I’m starting to agree with Crooks and Liars on this. Mukasey’s first day: Good. Mukasey’s second day: not so good.

The only question is whether can we get anyone better – the Senate is, after all, ultimately at the mercy of President Bush when it comes to what nominees they can review – and if the Senate can’t get anyone better, is Mukasey better than the acting Attorney General that’s currently in place?

It’s situations like these that get the liberal base of the party’s panties in a twist whenever the Senate confirms someone, but the Senate may not have any better option. As much as people would like, there is no “have no Attorney General” option as someone will always be at least the acting AG, and the Senate can’t pick who they want to nominate.

So as much as “rejecting nominees until we get a good one” sounds like a great and noble plan, it starts to fall apart if the person who is acting AG is someone completely horrible. And while confirming someone who looks good but may not be good may not get the committees the information they need or stop torture, refusing to confirm someone most definitely won’t result in that.

The Senate is taking a gamble either way. If they confirm Mukasey, they’re basically gambling that Bush wouldn’t nominate anyone better. If they refuse to confirm Mukasey, they’re risking Mukasey being the best they’re gonna get, and if they reject “the best they’re going to get,” then the Senate is screwed.

This is why I’ve said for a long, long, long time that most of what we want to get done will have to wait until 2009 and a democratic president, despite having a Democratic Congress. In the US government it takes two (branches) to tango, and Bush refuses to dance.