BREAKING: Rove To Lead The Good Fight Against Holder

graphic by twolf

graphic by twolf

Eric Holder is a horrid choice to lead the Obama Department of Justice as both Looseheadprop and I have pointed out numerous ways and times (See: here, here, here, here and here). In spite of this fact, Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy inexplicably thinks he is the greatest thing since sliced bread and can’t wait to confirm the relentless big business elite power suck up Holder:

I want to continue the work we began last year when I scheduled prompt hearings and the Senate proceeded to confirm Michael Mukasey, Mark Filip and Kevin O’Connor to serve as Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General after the Rove-Gonzales resignations, even though we were on the eve of the election of a new President. We cannot now delay restoring the Justice Department and the confidence the American people have in our justice system. We must promptly consider and confirm Eric H. Holder Jr., and other nominees of the new President.

Yeah, good plan Pat because, you know, those quick confirmations of Mukasey, Filip and O’Connor worked out so blindingly well. Or not. Well, the ever prescient Leahy did see his opposition coming when he said:

But of course since then, Karl Rove has appeared on the Today Show and signaled that Republicans ought to go after Mr. Holder. Right-wing talk radio took up the drum beat.

Guess what Pat; it is more than on talk shows that Karl Rove will be your nemesis.

Yep, on tomorrow’s edition of the syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, on the "Tell Me What I Don’t Know" segment, Andrea Mitchell will announce that "Karl Rove will be running and leading the GOP effort against Senate confirmation of the Eric Holder nomination".

Wow. It sure isn’t every day that I wish Karl Rove the best of luck, but today is that rarest of days. Go get em Karl, because the nation needs a lot cleaner and more inspirational person than Eric Holder to lead the Department of Justice out of the morass the Bush Administration has placed it in.

image_print
71 replies
  1. foothillsmike says:

    Wow and I thought the problem was Arlen Spector needed time to study Holders extensive background because he was going to be on an extended “fact finding” trip to England, Austria, Israel etc, with his colleagues wife. He will be flown in an Air force jet because given the importance of the trip and the audacity of the CEOs coming to Washington DC on their corporate planes.

  2. BooRadley says:

    I had to applaud DeadEye Dick Cheney telling the GOP not to be the Party of Herbert Hoover, I can hold my nose long enough to give Karl an attaboy on resisting Holder.

  3. BooRadley says:

    FWIW, I think Leahy’s in a tough spot. Obama has enormous power within the Democratic party right now. Unless we can get the media to shine a bright light on Holder’s past, I am not optimistic about our chances, but hell’s bells, when has that ever stopped us before?

    Go Rover!!!!!

    • Phoenix Woman says:

      I’m still trying to figure out why Rove wouldn’t like Holder. If Holder really is an evil demon with bloodstained hands, you’d think that Karl Rove would identify with him.

      • LabDancer says:

        If by “identify with him”, I take it you include Rove welcoming the prospect of facing one of the numerous special prosecutors Holder actively promoted during the 1990s.

        Anywho, there are a couple of ready rationalizations:

        First, from a group ugh perspective, it’s pretty clear from their going all rhadsodic over the MacBlago drama and their idiocy on the auto bailout that the R-Thoritarians have determined to seize on any and all opportunities to find something that might stick to Obama, having been frustrated at so many likely turns during the campaign.

        [How could a gift from redneck heaven like the ravin’ Reverend Wright backfire so badly? Why in hell didn’t that Antichrist meme take? How could we screw up so bad on that great “celebrity” meme? What in hell is wrong with Americans that they can look past him pallin’ around with ter’rists? Okay, okay: McCain was a disaster and we didn’t see that coming; our bad. But if we don’t do SOMETHING, and FAST, the economy’s gonna recover, peace is gonna break out all over the planet, he’s gonna wean the whole damn country off oil and turn everything green, the unitard theory’s gonna take a nose dive, colored folk are gonna feel entitled to get all uppity, and putting as many possible of our kind behind bars is gonna become a national sport. We can’t afford to let this guy take us all down, so from now on it’s all-out challenges, filibusters and IEDs. Fer crime’s sake, there’s no way he’s made of Teflon – let’s bring down those favorables!]

        And, notwithstanding my own trepidation about expending major currency to get Holder removed, it’s pretty clear he presents a number of terrific opportunities for the Rs to smear Obama, not just with remoisterized Clinton Rich excrement but trip him up with some of the Rs own banana peels.

        And who knows: maybe being able give up his sorry ass to Turdblossom presents an Obamatunity.

    • bmaz says:

      Well, that is the beauty of it, it’s my time to waste; although I don’t think it is ever a waste of time to use your voice as a citizen to try to accomplish the right thing for the country. Getting someone better than Eric Holder is most certainly the right thing for the country.

        • bmaz says:

          Heh, that is the other beauty of it; we each get to have our own independent opinion.

          By the way, my hat is off, the Cats kicked the Sun Devils’ ass this year. It will be a one year run only I predict, but for this year you win the Cup and I hope the bowl game (Las Vegas Bowl?).

  4. Loo Hoo. says:

    How many senate votes does it take for confirmation of Obama’s appointees? The same 60?

    And why is Obama not in the Microsoft dictionary?

  5. Teddy Partridge says:

    The source of the delay of the rule of law isn’t Rove, it’s Obama — for nominating Holder, a flawed choice, in the first place. This was all predictable, and we actually predicted it right here at FDL. We’ve said for a month that the GOP would embarrass Obama during the Holder hearings. If anyone believes in comity after the Corker/McConnell/Shelby performances, they are hopelessly naive.

    Now that Rover’s in charge, do you really doubt it’ll get nasty?

  6. Teddy Partridge says:

    Obama should send the Secret Service to seize the Justice Department, its effects, offices, and papers, on 1.20.09 at noon. All persons in Senate-confirmable positions should be expelled from the premises, and the department should be placed under court receivership. All policy and case efforts should be stopped, all regulations halted, all negotiations ended.

    It is the consigliere of an ongoing criminal enterprise and should be treated as such.

  7. juslin says:

    hmmm rove’s going to oppose holder – gee who knew? rove – a guy who should be in jail before now and he’s going to oppose holder? ROVE??? puhleeze – ughhhhhhhh

    • bobschacht says:

      On Moyers’ Journal last night, Glenn Greenwald, more than once, advocated that Fitzgerald be nominated as independent Special Prosecutor for the whole Bush-Cheney investigation mess. If you didn’t see that interview, do yourself a favor and watch it online and also here. This is the best TV segment of the week, IMHO.

      Bob in HI

  8. dakine01 says:

    Since KKKarl’s primary “beef” is likely to be the Marc Rich pardon, I predict that Little Boots will be extremely busy for most of January signing pardons.

    This is based on the past history of Rover et al complaining loudest about things they are doing themselves.

    • rxbusa says:

      Exactly. I have been trying to figure out exactly what KKKarl’s beef is with Holder since Marc Rich sounds like the kind of person they would be proud of.

  9. JohnLopresti says:

    I suppose the links explain Holder plans to offset Obama’s center drive pivot hookshot by extraordinarily preserved accuracy from the three point zone. Other than that, the worries abundant in the delay thread a few hours ago are an interesting mix based more in law than lobbying. Which is where I would go read the links again. The article I referenced mostly is about the difficult world of NYC in Holder’s youthful era, though he seems to have excelled at an academic highschool, and it would be refreshing to hear his views on history, a field in which he professes to have continued to be an avid reader. I think these guys are writing the history. I trust Rove not one whit, except to run interference for McConnell’s planned 111th interminable obstructionism fantasies, kids who jump in the pool to splash people with no place else to go. Besides its boosting Holder, I thought the plan in the nomination was to defuse early hype, which likely is what triggered the pitbull in Rove to call upon the same folks who would donate to Jomentum to oppose Holder early.

  10. JohnLopresti says:

    Fitzgerald would be about as cooperative as Comey or he of the law of admiralty. I think the president-elect already has gone a stride beyond any of those three already with the balance of his ‘moderate’ nominees.

  11. bobschacht says:

    So, bmaz, let me get this straight:
    You want to enter into an alliance with Karl Rove to force Obama to withdraw the Holder nomination and nominate someone less identified by the establishment in order to get the establishment to confirm this more progressive person?

    Is that some kind of Faustian bargain? If Obama is driven to do that, are you sure that the next nominee will be someone more to your liking than Holder?

    For my own self, I would rather that he have nominated Napolitano for AG. But he’s nominated her to be in the Cabinet already, and the way Obama is setting up his cabinet, he is nominating people with multiple competencies, rather than people with narrow specialties.

    In other words, I think Obama is selecting people who will contribute direction and purpose outside their own department, as well as in it. Obama hasn’t announced it as such, but it maybe that, just like he has an Economics team of multiple cabinet appointments, so also perhaps he has in mind a Legal/Justice team that includes both Holder and Napolitano (and maybe others).

    To repeat, I wish he had nominated Napolitano for AG rather than Holder, but having done what he did, I would be very reluctant to enter into an alliance with Karl Rove about anything.

    Bob in HI

  12. Larue says:

    As in ‘brainless marketing’ (I think there’s enough of that in the world to use the phrase loosely without insulting those who pursue it with elan), if you throw enough mud at the wall some will stick.

    I think that’s a part of what’s happening in this time of transition and appointment making.

    The progressive left blogosphere that has been disenchanted with Obama’s appointments made and makes a LOT of noise about Holder. As many say, I’m with the Chiquita issue as being a deal breaker, and the Rich pardon to me is almost inconsequential. I’ve finally decided, we NEED to do much better for this important AG spot, so Holder is expendable no matter HOW he’s expended.

    As such, I think on the part alone of the left’s criticism of Holder’s appointment, Rove would GLADLY jump on that alone to splinter and fracture and criticize and drum up the right wing and hope the MSM will take hold and that Obama will lose kudo’s with HIS supporters. Pick them off, one at a time . . .

    But the GOP, Rove and the neocon’s and the fundies for any NUMBER of reasons need to exploit anything they can to hamper this transition, and the term of Obama. Hell, if they can, they’ll pin Blago on Rahm AND Obama, and impeach!!! If they can, they will beat that drum to DEATH in the next couple of weeks.

    But, as Ms. Wheeler, bmaz and many others here at FDL have offered, the GOP needs to stall, obfuscate, deflect and ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK on any and every front they can. That’s all they got left, and they are really good at it.

    Ergo, Holder, the new EPA appointment (geebuz what is Obama thinking, THAT one is a disgrace and even I’M getting a LITTLE spooked about who’s side he’s on), the Mukasey stalling all fit under the broader umbrella of stall, obfuscate, deflect and ATTACK.

    Some as a matter of GOP course, some to protect those who might be singled out for investigation, and some to actually take down Obama as soon as they can.

    That’s a REAL big picture look, from this non lawyer/non constitutionalist eagle.

    I was reading thru this post, and then Mz Wheeler’s, and the level of rhetoric used and the depth of law and constitutionality is so far beyond me I wouldn’t post a peep on THAT thread.

    What I’m sayin is, some of you folks are phreakin pretty good in your fields, it would seem.

    If all y’all could though, let’s boil some of the stuff down for us peons who can’t comprehend at the level of discourse as demonstrated on Mz. Wheelers post. Whew, that’s some specialized industry verbage. Blew my mind. Which is not a BAD thing, to have to try and raise up a bit to see over the curb at times . . . LOL

  13. TomR says:

    OT: An Excellent Article on the Hero Whistleblower Who Exposed Warrantless Wiretapping

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601

    This guy needs our support.

    – Tom

    ps. Like him, I’m pissed that the NY Times waited long after the 2004 election to publish the story. We’ve been let down in so many ways by so many people who should have taken action ASAP instead of looking the other way.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Agree. Although it sure seems as if some of them had figured out they were being wiretapped and surveilled. Which is all the more reason to support the whistleblower.

    • juslin says:

      it seems to me now that repugs are out of office the “MSM” has found its balls somewhat…. ahhh WHERE were the MSM back then…..

    • bmaz says:

      So, you are advocating that the serious questions that were already being asked about Eric Holder’s fitness for the job be ignored because Karl Rove has suddenly decided to join in the asking of them?

      And you accuse me of idiocy?

      • mercury says:

        I don’t. I think it’s idiotic to think that Rove’s purposes in attacking Holder have anything to do with upholding the public good or that the fallout from his position will be limited to just getting rid of Holder. Or, for that matter, limited to hurting Obama — for those of you who consider Obama to be already on a par with Bush in the corruption department. Rove always has bigger fish to fry, and there’s a Republican party to rebuild.

        But if you want to cheer as the Rovian camel gets his nose under the tent, you go right ahead. Count me out.

        • bmaz says:

          I can’t stop Rove the stinking camel either way. But I do not like Eric Holder for the job that lies ahead at DOJ, and if Holder is sacked, I think Obama will pick somebody a little cleaner the next time around. Rove is going to do what Rove is going to do; I am not going to acquiesce to Holder simply because Rove is against him too. Far as I am concerned, if Rove assists a job I was already on, so be it.

          • mercury says:

            Iif Rove assists a job I was already on, so be it.

            Holder may be the absolute worst pick for the job, you may be right. He may be the new Alberto Gonzales. I’m sure there are cleaner picks, I do not dispute that. Serious questions should be asked. I would never argue otherwise.

            But if you think Rove’s “assisting” on YOUR job, Batman, you need your head examined. He’s got an agenda that will go far beyond you getting rid of Holder. You sound sort of like you’d borrow money to remodel your kitchen from Tony Soprano.

      • Nell says:

        Mercury didn’t advocate not continuing to ask the hard questions about Holder’s candidacy; he advocated not allying oneself, tactically or otherwise, with Karl Rove. Excellent advice which you would be wise to consider.

        I am extremely uneasy about Holder’s candidacy, but I don’t for a minute believe that Karl Rove will ask the same questions as I do, nor would I willingly do anything to encourage his efforts — much less ally myself with him publicly.

    • mbayrob says:

      So now, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That ALWAYS ends up great.

      This seems kind of idiotic to me.

      Yeah, I think bmaz is out in the weeds on this one. You’d think Rove’s opposition might suggest that just maybe, he’s pushing this Holder business further than it ought to go. Being a corporate lawyer isn’t a great recommendation for anything, but it shouldn’t be disqualifying either. And Holder has qualifications that bmaz can’t seem to find when he blogs these things.

      • bmaz says:

        Yeah, whatta LHP and I know anyway? Two plus decades a piece working in the criminal justice system just isn’t enough time to pick up much of a feel for things you know….

  14. HarryWaisbren says:

    What a post Bmaz! I cited it and expanded upon the implications of this story in a post on the Oxdown Gazette.

    I question whether or not we should use the coming media fixation on Holder as an attempt to push for an Attorney General Fitzgerald instead. If you get a chance to read it I hope you like it—and please keep up the phenomenal work leading the fight for an AG who will ensure the rule of law for all!

  15. rosalind says:

    hey bmaz, on the way to the movies tonight i pulled up behind an exceedingly cool looking car, then saw the “tesla” on the rear.

    alas, at the green i did not get to witness its 0 to 60 in less than 4 seconds as the dipwad behind the wheel was so engrossed with his illegal hands-on cell phone call i blew past in my little prius.

    (movie: “cadillac records”, the story of chess records. if you don’t mind rampant historical inaccuracy, and hold your ears during beyonce’s rendition of “i’d rather go blind”, really fun flick. jeffrey wright as muddy waters is sublime.)

    • bmaz says:

      I like the Tesla. A lot. Have not had a chance to drive one; would really like to. Alas, Tesla is having a tough time financially; I think it is 50:50 whether they make it in their current iteration. Just in case any of you moran Southern Republican Senators are reading this, you might want to take note that even the new lean and green forward thinking car makers, like Tesla, you blather about are NOT making it in this economy you have bequeathed us.

  16. kgb999 says:

    Hey! Glad to see someone else doesn’t like Holder. If anyone could get me to support his nomination though … it would be Karl Rove. Being on the same side of any issue with Rove is just icky.

    But then, Holder is pretty icky himself, and changing opinions because of anything Rove does would be totally lame. Holder is a poor pick for AG regardless of how Rove behaves.

  17. BooRadley says:

    Excellent thread, thanks to all.

    The calculus that FDL and liberals/progressives have to make on the Holder nomination is critical and one we will have to make countless times before the 2010 primaries. We’re always balancing political pragmatism with our ideals.

    What’s very significant imho is that the left does not have much financial, political or media leverage. Nothing illustrated this more vividly than the crushing defeat we suffered on FISA. If we did have more political leverage, it would certainly impact my assessment of our decision on the Holder nomination.

    Are we liberals/progressives stronger in advancing our policy agenda by compromising on the Holder nomination or by fighting it aggressively?

    I think it’s very important to remember that this is nomination not an election. I was very outspoken in the FDL threads before the election asking liberals/progressives to vote for Barack. I continue to believe that was absolutely the only reasonable choice when McSane was the alternative. Obama only won 53% of the popular vote and I believe the margin really mattered.

    Also, imho Obama’s decision on Lieberman should absolutely not be ignored. If JoLie delivers huge on pressuring Israeli conservatives into an acceptable I/P solution, I’ll stand corrected. Until that happens, however, Obama’s JoLie decision still looks like a really gratuitous slap in the face to liberals/progressives. Obama and Reid want JoeLie to be the firewall that catches all the liberal flack. They don’t consider us very relevant to winning elections.

    It’s not clear to me what liberals/progressives are getting back from Obama and the Dems in return for staying silent on the Holder nomination.

    Based on what I know now, I have to side with bmaz. This is a robust opportunity for loyal dissent.

    I don’t think Obama or Leahy care what liberals/progressives think about the Holder nomination. I love Leahy and he’s far and away imho one of the least bad Senators we have. Given that imho, the smart play is to practice flexing our muscles and fight the Holder nomination. If we don’t, chances are we’re just postponing fights we’ll have down the road with Eric the AG anyway. In some of those fights we might be joined by other constituencies and our presence might matter.

    IMHO, failing to fight this nomination carries significant costs especially for FDL. We lose significant credibility with liberals/progressives when we don’t aggressively fight these battles. I’m thinking particularly of one of my favorite fdl commenters, Mary. IMHO no single commenter has been better in educating this community about torture, rendition, and the thorny legal undergirding of those most anti-American and anti-human enterprises. Mary doesn’t comment as frequently as she used to. When she does, afaik, it’s almost exclusively here at emptywheel’s place. FDL simply can’t afford to lose commenters of her skill level. In order to grow into a potent political force, we need more liberals/progressives. Look at the MN Senate race. How many liberals voted for the third party candidate? I don’t know, but it looks like it really mattered.

    Another constituency we lose credibility with are those “strange bedfellows” who fought along side us against the FISA disaster.

    OT, supporting bmaz’s post doesn’t mean I am in any way critical of ew’s Delaying the Return of the Rule of Law. Being as politically weak as liberals are carries its own internal leverage. We don’t have to be bound by others who hold that fighting the Holder nomination is aiding those who want to delay the return to the rule of law. That’s exactly the kind of horse trading that Leahy, Feingold and other Senators really have to face. That’s not our problem. Leahy and Feingold know we’re going to support them. What choice do we have?

    • kgb999 says:

      As you surmise, the democratic establishment knows liberals are votes in the bank. They’ve already put anyone who has expressed concern into a box as “Angry Left” run a couple of polls that correctly say Obama has a high level of support – ergo the “Angry Left” doesn’t exist and therefore there are no complaints. It’s been weird to watch and very Rovian. Dems are winning internal debates by winning news cycles instead of putting forth reasoned arguments.

      The thing nobody discusses is what the independents and centrists were looking for when they supported Obama en masse. The liberals put in the legwork, but the centrists provided the votes needed to win. This union of left and center is crucial for true “progressive” action in America. The relative satisfaction levels in these voters is going to determine future democratic electoral success. I think many view the promise to “end politics as usual” to be the most important thing Obama can do – until that happens no true change can ever occur.

      In that context Holder is a cynical choice. It sends a message that rather than end politics as usual, Obama is endorsing the politics and most controversial decisions of the Clinton administration. This is purely a intra-party game between Obama and the DLC, but ultimately the American people are left in the lurch with a crappy AG who seems perfectly willing to push the envelope for his political master. The statement “Obama will be in charge, so it doesn’t really matter” is some seriously weak water for anyone who doesn’t worship the man.

      What will centrists and independents think of Holder’s dirty laundry in the context of a cratering economy where the ultra-wealthy are viewed as getting favored treatment at the expense of taxpayers? Nothing good I fear. Which is why Rove is on the bandwagon. Win or lose, the Holder nomination is going to be a big negative for the democrats with persuadable independent voters. There is no real GOP downside on this.

      Rove’s best scenario is to force the democrats into taking a position of unified defense. Then the GOP can point to Holder and say “See those so-called ‘change’ democrats want a change … right back to the Clinton years”. Even the alternative: Obama didn’t vet his choices well enough is a clear win. It’s a crappy situation to be in and completely avoidable with just a little less lazy cynicism on Obama’s part.

      The GOP is going to get traction on this because there is a reasonable argument for opposition to Holder. Even worse they are going to be arguing the pro-progressive side of the debate while Obama is forced to argue in favor of the status quo. In a time when America views them as unable to put a coherent sentence together, this lets the GOP off the mat – which can only be described as a serious strategic blunder.

      My advice: liberal democrats should stay true to your beliefs and never let up. America has never been more ready to embrace what the left has to offer. Seize the time! If you participate in promoting someone with obvious problems in the name of party unity, the democrats become no better than the republicans. THAT is Rove’s pony in this race imo – to make unaligned Americans question the democratic party’s commitment to their own stated ideals.

      (BTW: Thanks to all of you for having a discussion that is off-limits on most other “progressive” blogs! Sorry for the huge post).

      • bmaz says:

        You have stated a lot of good points here. And what really gets my goat is that, of all the places in Obama’s Administration to be that DID NOT need this baloney, it is the AG/DOJ.

        Nell @64 – I have two choices; one admit that Rove is right about Holder and accept that maybe he will help to get Americans i could never reach educated about Holder or, two change my position simply because Rove happened to be curiously aligned with it. In my opinion, Holder is the problem; I refuse to be so obsessed with freaking Karl Rove as to back off of attacking Holder. If Rover helps get rid of Holder, then so be it. If democrats are all fidgety, too fucking bad. If they had gotten their heads out of the Obama sand and objected to the noxious Holder to start with, we likely would not be in this position. But noooo, we have to suffer through the Obama this and Obama deserves that BS. You could see this coming a long way off, and there have been many here who have been saying just that from the outset, even before Eric the Puke was nominated. The bottom line is what is best for the DOJ and America, and it damn sure isn’t Eric Holder. That concern is a whole lot more important than fixating on Rover.

        • mercury says:

          I have two choices; one admit that Rove is right about Holder and accept that maybe he will help to get Americans i could never reach educated about Holder or, two change my position simply because Rove happened to be curiously aligned with it

          What the hell are you talking about? Those are NOT the only choices! No one’s advocating you change your position on Holder. You can work against him until the cows come home. It just seems insane to welcome the efforts of a man who is aiming ultimately at the Democratic party — not Holder. Holder’s just a pretext for Rove. You may get what you want from an alliance with Rove — who is poised to influence a Republican party desperate for leadership and direction, I might add — but this particular cure could be as bad as the disease.

          You can blame fidgety Dems and talk as tough as you want. But I think you could think a bit more about your choice of tactics and ‘allies’.

          • bmaz says:

            I am ideological, but not so pure as to refuse the ability to co-opt an outside force when it can make the difference on an important victory. I play the game to win the game, not to cut my nose to spite my face.

            • mercury says:

              Do you really believe you’d be the only one doing the co-opting? I seriously, seriously doubt it — and your victory could thus become a Pyhrric one. You have no way of knowing how Rove would capitalize on the fallout of getting rid of Holder.

              Again, I’m not suggesting you abandon your principled stand against Holder. My point is about Rove: he’s looking for a way to hurt non-Republicans and hobble in whatever way he can the incoming Administration. And even if you are one of the folks around here who already considers Obama the bastard offspring of Cheney and Hannibal Lecter (I’ve read commenters here use quasi-Nazi analogies with Obama, so I’m not exagerrating all the much, btw) that just poisons the well for possible future Dem prospects.

              • bmaz says:

                You are still missing the point. Neither I nor anybody else on this side of the coin can stop, or even really fight, Rove from doing whatever he is going to do, short of giving up the fight against Holder and supporting him just to frustrate Rove. I am not going to do that, and I do not recommend anybody else be so shortsided. Rove is a self serving blowhard. So what. Keep your eye on the ball, and the ball right now is Holder, not Rover.

                You are advocating being manipulated by Rove instead of manipulating him. Co-opt the fucker, say the case against Holder is bi-partisan, make the case bi-partisan and make Mr. Obama, the king of supposed post partisan/bi-partisan whatever recognize it as such and give us a cleaner choice than Holder. I am tired of being consumed by freaking Karl Rove; I favor turning the tables and using him for once.

                And it accomplishes a righteous goal in the process; what is so bad about all that?

                • mercury says:

                  Nothing would be bad about that if that’s all there was to it.

                  I never advocated supporting Holder in order to frustrate Rove. I’m not advocating supporting Holder at all.

                  I’m just saying that you think you can “use” a known dirty trickster and Republican operative like Rove for your own ends without any blowback, and I don’t think that’s the case. You’re arguing using the ‘post-partisan’ meme against Obama to twist his arm? Well, that’s what Rove will do, only of course he won’t be post anything.

                  And MAYBE you get a cleaner choice. Or maybe you get a more Republican-friendly choice who sails through to an easy confirmation. You definitely get a Karl Rove with more juice again exerting leadership in a Republican party back in the game after collecting Holder’s scalp and Obama’s balls.

                  But whatever. I don’t care if Holder is out; I just don’t want Rove to be able to use the victory to help rebuild the Repubs and watch them frustrate every move Obama tries to make over the next four years.

                  You see, I still think the guy can do some good for the country. (I know — what a fucking moron I am!)

  18. mgardener says:

    Why isn’t Karl in jail for refusing to answer a subpoena?

    Why do we even listen to him? WHy is he still a credible talking head?

    I say Pat Fitzgerald for AG and start him on the trail of Rove, Meyers, Cheney and Bush!

    • BooRadley says:

      I agree Fitz would be a better choice than Holder.

      AFAIK, however, Fitz’s record on torture and rendition is not good, pretty much in line with Comey.

  19. masaccio says:

    I am not a supporter of Eric Holder, but the idea of letting the repubs claim a win on his nomination is too much for me.

  20. dougr says:

    Say you’re an executive at Chiquita. You hear your executives are being kidnapped by Marxist guerrillas. A right-wing paramilitary group offers you protection for a price. What do you do?

  21. bmaz says:

    You are no moron; in fact, you express valid concerns. I fully understand them. However, I am more concerned about Holder than I am Rover (I can accept that others may not be, but that is my take). And no, the “post partisan meme is already Obama’s, not mine that I wish to twist on him. My idea is to neutralize Rove by thanking HIM for joining all of us in post partisanship, and framing the effort such that we get the benefit of any help from him and, in the process, tag him as joining us, which might hurt him a bit with virulent wingnuts.

    Time to be the framers instead of the framees.

Comments are closed.