I know it's unsavory; but in this case, I'm all for guilty until proven innocent.
Some Senator somewhere has put out the hold. Other Senators who are not taking a stand one way or the other will claim to have a legitimate reason: they're defending Senatorial privilege. After all, if 99 of them say they didn't issue the hold, then the 1 hold-out is obvious.
But that makes the silent Senators complicit in the hold. They may not have issued it, but they might as well have.
So my stance is simple: any Senator not disclaiming the hold is as guilty as the Senator who issued the hold. If the hold would be a reason to vote against your Senator, then silence about the hold should also be a reason to vote against your Senator. The hold and the silence about the hold have the same net result.
Mike Bouchard, the Republican challenger in Michigan, called Stabenow out on this. So if she values her Senate seat she'll issue a denial. The longer it takes her to say something the more guilty she becomes.
Some Senator somewhere has put out the hold. Other Senators who are not taking a stand one way or the other will claim to have a legitimate reason: they're defending Senatorial privilege. After all, if 99 of them say they didn't issue the hold, then the 1 hold-out is obvious.
But that makes the silent Senators complicit in the hold. They may not have issued it, but they might as well have.
So my stance is simple: any Senator not disclaiming the hold is as guilty as the Senator who issued the hold. If the hold would be a reason to vote against your Senator, then silence about the hold should also be a reason to vote against your Senator. The hold and the silence about the hold have the same net result.