in which I'm not so much worked up about Mukasey getting confirmed as I am about the individual Dems voting for it.  I'm not sure of the logic behind this position, or if there is such a logic, but basically my thinking is, he's going to get through, and on an instrumental level that might not suck any more than the alternatives, so I'm not so much focused on him specifically.  But I still think it's an example of horrifically bad judgment by any Dem who votes for him, and I'm pissed at them for that.

Bush and his surrogates are going to be running the AG office unchecked with or without Mukasey holding the title.

With Mukasey holding the title, the already underperforming Congress gets time to throw up its hands at the ongoing DOJ disaster, and claim the "new AG" needs time to work on the problems.

Without Mukasey holding the title, there is no such excuse, and the ongoing DOJ disaster remains on their plate, to either fester or be addressed on their watch, where it belongs.

The DOJ needs to be put in receivership, and pretending all's well by sweeping it under some new AG's rug just doesn't cut it.

Gonzales' resignation was taken by this Congress as a signal that the DOJ wasn't going to present a problem for them any more. Mukasey's confirmation -- indeed anyone's confirmation -- will only compound that.

As soon as there's a name with the title, Congress will wash its hands of the problems there, except to the extent that individual Members can generate some positive press by bashing the new sucker, or the DOJ in general if it's "too soon" to hit Mukasey.

Feingold's reasoning here is consistent, no doubt. But consistency has to be worth something in order to be commendable.

If you're sitting with both thumbs up your ass when someone tosses you a ball, do you keep your thumbs where they are for the sake of "consistency?"