Well, I think it'll depend. If there clearly aren't the votes to confirm him and he's rejected by a substantial margin, Smith will probably vote him down. And if (somehow), there's enough votes to confirm him by a solid margin, Smith will probably vote him down. It's not like a "yes" vote will make a difference, and an inconsequential "no" vote will help him pretend to be a moderate.

But if it's right on the edge and Smith's vote actually matters, Smith will almost certainly vote for confirmation.

Smith may vote against Mukasey, but only if it will be a token vote and not contribute to Mukasey being rejected. Smith lives in his own privileged world and has little understanding of misery or cruelty when it is inflicted on others. Apparently, he also fails to understand that America's moral authority, never as good as its reputation, is now squandered so that we were unable to criticize the Myanmar junta for the way it put down the recent protests. If ever there was an example of someone auditioning for the job of being Bush's new poodle at the justice-raping department it was Mukasey's performance before the senate judiciary committee. It doesn't say much for Chuck Schumer's judgment that he was one of Mukasey's sponsors. At least Mukasey can count on McCain, Graham and Specter to talk out of the other sides of their mouths when it comes to voting on him.

"Earlier today, Jeff Merkley demanded that Gordon Smith stand up against torture and against Michael Mukasey."

And yesterday Steve Novick blogged about the topic himself: http://www.votehook.com/novick_former_colleague_mukasey_stop_torture

If the target is Smith let's give due credit to the full team of D primary candidates who are keeping the heat on.

Smith will do what Bush tells him to do. If the Dems beat the nomination, Smith will pretend to be a maverick. He's just trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing right now and won't make a decision until minutes before the vote. If you're expecting a display of courage from him, you'll be disappointed, as usual.

I'm disappointed in the Democrats since we won the election, but the Republicans are still as pathetic as they always were. They are missing in action in DC and deserve to be fired in '08. Smith is no exception. He's an anonymous, useless, criminal enabler and he's an embarrassment to Oregon, whom he ostensibly represents.

He does a laughable job 'representing' us in the Senate and I look forward to firing him next year. He can become a lobbyist and make his shilling for corporate interests (often not even Oregon corporate interests) official.

Kari,

Thanks. I missed that...

My prediction: He'll come out against torture after voting for it.

Which will be great, according to him, because that way all sides will feel represented, ha-ha-ha.

Let's lose this guy. Merkley and Novick both had me at "Hi, I'm a Democrat running against Smith".

Kari,

I'm glad that the Merkley camp has joined us in calling out Mukasey for his wink, wink attitude towards torture.

But just to set the record straight - if you read the post Hawthorne highlighted, you will see it includes a call to action on that included Smith, Wyden and the rest of the Senate. Just keeping 'ya honest buddy.

Kari,

Whatever; you see now why some people might feel like you are not fully balanced in your coverage?

TJ and other partisans: Please take the Beaver Boundary "Collusion or Coincidence" post to heart. Are the words of a national pundit what Oregonians want to use to choose a US Senate candidate?

Even primary elections are not won with inside baseball nitpicking. I don't trust Stu Rothenberg to discuss Oregon politics, I don't care if someone didn't post a link someone else thought should be there. I don't think anyone should criticize Kari for not being "fully balanced" on the US Senate campaign. I'm not part of any campaign (neither candidate has inspired me to get involved yet) but I think the coverage has been balanced.

When Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment, sure she was in the majority but I have more respect for those who voted in the minority. And it is current votes we should be discussing. I'd love to hear whether either Senate candidate would like to associate themselves with anything Sen. Webb has said or done, or freshmen Cong. Walz and Sestak, or Hagel on the war, or Dorgan + Lott on FCC issues. Or for that matter, that presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says we need to talk about health, and not just health care (prevention, lifestyle, etc.).

There are going to be nomination battles where Democrats vote with Republicans (where is Schumer on Mukasey--are they friends?). Not 100% of Gordon Smith's votes have been stupid--he is not my choice for US Senate but Denny Smith (or Bob Smith, or Wes Cooley) he ain't.

It would be interesting to know what got to McCain and L. Graham that they now believe it is OK to vote to confirm Mukasey even though they oppose waterboarding. Bush is not used to losing and has threatened to make no other AG nomination but leave an "acting" person in the job.

There are other issues, from health care to veterans (looking forward to the confirmation of the new Veterans secretary and hope to hear both candidates on that subject) to FCC issues to all sorts of other things.

Next week, after 49 and 50 are over with (regardless of the result, and I hold out hope for yes on both) people might start looking at US Senate candidates. Will they find supporters saying "Vote for my guy who supports these solutions to problems....". Or people talking on blogs like this about what link was posted or who was first to call for something?

I liked what Hawthorne said "If the target is Smith let's give due credit to the full team of D primary candidates who are keeping the heat on."

The goal is finding a nominee to beat Smith, not each primary campaign trying to one-up the other.

Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer just rolled over.

In announcing her support for Mukasey, Feinstein, D-Calif., said "first and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales,"

Glad to know "slightly better than abysmal" is the modern standard for getting a cabinet seat.

"I deeply oppose it," Schumer said of waterboarding. "Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush, will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding."

Schumer, who was Mukasey's chief Democratic sponsor, said the retired judge told him that if Congress passes a law banning waterboarding "the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law."

Well, now I can sleep better. "Promises not to support a particular torture method if there's an explicit law against it" is all that we really can ask from America's chief law enforcement officer.

Some time ago, following the Canadian sent to Syria incident, I called Smith's office and asked if Smith was against torture. They said they couldn't tell me. I said, "So he could be for torture?" They said they couldn't speak for the Senator. So evidentally he might be for torture. If he was against it wouldn't his aides know it? Seems to me they would.