Holder and Obama: will Holder stay?
President Obama has had a bad couple of weeks.
And Attorney General Holder isn’t far behind, with yesterday’s verdict in the Ghailani trial exposing the stupidity of their approach to the trials of Guantanamo detainees, emphasizing the civilian justice system. One wonders whether, at this point, that policy will quietly be abandoned.
Speaking of “abandoned,” there was a great deal of speculation almost a year ago that Obama would dump (or encourage the “resignation” of) Holder. So far, that has not happened. But will it soon?
Let me reiterate what I wrote on the subject back in February of 2010:
Holder serves a purpose for Obama. If there is an issue on which the President is somewhat loathe to express his opinion fully, perhaps because he knows it will be unpopular or controversial, I believe that Obama purposely uses Holder as cover, to draw the opposition’s criticism and deflect it from himself.
Perhaps the proper word for the relationship might be “surrogate” or “mouthpiece.” This is not to say that Holder does not have opinions of his own. I am not claiming he is a puppet. But his opinions are so closely in sync with Obama’s on these issues that for all intents and purposes they are one.
For this reason, I disagree strongly with those who think Holder is about to go. I suppose Obama might sacrifice him if it becomes necessary for strategic reasons (after all, he’s been known to do such a thing). If the decisions they both support because so unpopular Obama feels the need to disassociate himself from Holder and use him as scapegoat, it will happen. But this would only occur in the most extreme of situations, because Obama is so wedded to these views himself, and they are completely integral to his own attitude about the legal status and treatment of terrorists.
Holder is also no ordinary Cabinet appointee for Obama. They have known each other since 2004, the year Obama first achieved a national profile. The two met at “a dinner party hosted by former White House aide Anne Walker Marchange, niece of Clinton friend Vernon Jordan.” Very soon after declaring himself a candidate in early 2007, Obama requested that Holder be part of his campaign, and “Holder served as a legal adviser and strategist and led Obama’s vice presidential search committee.”
Holder is a trusted adviser and member of Obama’s inner circle. It probably doesn’t hurt, either, that Holder is a graduate of Columbia and a former basketball player, much like Obama. But it’s their common attitude towards law that creates the strongest bond between the men. As Holder says, “We are on the same page.”
I ended that post with the following words, “And I don’t think Obama is eager to turn that page.” Now that the failures have piled up, has anything changed?
I certainly think the advice for Obama to get rid of Holder might now be ramped up. But the only advice Obama seems to actually listen to, from sycophants Valerie Jarrett and perhaps Robert Gibbs, is more likely to be to “dig in.” The clamor for Holder’s ouster would have to rise to a deafening roar in order for Obama to toss him. There would have to be a widespread public clamor that was undeniable, including from the left, and I don’t see that happening any time soon.
That could change, of course. The big question mark is this: the report on the Obama-Holder’s Justice Department’s handling of the Black Panther voter intimidation case, which is due to be released soon. How badly will it implicate Holder? How much press will it get? How much outrage will it engender in the American public, and how widespread will that anger be?
If it gets bad enough (and only then), my prediction is that Holder will finally be sacrificed. He will become the fall guy and Obama will distance himself from him, as he has so many times in the past (think Reverend Wright). But until then, Holder is probably safe.
neo – totally with you on this one. Though if the Republicans can play these cascading Holder disasters correctly in public, it may be a blessing for us if Obama digs in. I certainly don’t expect to get anyone who is anything but marginally better than Holder as AG under Obama anyway.
I don’t see what he gains by dumping Holder either. It’s not like he’s going to appoint anyone who is FOR color-blind civil rights enforcement, or AGAINST scuttling Gitmo and civilian trials for terrorists. That would of course be an admission of the failure of Obama’s own ideology – and he is rather closely linked to Holder, as you noted, so an extra component, say, something specific to Holder in his behavior at Justice, would be required, I think, for Obama to begin the process of defenestrating him.
In short, there would need to be something allowing Obama to say, “Good old Eric got a little carried away and didn’t message properly, so I’m going to bring in a better messenger to do the same crap he did.”
Obama’s been good at extricating himself from the blunders of his unsavory comrades in the past. It just seems harder to do with Holder, because as you mentioned Holder and Obama are completely simpatico, and, after all, Obama appointed him and has gone to bat for him constantly.
I’ve been stashing popcorn for a while now. Time to start poppin’.
Obama will throw anyone under the bus. If this gets too stressful for him he will blame Holder and, of course BUSH! It is easy for him to deflect the heat by firing Holder. He can have San Fran Nan find him a new job with all the perks and pay. These people are the most transparently corrupt politians ever. Rangel (however you spell it) spent 20 terms in Congress!!! That needs to stop right now. 2 terms if you performed fantastically in the first – and then back home. We are truly the largest banana republic in the world.
Politicizing the law is good. That is what Kagin, Breyer, Sotomayer and Ginsberg do. It is what Vaugh Walker did. It is what Jerry Brown does. It is what the Democrats expect Obama to do. The Ghailani fiasco, the NBPP, the voting roles debacle: all these and more are good things that happened in the hearts of Democrats. They don’t see a crime. They are only one crisis away from Roland Freisler.
They are itching, itching to suspend constitutional law. Scumbags.
Obama doesn’t understand law anymore than he understands economics. He only understands what “should be” according to his lights.
Wait – Holder played basketball?
And here I was thinking he was grossly unqualified to be Attorney General (or even a lawyer, for that matter).
I stand corrected.
The left has no tolerance for fellow travelers who drift too far from ideological purity. As I posted in an earlier thread, Obama has a very small tightrope to traverse here. Without a dramatic rebound of the economy he has very little chance of re-election if he stays his current course. On the other hand cooperating with the GOP too much will insure a primary challenge and/or a third party run from the left.
Firing Holder would almost certainly be one of the benchmarks the left has as far as Obama’s viability is concerned.
Firing Holder ain’t gonna happen. They’re two worms in the same apple, munching away merrily. The USA is the apple.
Occam’s, that was really good. I can’t stop laughing.
OB, the critical date for our bet is January 1, so you are still in the running.
Holder won’t get thrown under the bus because he (and Obama) represent the centerpiece of the Modern Multicultural Narrative. It’s what they represent that matters, and must be defended, not who they are or what they do. The Blue Citadels will fall apart without it. Expect the media to avert its gaze.
Oblio, actually I said “by the midterm elections,” so officially I lost.
But January 1 works for me, too. Anything to get rid of Holder, and return him to his natural metier: night court.
If you want to settle up on that basis, OK by me. I am prepared to be wrong for a good cause.