Why are Dems NOT getting Loretta Lynch confirmed?????

[DryHump]

while they still have Senate control, why do they wait???? They wasted precious time on a Keystone vote - for what? They have an excellent shot at getting their choice for Attorney General confirmed, but they'll let it go till Repubs take over in January...what's going on? Can anyone help talk me down????

[elleng]

1. Nope, can't talk you down,

I'm with you (and Rachel.)

WTF, reid?

[DryHump]

6. Elleng - thanks for answering

it's another super fucking mysterious unmove by the Dems that makes me think they're up to weird deals you and I will never be privy to. This shit has been so part and parcel of the Dem's politics since post-Clinton - we wait and wait and wait for the Dems to go for the jugular and they STAND DOWN. Makes me fucking crazy!!!!!!!!!!

[elleng]

8. Yes. Really don't want to spend the rest of my life

watching Dem party non-action against repug party dirty games.

[JI7]

2. they want to go on vacation

[Cleita]

3. I think we have witnessed the Democratic Party die.

Or at least it's on life support. I don't know what to think. I could tell Rachel was barely not losing it.

[Autumn]

4. The way I see it, Mary's a member of their club it was important for them to do something to

make her look good and save her job. Priorities you know. The look on her face after Keystone was shot down said it all.

[elleng]

10. I understand that,

and don't even mind Dems who voted YES, but to ignore the nominated Attorney General NOW?

[Kablooie]

5. They are afraid of upsetting the Republicans.

Kind of.

[onecaliberal]

7. Very good question.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. On this one, I actually have to agree with letting the next Congress handle it

I started off thinking as you do: this can't get done now?

But as a matter of procedure, it would be really tough. First, Senators and their staffs have to have time to investigate her record and craft written questions. She needs time to answer them clearly and with representation. It has to go through hearings, with those answers themselves vetted, and the hearings vetted. Attorney General is a big job; Ms. Lynch's record is substantial. Even if we weren't dealing with a ridiculous obstructionist body like the current Senate, it would be a tall order to vet a person legitimately given the timeframe. Hell, we don't hire assistant professors as quickly as you're asking for a vote to happen here.

Pushing this off to the next Congress, however unfortunate given the election results, is actually the right thing to do as a matter of process. There simply isn't time to do the needed vetting process correctly.

That said, there may be a political upside in delaying it as well. If the GOP blocks the president's thoroughly reasonable choice for Attorney General, then they really paint themselves as obstructionists right off the bat. The country can't be without an attorney general, and there's really nothing particularly objectionable (for the political class) in Ms. Lynch's record (a lefty like myself thinks the bank deals were a bit cozy, but that doesn't matter a whit in Peoria). If they do confirm, however, then they have to own it, and can't run around with these crazy conspiracies like they've done with Holder. The GOP Senate will have confirmed her. What are GOPers complaining about?

So, as process, the delay is understandable. As politics, it may actually be a net win.

[elleng]

12. Thanks for this,

you've provided a rationale I can live with, at least for tonight; 'process' is important to me.

[DryHump]

13. Thanks - I will ponder...N/T

[jeff47]

14. The country won't be without an attorney general

Holder has said he will remain until his replacement is confirmed.

That provides extra incentive to the Republicans to confirm Lynch - they loathe Holder.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. And if they obstruct her

Holder stays on, who Republicans hate even more, so there is no real upside for them to obstruct Lynch. There will likely be a few Republican malcontents, of course, whom will obstruct the nominee no matter what, of course.

[WhiteTara]

11. Is this another case of racism overlapped with sexism?

AG is important, but a black female AG, not so much?

[lordsummerisle]

15. I believe I heard Bernie Sanders

say on a talk show that under Senate rules some minimum number of hours could be requested for debate and questioning of the candidate and with so little time left in the schedule it was thought that it would be better to address other issues like funding the government.

[world wide wally]

16. Because Harry Reid sucks?

[librechik]

18. asset forfeiture

should be stopped--she won't.
Heh--just what I would be thinking as a Dem. But they are probably thinking about their own asses.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-next-attorney-general-1415577638

[Man from Pickens]

19. Why would you want them to?

She is one of the worst possible nominees for the position. If you think Holder dropped the ball on Wall Street prosecutions, he doesn't hold a candle to her when it comes to Wall Street ties. She actually sat on the board of the Federal Reserve of New York - a position no other attorney has ever held.

If you were to pick the one candidate most favorable to Wall Street, you would pick Loretta Lynch.

I know that having a black woman as AG is desirable, but think, people. This is a really really bad nomination and we are far better off if it dies.

[newfie11]

20. +infinity!!!!nt

[madokie]

21. Too many of our own democratic congress critters are on the take too

is the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in today.
Pretty much all the pukliCONs are on the take but we have a bunch of our own too

[MoonRiver]

23. As long as the Thugs don't confirm her, they are stuck with Holder.