So, MMfA, you're vindicating Sabato and Sanchez's statements by bringing up Katrina?

Chertoff's performance on Katrina is debateable. It should not be a litmus test on an AG appointment, nor should Congress waste our time and money turning the nomination hearing into a Katrina hearing.

Only Katrina was the most botched event in recent Federal Govt history. So it should not be an issue? Come on.

Exactly, Dex.

I know that when my plumber - the one that accidentally hooked up my water heater to my irrigation system - showed up 2 years later in the operating room to perform my vasectomy, I didn't dwell on that past failure.  He deserved a fresh evaluation based on his skillz at that time.

And despite the pain in my left ear whenever I urinate, I still think that whatever his next job is, it will be a different arena and he should be given another chance to prove himself.

While your joke was funny, your analogy was poor.

The analogy may be poor in your mind (not in mine) but why should Katrina be ignored? So if something happened 2 years ago we need to get over it and move on?

I think his joke was funny and his analogy was terrific.

Holy cow. Get a lawyer.

Got one.  Coincidentally, he used to be my plumber.  And my surgeon.

Would your plumber/surgeon/lawyer be interested in the Attorney General position?

He seems to have all of the qualifications. 

I'm inclined to agree.  I think Chertoff was terrible during Katrina, but what does that have to do with the role of an AG?  I think that is subjective.  I don't think many people will agree that Katrina is relevant here. 

The Democrats should look at Chertoff mainly with regards to how his loyalty to the administration has affected Chertoff's view of the law.  Has Chertoff sided with the administration on programs that have undermined civil liberties?  That is the kind of thing to be focused on.  The whole Katrina thing may be a valid complaint, but it should not affect the appointment process.

So you think he will suddenly gain competence once he moves into an office with a library in it?

Granted, it does point to his competency, but it was also a pretty extreme situation.  I don't think the Democrats are going to score any points with it as it doesn't seem at all related to anything Chertoff would experience as AG.

"Has Chertoff sided with the administration on programs that have undermined civil liberties?  That is the kind of thing to be focused on."

Chertoff, along with Viet Dinh, was the author of the USA Patriot Act. Anyone concerned about America's continuing slide into a surveillance state should carefully consider Chertoff's role here, but it doesn't seem to be a big part of the Chertoff for AG conversation so far. 

As a point of interest, here's a 2003 article dealing with Chertoff's ad hoc approach to the legal system and the Constitution. The source, Counterpunch, is obviously somewhat partisan but I hope the congress and the press will pay attention to Chertoff's pre-Katrina history if Bush puts his name forward.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel06112003.html 

The AG is basically the manager and head administrator of the Justice Department, that makes Chertoff's work at DHS very significant as it is a similar function.  Chertoff's qualifications as a lawyer may be impeccable but they are only half of what needs to be considered for this position and his record does not speak well for him for the other half.

I'm inclined to agree.  I think Chertoff was terrible during Katrina, but what does that have to do with the role of an AG?  I think that is subjective.  I don't think many people will agree that Katrina is relevant here. 

Open gotta disagree, Chertoff as Director of Homeland Security was in charge of the country's worst disaster in history and he failed. It's to bad Michael Brown was only only one who took the heat for Katrina, Chertoff was equally responsible.

The Democrats have already announced this is going to be another piece of political theater.

Did they? Which Democrats announced this? If in fact any Democratic lawmaker made such a statement, then that is troublesome. We don't need a partisan show. For whatever time is remaining in this administration we should finally place a competent individual into the Attorney Generals Office. And do it fairly quickly.

As far as Chertoff is concerned. Poor choice IMO.

Anyone Bush nominates will be a fascist bastard with as much respect for the law as a serial killer. That's a given.

Anyone Bush nominates will be a fascist bastard with as much respect for the law as a serial killer. That's a given. - Redking

Nah, he might nominate a 'middle-of-the-road' yet plainly unacceptable 'compromise' replacement, and then nominate a fascist bastard. But then, why drag the past into it?

I can't believe Bush would be so stupid as to nominate Chertoff, a man whose record clearly makes him unsuitable for the job. Or maybe a qualification for a position in the Bush admin is incompetence?

By the way, since when does past job performances not play a role in whether you get a job? If put on a roof and the roof leaked badly, should the customer say, "Oh please, put in these new windows, because windows are different than roofs, and I don't want to drudge up the past?" 

"I can't believe Bush would be so stupid as to..."   I can't believe anyone could start a sentence that way at this late date.  Gonzo will be difficult to replace.  Who else can look up at the Preznit with such utter affection? Maybe Barney? 

Oh, that's a laugh - Chertoff and the rest of the criminals in the bush administration are to get a free pass with regards to THEIR PART of accountability insofar as Katrina is concerned???

I don't think so...

I don't trust Chertoff or anyone that would be nominated by bush for the AG, with the exception of Sandra Day O'Connor - which i mentioned in another thread.

The DOJ is a partisan cesspool thanks to "Torquemada" Gonzales and I hope the Dems do their job in vetting thoroughly whoever the idiot in chief nominates.

I guess in some people's world "Checks and Balances" is profanity..

Listen to how both Sabato and Sanchez refer to Katrina as a problem that went away. They talk about "rehash[ing]" it and how it was something that happened "two years ago in a completely different realm." Meanwhile, in the here and now, New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast is still a disaster area, and the promises made by the Bush administration remain largely unfulfilled.

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Katrina

i've been watching larry sabato for several years now (UVA is an hour away), and i've yet to be impressed by his analytical skills, vis a vis politics.

my old econ prof. in college used to say, "all you need to be an "expert" is to guess right 3 times." i can only assume dr. sabato has met that (very) minimal criterion.

Political "water-boarding", names being "floated", nominations "sailed on through'...given the nature of the Katrina disaster these are pretty ironic terms to be using.

You can't make this stuff up.