidacy" (pointless info alert!) suggests their judgment is open to question. Still, this is not your run of the mill interest group brief, but a sign of how the professionals (you know, the adults) think something seriously wrong is going on here.
Thus, it is up to the Democrats to have a different mind-set than seems apparent in recent times -- more of a give no quarter philosophy. Many are pushing for this on the Social Security issue, and the value of money over the health and lives of foreigners [and the inability to risk being called anti-patriotic for opposing arguably unconstitutional, but clearly stupid wars] suggests it might catch on there first, but it should be a general theme.
Surely, it should be in certain choice battles, and this is one of them. On substantive and strategy grounds, it makes sense to oppose this nomination fully, and this includes not lumping him with your typical Cabinet nominee or supplying gratuitous praise that will surely be used by the administration's forces. It surely, of course, means voting against the guy ... even if the final vote will be 60-40 (usual suspects crossing party lines) or whatever.
We can take this further, though I know it might be asking a lot, and apply it to Condi Rice. Rice will replace the Colin Powell as Secretary of State, the guy who was used to relieve the minds of various moderates in 2000 ... and was basically ignored as he played the loyal good dissenting soldier. It was State by the way that opposed the original administrative stance on torture, both on policy and justice grounds. OTOH, it was Rice who was not only a loyal soldier, but not that good of a National Security Advisor.
The word for '05 is "guts."
---
* An analysis of the latest "torture memoranda," which is mostly laudatory, can be found here. The NYT article cited above also referenced to one complaint that I heard about the use of the charge that the administration thinks the Geneva Conventions are "quaint." It is worthy of extended quotation:
He described the conventions as "quaint" because he said they required "that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms and scientific instruments."
White House officials said that Mr. Gonzales expected to be questioned closely about the memorandums on detainee treatment and that they did not believe his nomination was in any jeopardy. One official said the word "quaint" referred to the items the prisoners should receive but not to the protections themselves.
But the language in Mr. Gonzales's memorandum appears to misstate the nature of the provision to make the conventions seem unduly soft. The conventions do not require that prisoners of war be given items like athletic uniforms and scientific instruments but that the authorities allow such items to be received in the mail.
A commissary and scrip are not requirements, but if they exist they must conform to regulations in the conventions.
Fair and critical. See, Mr. and Ms. reporter, it's quite possible to be both.