Why is Eric Holder still Obama’s AG?
In today’s WaPo Marc Thiessen lists and describes the errors Attorney General Eric Holder has made since joining the Obama administration. It makes for sobering reading; “Fast and Furious” is only the most recent in a lengthy accounting. And yet:
President Obama says that he has “complete confidence” in Attorney General Eric Holder. That’s good news for Republicans. Pick almost any unnecessary, losing battle in Obama’s first term, and his hapless attorney general is at the center of it.
If not for the fact that so many of Holder’s decisions harm national security, he would be a political dream come true for the GOP ”“ delivering up reliably disastrous controversies for the president every few months.
Of course, with Obama’s proclivity for doing an about-face, he could abandon Holder at any moment, as would appear to be politically prudent. But there’s been speculation that that will happen for years, and it has not yet occurred.
Why not? My answer is not substantially different than it was back in February of 2010 when I wrote a post entitled “Is Holder about to be tossed?” (sound familiar?), in which I refer to Holder as a “proxy” for Obama and then add:
…[M]y gut senses a close identification between Obama and Holder, an almost-Vulcan-mind-meld between them on the legal issues involved…This is not a compliment to either man; I think both are sadly misguided.
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.”
And I don’t think Obama is eager to turn that page.
What about that piece would I change if I were writing it today? Not a whole lot, really. Holder is a relative newcomer compared with Valerie Jarrett, who was Obama’s (and wife Michelle’s) mentor in matters both political and social in Chicago beginning 20 years ago, but he is highly important nevertheless, and not just as an appointee.
If Obama is the loner people say he is, then old and trusted friends—especially ones that predate his presidency—become even more important. If he jettisons them, who is left?
Why is Holder still Obama’s AG?
Answer: what you said, plus Tony Rezko.
If Holder were white, he would be gone.
Thank God! A new post, and a nice long one too.
“errors” they were not, Neo. Not even the WaPo terms them errors, unless I missed it in my quick re-reading of the piece.
Holder and Obama are two peas from same bad pod. That is why Holder will not resign. His resignation will not be sought. They will together stonewall, redact, bluster, ignore subpoenas, invoke exec. priv. on the thinnest of reasons, and push on. You have surely read the PJM pieces on the track records of the highly placed in DOJ. There is no justice in the D of Justice.
The FBI seized Solyndra records; FBI is an arm of DOJ; that serves beautifully to bury those records for a long, long time.
You and we should not overlook Holder’s role in the Clinton admin either. Remember the pardons of Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican terrorists?
I am firm in my belief that Rich enriched both Holder and Clinton, purchasing his pardon.
The terrorists were entirely unrepentant upon release.
No more Ms. Nice Guy about Holder and Obama, please. These are total rottens in lawyers’ garb. Evildoers. They mean us harm.
I would call them blackguards, but that would not be PC.
I suppose it could be speculated that nobody knows more closets with more skeletons than Holder….
Don Carlos: I think my piece makes it clear that I don’t consider them errors from the point of view of Holder or Obama at the time they were made, or even perhaps now. They were deliberate and intentional policies (although a certain number showed a lack of research and due diligence, but even that may have been intentional).
They were errors, however, in the sense of PR (although how much they have contributed to Obama’s falling popularity I cannot say) and in terms of what good policy would be.
When you write “No more Ms. Nice Guy about Holder and Obama, please,” it really makes me wonder what you’re talking about.
I know, I know, Neo. But “errors” is too soft and gentle and forgiving a word in this setting.
Don Carlos: if you want the sort of blog that uses the most inflammatory language possible, you’ve come to the wrong place. I used “errors” in the sense that I’ve explained in my comment above, and I thought that was understood by the context of my post. And there’s nothing about the word “errors” that is forgiving, unless the person sincerely repents of his errors and vows to change. That most definitely has not occurred with Obama or Holder, who don’t even acknowledge them as errors. As I said, they were deliberate policy decisions.
The subject matter of this post was not an analysis or even a list of Holder’s actions as AG. For that, I referred readers to Thiessen’s article though a link. The subject matter of my post was why Obama keeps Holder on despite the fact that he has probably become a political liability. There is no point in calling anybody evil in this post; I leave that to the 5,000 other bloggers whose meat and potatoes is doing just that.
“Too Black to Fail”
Why?
Because he hasn’t gotten the actual subpoena yet, and the process hasn’t started yet and passed a certain point…
on another note..
Defense-cut projections seen as risk to recruitment
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/10/defense-cut-projections-seen-as-risk-to-force-recr/
besides the point of the whole article, another very critical point was made in a single paragraph that would also explain much as far as why we have what we have in office.
The pool from which the military recruits is already getting smaller. In 1973, the year the draft ended and the all-volunteer force arose, 90 percent of males, ages 17 through 24, qualified based on mental, physical and moral standards. Today, just 35 percent qualify.
when a failure rate goes from 10% to 65%, and you know the game, you really do wonder how many times will they cut the salami before the people realize that the ‘squares’ and oppressors that warned them as to what things were and where they would head… maybe were not the real block heads after all.
NEO: If Obama is the loner people say he is, then old and trusted friends–especially ones that predate his presidency–become even more important. If he jettisons them, who is left?
again… once you are in the thick of it, all you can really trust are your friends, the people who were with you before. anyone new you meet may be friend, may be frienemy as they say today, or changeable, which amounts to similar endings.
i have said before, if you want to know this game plan, read the “The Revolutionary Catechism”
NEO: 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.
number 10 covers that one..
I was in a federal office and noticed two pictures of Obama and Holder. As I passed by the pictures, a blue light, soft and sparkling, soothed and calmed my troubled mind. Oh those noble souls, well wrapped in humility and charity, how I wish to bask always in their light.
It wasn’t too long ago that such tripe was really said.
Nothing pleases me more to see Issa zeroing in on Holder. As we continue to watch the disintegration of Obama’s administration, more and more will be revealed. It seems a race between the anarchy unleashed by the proponents of “the audacity of hope” and the stabilization occurred through the reaction and revelation of what is happening. Truly might these times be called apocalyptic.
Neo-
When I wrote, “No more Ms. Nice Guy,” I meant I think you are sometimes too gentle. That may be a reflection of your therapist persona. But you were surely worked up with your recent essays on the death penalty. So agitation happens to you too.
I personally view Obama and Holder especially as actors and enablers of the greatest dangers to the USA in a hugely long time, causing grave, permanent, irremediable harm, and it exercises me. I tried to make that clear. I submit there is a point in the judicious use of the word ‘evil.’ I do not do that lightly.
Thank you for having allowed me to do so.
At this point the conclusion is inescapable: For oh so many reasons, Democrats are not fit for office. None of them.
They’re cowardly on defense, profligate on fiscal policy, pandering to extremism, corrupt in financial dealings, dissolute on sexual matters, questionable or worse on patriotism, and somewhere between hopeless and complicit in Red efforts to subvert our form of government.
Ah, so Holder is the Mouth of Sauron.
I reckon that’s one way to look at it. I think there “went but a pair of shears between ’em,” to quote the Bard.
What strikes me most forcibly about both guys is their utter lack of shame: they feel completely justified in their operations, and when caught, simply shrug and say, “Whaddaya gonna do about it? Nothin’? Thought so!” and carry on like before. The foxes have found out that the henhouse guards are indifferent or too timid to stop their depredations.
Yes, that is exactly right Beverly, but why? I submit it is due to the reigning “law of the land.” The law of the land has been reset to “what the nobility says” and it has been reset by those monsters. We recognize the legitimacy of the new law because it was through duly elected channels. So, not only is there a protection by a new law but there is a natural deference to the authority that set that new law.
But, there is a limit and they have run against that limit of the extension of a belief in their good faith. Now, it is close to war, and compromise, the foundation of a rational system, has been compromised. Did Lincoln compromise? No. But he did not demonize the opposition. For that he was hated at the time, but it was his vision which prevailed.
hear that? its a bus revving up its engine…
Issa Issues Subpoena to Holder in Fast and Furious Investigation
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/12/issa-issues-subpoena-to-holder-in-fast-and-furious-investigation
while they are at it, maybe make out a few more subpoena’s
Ex-Indiana governor: That’s not my signature on Obama petition
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-exindiana-governor-thats-not-my-signature-on-obama-petition-20111012,0,1203433.story?track=rss
Former Gov. Joe Kernan says a signature on a petition to place Barack Obama’s name on Indiana’s 2008 primary ballot isn’t his, putting him among dozens of dubious signatures found in a newspaper’s investigation.
“No, not at all,” the former South Bend mayor said when asked whether the signature next to his name on the Obama petition looked like his own. “Nor does the printing look like mine.”
The Tribune reported Wednesday that it has talked with more than 40 people who say they didn’t sign ballot petitions submitted in St. Joseph County for Obama or Clinton, despite their names appearing on the documents.
remember, its not who votes, its who counts the votes… under socialism, we make history by cheating, and then writing the history after we win…
Holcomb said the questionable signatures raised “real questions” about the process and that he believed the U.S. Department of Justice should investigate the matter.
they are a bit busy now with fast and furious…