How completely through the looking glass is this "administration?" The nomination now pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee for Attorney General serves to crystallize the issue by shattering all meaning behind two comfortable platitudes that used to function to satisfy all onlookers that all was right in Heaven.
First, there was the assurance from the nominee and his supporters that he'd respect the "rule of law." That used to be a fine phrase to toss out there without having to worry about it meaning too much one way or the other, until we learned that everything we once thought was a "law" was now a "hypothetical."
And now Senator Russ Feingold is testing the limits of the remaining currency of another shopworn but previously serviceable platitude -- the old throwaway explanation for a bad vote on a nominee:
He may be the best nominee we can get from this administration in this respect.
Senator, I'm afraid I'm going to have to challenge you on that. This "administration" has taken us well past the point where stock phrasing will be sufficient.
You must explain to us what -- given the limitless view of executive power Judge Mukasey has endorsed -- his being "the best nominee we can get" even means, and why anyone, including you, should care about that.
Specifically what purpose of George Bush's is it that you believe will be unduly frustrated by the rejection of Mukasey? And given this president's proclivity for ignoring the law when it suits him, does the lack of an attorney general confirmed by the Senate realistically present any obstacle to that purpose?
UPDATE: Apparently, that's a question we'll have to ask Senators Feinstein and Schumer, as well.
UPDATE II: Worse by far, Feinstein and Schumer actually say they'll vote yes. This is unconscionable.