I've found the Mukasey confirmation "fight" interesting for a couple of reasons. One, you pointed out under talking points is that a few Democrats finally found a bit of a foundation to stand on: torture = bad.

Chris Dodd even goes one step further. I love his quote in his post-debate article, "We defend the Constitution TO protect the country."

Part of the trouble that Democrats face in this fight is that they've gone too far in accepting the "war on terror". I think if they really want to stand on principle, Democrats need to come up with something else to replace the "war on terror".

Why? Because if we're at war, Bush logic makes sense to a lot of people. The argument goes like this: if we're at war, we should use any means possible to win it. The problem is, this really isn't war. Or it wasn't a war until Bush made it a war. What it should be is more of an extended security assessment.

But many Americans believe in results and using any possible means to achieve them. Especially if we're at war.

That's why I was glad to see Dodd trying to explain his vision that what we really need to do is defend the Constitution to defend America. If our national goal were to "Defend America" rather than engage in a "global war on terror," the argument against waterboarding is much easier to make.

The two visions that are in conflict here, I'll refer to as "24" and "Heroes" after the TV shows that illustrate them (thanks to Juan Cole for one of my favorite articles pointing this out ).

In the "24" world, there is good and bad, and sometimes good people have to do bad things to win. In the "Heroes" world, people are not inherently evil or good, but struggle to do the best they can. Everyone is equal. It is a more optimistic view of people.

What I'm interested in are ways to explain the Heroes worldview better and to turn it into a vision. Not an easy thing to do I've found. So I thought I'd ask you, Chris, since I think you might share this interest. How might the Democrats replace the "war on terror" with a better goal? A goal and a vision in which torture and waterboarding don't make sense.

I think Chris Dodd is headed in the right direction when he starts talking about how we have to protect our ideals to protect the country. Maybe the objective could be "Protect the Constitution, Protect the Country".

Another approach that might make sense is to find a goal that doesn't distinguish between "us" and "them". For instance, "A Better World." This may be a bit cliche, but I put it out there more to illustrate the idea that war, torture, and illegal wiretapping don't make as much sense if you think about it from the standpoint of fighting for a better world.

Interested in yours or anyone else's comments. I just feel like the biggest thing the Democratic party is missing is a goal to get behind. Currently, the only thing we have is "beat the Republicans". I think a lot of people would get behind a solid goal if we had one as people are tired of the fear and the never-ending "war on terror".
Best
Dave

Yeah, I hear you. But even though I'm outraged, I have to say that blocking Mukasey may not have even been possible. To do so, first every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee would have had to have voted against him. Harry Reid would have had to have held firm, and refused to move his nomination to the Senate floor, and you can bet Bush and friends would have upped the pressure (all that "up or down vote" yapping) to do so. Even if both of those had happened, I would bet dollars to donuts that once Congress went home for their Christmas break, Bush would have "recess appointed" Mukasey anyway. After all, Bush only has a little over a year to go, and a recess appointment would have put Mukasey in there for almost the whole time. So it may have been a losing battle anyway.

But that doesn't mean it was a battle worth fighting! I'm still pretty annoyed with how it all worked out....

Anyway, thanks for writing.

-CW

Ok, we might concede that by all accounts, Judge Mukasey is honest, thoughtful, tough-minded, and independent qualities his disgraceful predecessor notoriously lacked.

Copping a plea in response to Senator Leahy's question on his position on water-boarding is not acceptable. If we can not expect our nation's top lawyer to support the law of the land, then we have not moved an inch past the state of corruption his predecessor left us in.

I am sorry Mr President; you are also fresh out of political, moral, and military capital.
-spermwhale