« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Bush Announces New Acting AG Pick
Bush threw an unexpected change-up in his announcement this morning. Towards the end of his remarks about his nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, he also said that outgoing Justice Department official Peter Keisler would serve as the acting attorney general until Mukasey is confirmed.
The administration had said that Solicitor General Paul Clement would serve as the acting attorney general. But Keisler, who announced his retirement from the Department two weeks ago, will apparently stick around in his stead.
That's a move likely to provoke Democrats, who had been signaling that they'd block Keisler's pending nomination to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Keisler was first nominated in last year and was renominated this year. Only this May, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) warned that Keisler's nomination was "controversial." As a result, Keisler will now be in the odd position as acting attorney general of having to deal with the Democrats who are holding up his still-pending nomination.
Among the strikes against Keisler for Democrats was the fact that he's a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society. He also "oversaw the Bush administration's lengthy legal fight over the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay."
In March, Keisler, who has been serving as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division and previously served as Associate Counsel to President Reagan, made an appearance on The Washington Post's front page. Keisler was one of the three political appointees fingered by a career prosecutor who claimed they repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case against tobacco companies.
So it would seem that Democrats would be less willing to bide their time with Mukasey's nomination with Keisler there instead of Clement. We shall see.
Here's Bush's announcement from the press conference this morning:
Peter Keisler will serve as acting attorney general. Accepting this assignment requires Peter to delay the departure date he announced this month, and I appreciate his willingness to do so. While Peter's the acting Attorney General, Paul Clement, who agreed to take on this role, will be focused on duties as solicitor general so he can prepare for the Supreme Court term that begins just two weeks from today.
Comments (61)
J Linder wrote on September 17, 2007 12:41 PM:That's a brilliant move on somebody's part. By putting someone the Democrats dislike in there, they reduce the risk of a protracted confirmation battle AND throw a bone to the conservative base.
Richard wrote on September 17, 2007 12:54 PM:"""That's a brilliant move on somebody's part."""".........well I hope they keep such brilliant moves coming. The brilliance in replacing a 20 percenter with a clone gets by me. In any case, it is exactly such brilliant moves that are tearing down the GOP.
bp wrote on September 17, 2007 1:01 PM:Someone said it best: too clever by half. These guys always sneak in what they think is a tactical surprise (Keisler) without taking into account that his chances of getting ok'd for a judicial appointment to the DC Court of Appeals went down still further. They can't help themselves : they want tos how us whose boss.
Sally wrote on September 17, 2007 1:15 PM:With Bush, you always have to wait until the other shoe drops.
alanb wrote on September 17, 2007 1:27 PM:No, it IS brilliant. The Dems now have far less leverage to get at the DOJ & Whitehouse documents they want. They can give Keisler his judicial appointment, and hope Bush doesn't replace him as AAG with ANOTHER loyalist, or they appoint Mukasey and hope he is more amenable to their requests(good luck).
DaveP wrote on September 17, 2007 1:56 PM:This is the Administration of Annoying Adolescents.
osage wrote on September 17, 2007 1:56 PM:Billiant in the sense that Karl Rove is "brilliant". Brilliant at "politicizing" everything within the DOJ to it's detriment. The number of DOJ lawyers/employees who have left due to the Bush/Rove/Gonzales "bastardization" of the its ethical and legal independence is a disgrace/scandal that conscientious career lawyers want no part of. And frankly, pissing off Democrats may make Bush "feel" good, but it further polarizes an already incompetent and dying Bush administration as well as the Republican Party faithful who have enabled Bush's ineffective governance. Everything Bush does is just one more nail in the coffin of the GOP. Isn't it ironic?
asdf wrote on September 17, 2007 1:56 PM:I wonder how this fits in with Shumer’s claim that Bush is finally playing nice.
Fuck them. The Democrats can’t allow Bush to spit in their faces again. Just once, just this once, they should stand their ground. But they won’t.
Wasn’t there already an Acting Assistant in place?
Lost Patriot wrote on September 17, 2007 2:04 PM:This is the man who oversaw the trial of Jose Padilla. The US terrorist that was held and tried without an attorney.
This man also lobbied Lieberman and Guiliani. He cannot be trusted. Just another bot installed by BushCo. Look the man up.. His son also works for Guiliani's Law firm.
Can I hear a HELL NO?????
Lost Patriot wrote on September 17, 2007 2:05 PM:This is the man who oversaw the trial of Jose Padilla. The US terrorist that was held and tried without an attorney.
This man also lobbied Lieberman and Guiliani. He cannot be trusted. Just another bot installed by BushCo. Look the man up.. His son also works for Guiliani's Law firm.
Can I hear a HELL NO?????
Scarce wrote on September 17, 2007 2:05 PM:"This is the Administration of Annoying Adolescents."
So true.
This might be amusing black comedy if this were Kafka or Freedonia.
Lost Patriot wrote on September 17, 2007 2:06 PM:This is the man who oversaw the trial of Jose Padilla. The US terrorist that was held and tried without an attorney.
This man also lobbied Lieberman and Guiliani. He cannot be trusted. Just another bot installed by BushCo. Look the man up.. His son also works for Guiliani's Law firm.
Can I hear a HELL NO?????
paul wrote on September 17, 2007 2:07 PM:On the other hand, if Keisler spends all of his time on the Hill being grilled about his own previous and current probably-unlawful behavior, he might not have that much time to screw up DOJ.
EH wrote on September 17, 2007 2:09 PM:Wasn't it a "speedy confirmation process" that got us Alberto Gonzales?
Moi wrote on September 17, 2007 2:11 PM:It's all adolescent games and no integrity or honesty. It's the same old, same old.
I agree it would be hysterically funny, if it wasn't so tragic.
Do these guys really not see how they are destroying our country? ::::sigh::::
EH wrote on September 17, 2007 2:18 PM:As unpalatable Keiser may be, I think it would be an excellent strategy (especially in a campaign year) to just leave him in his acting position to do more damage. Take as long as they like with the AG confirmation process. If Bush or anybody complains, they can just imply that maybe Bush doesn't think Keisler is competent for a longer term role.
eric wrote on September 17, 2007 2:31 PM:I would love to see a Marbury v. Madison style case in which Paul Clement sues because he wants his appointment! He was put on the website, after all!
Won't happen, but jeez, I'd be pissed if I were him.
Dan wrote on September 17, 2007 2:31 PM:So now we're hearing that "the Right" doesn't like Mukasey and the Dems think he's fine. This may turn out to be a protracted confirmation battle due to Republican pressure, not Dems. In the meantime, Keiser will be at the helm which will allow Patrick Leahy and the boys another crack at the Gonzales scandal. What's the strategy here?
JD wrote on September 17, 2007 2:49 PM:Why do the Democrats suddenly have to move quickly to confirm? What is the guy going to do? Another attempt at Republicons blowing smoke and hoping the Democrats respond weakly.
J Linder wrote on September 17, 2007 2:50 PM:The assumption on my part here is that Keiser will continue to stonewall. Which means that in order for anyone to have a CHANCE of getting useful info before Bush is gone, the dems will need to confirm Mukasey, if they can.
Because now the far right can play hardball to delay or even derail confirmation (which looks good to their base) at the same time keeping the DOJ firmly to heel. If the confirmation is derailed, there is no hope for a compromise nominee and mostly like the AAG is in till the administration turns over.
Bear in mind I didn't say it was a good move for the country. It was a good POLITICAL move for the admin. Didn't say I liked it either. But you can admire the skill of the play while finding the player to be the scum of the earth.
That's said, didn't Rove leave? This seems like his style.
Side note, as I understand it, the position of ACTING Attorney General is not subject to confirmation? If so, is there any kind of time limit on this?
johnnydoughey wrote on September 17, 2007 2:56 PM:Just a couple of reminders for anyone still dreaming anthing will be uncovered during this administration.
Keiser has already proven his disdain for the constitution under Bush. Mukasey, on the other hand advised Reagon, didn't he?
Remember Reagan... he seems pretty much benign with Bush in power, but he was the guy who traded missiles for Iranian hostages and totally disregarded the Constitution with his Contra dealings... and pardoned everyone concerned...
If the Democrats ever okay Mukasey to be AG (assuming Bush ever actually chooses a replacement rather than another interim) we will be able to see much more clearly that there really IS no difference between them and the Republicans... both are wanting to throw away the nation...
JD wrote on September 17, 2007 3:01 PM:Spend the whole confirmation process grilling Mukasey on Keisler actions and policies. I can see it now and hear the question to Republicans, "would you like cheese with that whine?"
br wrote on September 17, 2007 3:24 PM:Can Bush simply appoint anyone he wants as Acting Attorney General, without submitting the name to the Senate for confirmation? Doesn't the job go to the senior person in DOJ, whoever that might be?
Jan wrote on September 17, 2007 3:36 PM:re: "So it would seem that Democrats would be less willing to bide their time with Mukasey's nomination with Keisler there instead of Clement. We shall see."
Yes, exactly!
Everyone should go back and read J Linder's post. It hits the nail on the head.
This is NOT good for Democrats, and off the top of my head, I'm not sure what they can do about it.
Ted Olson's Fawn Hall was going to be busy shredding away.
Now Keisler will be shredding away until Dems confirm Mukasey.
So, quick would be good for Dems, while at the same time taking away any leverage the Dems have of getting the Rove/RNC emails, etc.
This is Cheney's doing, and Cheney probably is brilliant.
asdf wrote on September 17, 2007 3:38 PM:But I think he had to sell his soul in exchange.
br-There is a line of succession. The White House has simply ignored it.
The next in line should be the Deputy Assistant AG. The person holding that position now is acting, but was confirmed for other positions within the AG’s office.
It’s just blatant illegal bullshit. In other words, normal. Who’s going to stop them?
Long Memory wrote on September 17, 2007 3:41 PM:Know what would be a really clever move? Resign and let Dick become president. Have W just slink off home to Texas and start working on his library. I hear it's gonna be a replica of the Green Zone. Only thing they'll have to fear, though, is the SMU frat boys lobbing beer cans over the wall. They sure won't have to worry about people visiting the place.
Of course, Dick might start WWIII, but who's gonna notice?
Long Memory wrote on September 17, 2007 3:47 PM:By the way, does the new pick have a Federalist Society background? I know the "acting" was a founder; I want to know about the other guy. To me, that's all you need to know anymore. And the Federalist Society knows it, too; they try like crazy to keep their membership rolls secret.
Objective view wrote on September 17, 2007 3:50 PM:Actually, Peter Keisler, while conservative, is fair minded and brilliant. Anyone who has worked with him has come away with that conclusion. Many liberals would vouch for him. What's the evidence that he's controversial other than TPM applying that label to him?
mbbsdphil wrote on September 17, 2007 3:53 PM:The Dems keep forgetting that when you go to a knife fight, bring a knife; they keep bringing chop sticks and asking for the Kikkoman sauce.
For Big Dick and Lil' George, everything's a knife fight, from picking parking spaces to loose nukes. So Dems should always be prepared to play hard; mommy and the referee ain't gonna show up on this playing field.
mbbsdphil wrote on September 17, 2007 3:53 PM:The Dems keep forgetting that when you go to a knife fight, bring a knife; they keep bringing chop sticks and asking for the Kikkoman sauce.
For Big Dick and Lil' George, everything's a knife fight, from picking parking spaces to loose nukes. So Dems should always be prepared to play hard; mommy and the referee ain't gonna show up on this playing field.
mbbsdphil wrote on September 17, 2007 3:59 PM:The Dems keep forgetting that when you go to a knife fight, bring a knife; they keep bringing chop sticks and asking for the Kikkoman sauce.
For Big Dick and Lil' George, everything's a knife fight, from picking parking spaces to loose nukes. So Dems should always be prepared to play hard; mommy and the referee ain't gonna show up on this playing field.
br wrote on September 17, 2007 4:09 PM:asdf - If he isn't the acting attorney general, he isn't, and no one should treat him as such. Maybe some real police officer will arrest him for impersonating a law enforcement officer.
Anonymous wrote on September 17, 2007 4:27 PM:br-He’ll be sitting in the office, receiving the checks and covering up the corruption, just like a real AG. As I said, there is no one to stop Bush from making this illegal move, so he’ll get away with it.
asdf wrote on September 17, 2007 4:28 PM:br-He’ll be sitting in the office, receiving the checks and covering up the corruption, just like a real AG. As I said, there is no one to stop Bush from making this illegal move, so he’ll get away with it.
Keith Thompson wrote on September 17, 2007 4:36 PM:What is the usual procedure for appointing an acting Attorney General, or, more generally, any acting cabinet secretary? When a cabinet secretary leaves office in the middle of a term, how common is it for anyone other than the deputy to take over in the interim until a new AG or Secretary of Whatever is appointed? And does the President really have an unreviewable authority to appoint an acting AG?
I have no idea what the answer is, but surely this information is available in the public record.
There are two questions here. Is this a violation of precedent? (I suspect the answer is yes.) And is this a violation of the law? (I suspect the answer is no.)
It wouldn't make a lot of sense for the Senate to have to go through the potentially long process of confirming an acting cabinet secretary who will serve only until the Senate confirms a permanent replacement. But doesn't this leave a huge loophole that the President could exploit?
For example, the President could fire the Secretary of Whatever, appoint any nutjob he likes as Acting Secretary of Whatever, and then just not get around to nominating a permanent replacement until the end of his term. Or he could nominate someone who couldn't possibly be approved, and repeat with more unqualified nominees as long as necessary. I don't see how Congress could do much about it, other than applying political pressure or threatening impeachment.
I think the bottom line is that the President has a responsibility to appoint cabinet secretaries, but there's nothing short of impeachment to force him to uphold that responsibility.
Note that this is a hypothetical scenario. What Bush is doing is probably abusive, but it's not as bad as it could be.
HeyThereItsEric wrote on September 17, 2007 5:05 PM:Keisler's already familiar with recess appointments - he's already gotten one from Reagan - in 1984, at age 24, to the National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs (NACWEP).
Source: Alliance for Justice preliminary report on Keisler's nomination to DC District court.
Mad as hell wrote on September 17, 2007 5:34 PM:Bush is the kind of guy who will walk out of the mens room and with one hand give you a firm handshake while with the other hand he's busy wiping himself off onto your sleeve...... all with that little 'gotcha' smirk on his face.
Just once before I die I would like the democrats to bitch slap the son of a bitch.
1oldlady wrote on September 17, 2007 6:33 PM:Well...this is no surprise! This administration has no ethical bound toward the rule of law! This is just another one of their moral high ground FARTS!
It just stinks everywhere, and there is no solution but the obvious... IMPEACHMENT!
It will continue until we/congress puts an end to the unethical behavior that has run a muck!
What would be surprising is if the administration did something that the American people wanted...Like thats going to happen!!!
1oldlady wrote on September 17, 2007 6:38 PM:What should the Dem's do...Don't say any thing until Bush does his first!
If Leahy said nothing about the emails and the nomination being sent up for approval, Bush wouldn't have done a 360 or 180 on him.. And just maybe, Leahy would have got'n head way with the acting AG.
Maybe...?
Dan wrote on September 17, 2007 7:20 PM:Do you think that perhaps the Administration selected Mukasey in hopes that the far right will hold up the confirmation? Then Bush gets points for trying be conciliatory, Mukasey gets dumped and Keisler remains or somebody worse takes the helm.
HeyThereItsEric wrote on September 17, 2007 7:55 PM:Fun google terms:
Keisler Habeas Guantanamo
Keisler Tobacco
Keisler Whistleblowers
And what the heck is going on with Cobell v. Norton?
steambomb wrote on September 17, 2007 7:55 PM:If the Dems are smart......
Spritey wrote on September 17, 2007 8:02 PM:They would stall the confirmation of Mukasey. Allow Bush to recess appoint Mukasey. If he recess appoints someone else then raise holy hell. If he recess appoints Mukasey then if Mukasey doesn't play ball they can investigate why he isn't playing ball and have a very strong case for impeachment due to the fact that he was never confirmed.
And there's more distraction to hit the DOJ....John David R. Atchison, an attorney in Florida's northern District of the DOJ...was arrested in Detroit on Sunday for attempting to have sex he arranged with a 5 year old child. (the "mother" he was communicating with was an undercover officer) He admits he has "plenty" of experience and it won't "hurt" to sway the "mother's" concerns of the pain the 5-year old would suffer.
The FBI and two state police were involved in this arrest.
So far, only Detroit's Channel 4 news has reported this. It's nowhere in Florida's media that we can find.
HeyThereItsEric wrote on September 17, 2007 8:38 PM:Another fun Google term:
Keisler eavesdrop
questioneverything wrote on September 17, 2007 8:54 PM:When I first read this headline earlier today, I immediately thought "blackmail." "Confirm Mukasey or you get Keisler for the duration."
I really don't know how much more crap the Senate will take from this white house, but somebody better stand up and say foul.
It's all a game to Bushco--"how many more times can we screw them in new ways?" Despicable.
Adam C wrote on September 17, 2007 9:43 PM:Well, if the Dems are OK with Mukasey, then presumably they don't need to be stampeded into confirming him. It's conservative hardliners who bear watching.
Like Dan above, I suspect this last-minute switch is Bush's way of effectively reneging on his "no recess appointments" deal with Harry Reid. The point isn't to pressure Dems to act--it's to appear conciliatory while colluding with the wingnuts to make Keisler the de facto AG for the rest of Bush's term. All the minority has to do is filibuster the Mukasey confirmation.
Assuming McConnell has the 41 votes, I guess this strategy would hinge on how long such an "acting" AG can legally serve. My guess is, "long enough."
xargaw wrote on September 17, 2007 11:22 PM:Let Bush shove in whoever he wants for the interim. Just flood him with investigation information requests and call him to testify if he is uncooperative. The DEMs should take their time and grill, grill, grill the DOJ. Two can play Bush's game.
randall wrote on September 18, 2007 1:57 AM:this is the appropriate time for the Congress to assert its authority a deny funding for any salaried position appointment not confirmed by the Senate forthwith... let the sob work for nothing which is exactly what hes worth
The Oracle wrote on September 18, 2007 2:25 AM:Keisler is just another Republican weaseler...crooked, crooked, crooked...and a perfect Republican stand-in for Alberto Gonzales.
And if anymore bones are thrown to the culture of corruption and deceit Republicans, Uncle Sam will collapse until all that's left is just a decaying pile of rotting red, white and blue clothes.
buckheaddad wrote on September 18, 2007 4:24 AM:Take one look at that picture and ask youself the following question:
WOULD I LIKE MY DAUGHTER MARRIED TO THIS GUY????????????????????????????? (let alone buy a used-car from him).
dennisS wrote on September 18, 2007 8:24 AM:If Mukasey really is as upright as everyone says and he's left dangling out there by the administration because Bush is using Keisler to stonewall Congress I think both Mukasey and the public will see thru it and be pissed.
Turn over the documents DOJ. The public wants open government. And the public wants Congress to hold the administration accountable for the DOJ mess (and other transgressions.)
There is no downside to signalling that Mukasey is a good consensus pick, as he seems to be, but then only scheduling the confirmation hearings after DOJ honors Congress's constitutional right to oversight and turns over those documents. The chance that Mukasey can expedite delivering the documents, no matter his decency, is slim so why give up the leverage?
In other words, what EH said. Take your time Congress.
steambomb wrote on September 18, 2007 9:51 AM:Lets see here. Mukasey upright?
hmm Mukasey in tight with Gulianni.
Gulianni in tight with Kerik.
Kerik in trouble with corruption charges possibly pending.
Gulianni in tight with the Bushes.
What other chains lead to Mukasey?
steambomb wrote on September 18, 2007 10:02 AM:Something else that is troubling me. You hear the MSM touting this guy as being involved in investigating corruption cases. When you hear it. It seems to me that they make it sound like he is prosecuting the corrupt individuals. Unless I have the wrong Michael Mukasey. It would appear that he has either flipped or the press has it completely backwards.
http://www.pbwt.com/mukasey_michael_bio/
The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, formerly Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, rejoined the firm as a partner in September 2006. Judge Mukasey is active in the firm’s Litigation group, working on white collar defense and investigations matters, providing advice on corporate governance issues and actively litigating civil and criminal cases.
Keyword up there folks is DEFENSE.
I dont think it helps our nation one bit to have a man in at AG that is interested in defending White Collar Criminals. Especially when one is residing at the White House.
Keith Thompson wrote on September 18, 2007 4:29 PM:I dont think it helps our nation one bit to have a man in at AG that is interested in defending White Collar Criminals. Especially when one is residing at the White House.
Do you think that (alleged) white collar criminals don't deserve a defense?
So he's working as a defense attorney. Defending people is his job, and it's a vital part of the justice system.
As for the appointment of Peter Keisler as Acting Attorney General, Bush had to appoint somebody to fill the post. Obviously there are reasons to dislike Keisler, and it's likely that there are political reasons for the choice. But as for the timing, I think the rationale is that the Solicitor General, who was going to be the Acting AG, needs to concentrate on his specific duties as the Supreme Court goes back into session next month. One wonders why that didn't occur to anybody in the administration before they announced him in the first place, but it's not necessarily part of some dark conspiracy. Conceivably Bush and his advisers just thought Keisler was a good choice.
Yesterday, I asked about the precedents for appointing acting cabinet secretaries (see above). The answers to those questions might shed some actual light on this whole thing.
I doubt that the wingnuts who oppose Mukasey have enough votes to support a filibuster; he seems to have wide bipartisan support from Democrats and non-fringe Republicans. The Democratic leadership could block the nomination to apply leverage, but I'm not convinced that's a good idea. Quite possibly the best way to get the documents out of the DoJ is to confirm Mukasey and then ask him for them.
For once, Bush has nominated someone who seems like a reasonable choice. Perhaps we should encourage this behavior rather than reflexively opposing it. There are still other ways pressure can be applied.
Keith Thompson wrote on September 18, 2007 4:49 PM:Oops, that first paragraph was meant to be in italics, to indicate that it was a quote from the previous comment. Apparently HTML tags are ignored.
J C wrote on September 18, 2007 8:43 PM:Peter Keisler was a good friend at college. I was chairman of the liberal party of the Yale Political Union and he was chairman of the Party of the Right. He is one of the most intellectually honest people I have ever met. Its sad that the dems block him given his qualifications. The GOP ought to filibuster any dem president's picks for appellate courts as payback
J C wrote on September 18, 2007 8:45 PM:Peter Keisler was a good friend at college. I was chairman of the liberal party of the Yale Political Union and he was chairman of the Party of the Right. He is one of the most intellectually honest people I have ever met. Its sad that the dems block him given his qualifications. The GOP ought to filibuster any dem president's picks for appellate courts as payback
mr.ed wrote on September 19, 2007 11:34 AM:Who says Karl and Fredo are gone?
phil james wrote on September 19, 2007 12:11 PM:Leahy has made it a matter of the WH turning over the documents on the USA firings before the Dems approve the Mukasey nomination, which will happen when hell freezes over, so the Dems are forced to concede the papers if they want Mukasey or accept the uber right-winger as AG for the duration.
steambomb wrote on September 19, 2007 6:43 PM:Do you think that (alleged) white collar criminals don't deserve a defense?
I stand corrected. Let me be more clear. It appears to be a smoke and mirror job by the press. They seem to have been touting the guy as a corruption buster when in fact he is defending people who get charged with corruption and appear to have ethical issues. Is this what we need at AG right now? ???????? I would prefer someone who is going to want to cast a bright spotlight or tear open the curtains and let the sunshine in on our government. hmm? hmm?
Gack cough hack ahem wrote on September 24, 2007 8:53 PM:Wasn't it Keisler who was fingered by Eubanks as having intentionally "thrown" the tobacco case due to politicial pressure from the Bush administration? And who argued in favor of the ban on so-called "Partial Birth Abortion"? And who argued against the rights of political detainees in Rumsfeld v. Hamdan? And who, back in the Reagan Administration, was said to have advised the President to pack boards and committees with political syncophants and endorsed the idea of "signing statements"? And who is a protege of Robert Bork, who in the Nixon Administration fired independent prosecutor Archibald Cox when his superiors resigned rather than do so? And who didn't recuse himself in the eavesdropping case (which he tried to get dropped via a claim of "state secrets") even though he represented AT&T in private practice, in violation of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Conduct? Yeah, he's a political operative who will serve Bush well. But Mukasey was the guy who ignored the fact that American citizens of Arab descent were beaten and detained without trial or charges, in violation of their rights, after 9/11. Let's face it: there will be no good or nonpolitical choices from the Bush administration as long as it's in power. This is what we get for letting Bush steal two elections.