"clearly agitated" and "did not try to mask his irritation."Contrast his desire to support the President's picks in 2009 with what he felt in 2001 when a different party was in power:
"Most of us believe that a President has a right to nominate to Executive Branch positions those men and women whom he believes will help carry out his agenda and policies. But it is only with the consent of the Senate that the President may proceed to appoint. The Constitution is silent on the standard that Senators should use in exercising this responsibility. This leaves to each Senator the task of discerning that standard and deciding how it applies in the case of a controversial nomination."Of course, that only applies when a Republican offers up a nomination.
Principles be damned, Leahy will push forward with the nomination of Holder who has serious questions about him regarding Mark Rich and many others of those who were pardoned by then President Clinton.
As I have said before, when Democrats were in the minority they wanted to be able to threaten a filibuster for anyone that they disliked, thereby giving the minority more power than they would have had otherwise. And as predicted, the Democrats are now in the majority, and will have to deal with a minority that has (hopefully) learned from them how to be obstructive.
But the bigger lesson for all politicians is that the past can no longer be ignored. Since 2001 when Leahy first made his efforts to delay the nomination of the Attorney General, the growth in people who can use the web to google past comments has exploded. Now, everything that you have ever said is reviewable. And you will have to decide do you want to be partisan or have principles? The advantages for us the abused children of the political processes, is that it won't take long to discover who is sincere, and who a charlatan.