Today’s Must Read

No one will ever say “poor Chuck Schumer.”

But Chuck is in a bind, to be sure. He’s never been shy about taking credit. And when the White House was reportedly musing about selecting someone like Ted Olson to replace the attorney general who Schumer helped drive from office, Schumer didn’t hesitate to publicly recommend a “consensus” candidate like his old acquaintance Michael Mukasey.

But after Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) finished with him, Mukasey was a consensus candidate no more. And given a second chance, he still refused to call drowning someone (under controlled circumstances) torture.

Now, as we said yesterday, it all comes down to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Schumer is a very vocal member. And with four Democrats already coming out against Mukasey, Schumer’s in the novel position of being one of the key swing votes, reports The Washington Post:

Republicans privately say that the nominee’s prospects hang on a few votes, particularly those of Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has broken ranks with her party in the past.

Until yesterday, Schumer was ducking cameras rather than answer questions about Mukasey. And when he finally talked to reporters, it was clear why he’d been camera shy. He told reporters yesterday on a conference call that he’s caught in a “substantive tough spot.” And even during that call he vaulted back and forth on how he might vote:

“From this administration, we will never get somebody who agrees with us on issues like torture and wiretapping,” Schumer said at one point, suggesting an argument in favor of Mukasey, who faces a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Tuesday. “The best thing we can hope for is someone who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first.”

But Schumer said minutes later that his mind is not made up: “He’s the best we can get, but that doesn’t necessarily ensure a yes vote. I thought John Roberts was the best we could get, but I voted no.”…

“The question is whether he will show the requisite independence,” Schumer said. “That’s what I want to clear in my own head. . . . If Congress passes a law forbidding waterboarding, would he enforce that?”

All that said, Sen. Leahy has announced that he will reveal his position on Mukasey today at 3 PM. And if he decides to support Mukasey (the most Leahy has said so far is that he’s “concerned”), a lot of pressure would be off Schumer. But as The New York Times notes, no one has been in a rush to rescue him:

Mr. Leahy is one of several lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who seem to be quietly enjoying the spectacle of Mr. Schumer in this political predicament.

Mr. Leahy, smiling broadly outside the Senate chamber on Thursday, refrained from needling Mr. Schumer. “I don’t think I have ever seen him in a pickle,” he said.

Note: There was a crucial aside in the Post‘s piece this morning. And that was that if a yes-no vote on Mukasey fails, “Judiciary Republicans are likely to seek to forward the nomination with a neutral or negative recommendation to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.” In other words (as we explained yesterday), if the votes aren’t there for Mukasey to pass with a straight yes-no vote, it’s still possible that Mukasey could go to the full Senate for a vote, where his confirmation is virtually assured.