Holder the proxy
Eric Holder, in his continuing effort to deflect criticism for his actions in Fast and Furious (and just about everything else), recently told the WaPo:
“I’ve become a symbol of what [Republicans] don’t like about the positions this Justice Department has taken…I am also a proxy for the president in an election year. You have to be exceedingly naive to think that vote was about .”‰.”‰. documents.
That’s the line: they hate him because he’s black (it was Sharpton who voiced that one, natch). Now Holder himself says they hate him in order to get Obama. Of course, it couldn’t be that something he did or did not do is actually anything he might have to answer for. The best defense is always a good offense.
But it’s that word “proxy” that caught my attention, because it’s a term I first used for Holder back in February of 2010, when there was speculation that he was about to be tossed by the president. At the time, I said that would never happen. But when I referred to Holder as Obama’s proxy, I meant something rather different from what Holder is trying to say now:
[In a previous post] I wrote “Holder is a proxy for Obama himself.” Commenter “RickZ” responded:
No offense, neo, but every presidential cabinet appointment is a proxy for the President himself, that’s the nature of the beast at these rarefied positions.
So I would like to clarify: by using the word “proxy” in Holder’s case, I meant something different than the usual Cabinet appointee, the usual presidential representative. I could be wrong about this, but my gut senses a close identification between Obama and Holder, an almost-Vulcan-mind-meld between them on the legal issues involved in fighting terrorism. 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.
Now once again there is speculation that if Obama manages to win a second term, he may dump Holder. My prediction is still the same: no, he won’t. Obama trusts Holder, and there are very few people in the world he feels that way about. As long as Holder is not forced out of office, he will remain there, because Obama is just fine with what he’s doing.
Of course, I sincerely hope the question will be moot, because I sincerely hope Obama will not get a second term.
Tossing Holder would also cause a split in the elite black establishment, where I suspect Holder has deeper ties than Obama. Who would Jesse Jackson side with?
They are both black-hearted knaves, and I do not use that adjective lightly, or as a racial pun.
They mean us immense harm, and they are succeeding, perhaps beyond their wildest dreams. They get cooperation from their nominal adversaries.
Ugh and Aggh.
All I needed to know about Holder I learned during Clinton’s last few days as President. Holder’s handling of the Marc Rich’s pardon was disgraceful. Yes, I know he was carrying out Bill Clinton’s and Jack Quinn’s* wishes, but his subsequent lies about his knowledge of the details of the Rich case should have been more than enough to thwart his confirmation. But then again, the Republicans didn’t have the backbone to press the issue and keep Holder out of DOJ. Everything that he has done, and not done (e.g., NBPanthers), should be no surprise to anyone.
* An interesting note, Scooter Libby was Marc Rich’s lawyer at one time. Small world, isn’t it?
There is a kind of catch-22 here. If you elect a black politician you can’t criticize him because if you do you would be called racist. The claim and the media uproar about the claim will probably be enough to get even an openly crooked black politician re-elected. For decades black politicians ran Detroit into the ground. Every bit of money and political patronage was squeezed out of the citizens and the loot was spent by black politicians most of it probably going up their noses or pleasuring their loins. Everyone saw it for what it was but smart politicians don’t say things that attract the wrong kind of attention so blame was never properly placed. Maybe a million people made the exodus out of Detroit in those years that black politicians were destroying it. The federal government pumped money into Detroit for years trying to prop it up. But no one ever called it what it was. Is that what our future looks like? Obama and his cronies can do anything, commit any crime, steal or misappropriate money and we can do nothing because they are black? When does this carnival of horrors end? When can we begin judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin?
The answer to “When?” is Never.
It can’t be about skin color; it just can’t.
As you well know Curtis, it is all about skin color for Holder & Obama. Ever notice how black immigrants from the Caribbean or Africa quickly assimilate into American culture and become self reliant citizens while Great Society welfare slave descendants do not? However, BHO will sacrifice Holder and throw him under the bus just like Reverend Wright at the first opportunity. Lame duck BHO can pardon him with the scribble of the pen.
We have been given a choice. We have the information we need to make it.
We know, thanks to Obama’s Lonesome Rhodes open mike moment with Medvedev, that he is selling us out.
We know Holder cooked up Fast and Furious to substantiate his and Hillary’s “90%” claim.
We know the Democrats shoved Obamacare, which to this day remains an undiscovered country, down our throats.
We know Obama harmed us by leaking national secrets to the press.
We know the Muslim Brotherhood is taking over Egypt.
We know Obama is kicking our few remaining important allies, like India, Israel, and England, in the face.
Our choice is what to do about it.
In view of that the matter of whether or not Obama’s Attorney General thinks those who are not his people should have any civil rights is of little import.
Could it be that The Won is more likely to divorce MO than EH? Though MO would exact far more than “a pound of flesh”.
I believe you are right. I also think Hokder, in addition to being a proxy, is a narcissistic extension OF Obama. They are not only on the same page, but the same ink.