Eric Holder

[Kassc22 0]

I am not an Eric Holder fan. I believe I stated that somewhere before. Having said that I read this article about him several days ago and thought I would share it. Its a very good read but also very long.

The POLITICO Mag Profile

The Survivor

How Eric Holder outlasted his (many) critics.

By GLENN THRUSH

July/August 2014

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz37Z7j88VM

Why the hell is Eric Holder still around? That’s a question many of Barack Obama’s political advisers have asked at various points throughout Holder’s tumultuous five years at the helm of the Justice Department.

For most of Obama’s presidency, in fact, if there’s been controversy, Holder was likely to be in the middle of it, from the failed efforts to close Guantánamo Bay and to prosecute alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a Manhattan court to his inability to send Wall Street executives involved in the mortgage meltdown to jail. His detractors in the West Wing of the White House, and there have been many, have seen the attorney general as a never-ending source of questionable decisions, tin-eared political missteps and off-the-reservation remarks. “If it was coming out of the Justice Department,” a former top adviser to Obama recalled to me, “it was bad news.”

Congress has it in for Holder, too: House Republicans howled for his scalp after voting him in contempt of Congress two years ago in a dispute over a gun investigation gone awry, making Holder the first Cabinet member ever to be sanctioned. And at least one Hill Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, suggested Holder step down after it was revealed the department had secretly obtained journalists’ phone records as part of leak investigations involving the Associated Press and Fox News. “Whenever you feel that you have lost your effectiveness … to the detriment of the job that you do,” Manchin told Bloomberg, “decisions have to be made.”

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz37Z7RpUZd

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Nothing in that that changes my opinion of him.

He is what he is today.

[homersapien 11,513]

Well, I was wondering why he was still there. Now we know.

I thought the part about Holder being able to say what Obama can't was interesting. I think Obama's presidency has reflected the burden of being the first POTUS of his race is heavier than we think. After his first term - or perhaps because of the successes of his first term - he has played "defense" - being more concerned with making existing problems worse than he has been with solving them. I also think that is what has restrained both Holder and Obama for prosecuting the "crooks of Wall Street".

This may also contribute to why the far right has been so aggressive in opposing him.

[autigeremt 6,776]

"I think Obama's presidency has reflected the burden of being the first POTUS of his race is heavier than we think."

Oh brother..........give it a rest. The man was reelected for Gods sake. The crooks of Wall Street have an office on Pennsylvania Ave.

[homersapien 11,513]

"I think Obama's presidency has reflected the burden of being the first POTUS of his race is heavier than we think."

Oh brother..........give it a rest. The man was reelected for Gods sake. The crooks of Wall Street have an office on Pennsylvania Ave.

You misunderstood my post. I didn't mean it as an excuse. To the contrary, if true, it represents a psychological weakness.

[cooltigger21 0]

Well, I was wondering why he was still there. Now we know.

I thought the part about Holder being able to say what Obama can't was interesting. I think Obama's presidency has reflected the burden of being the first POTUS of his race is heavier than we think. After his first term - or perhaps because of the successes of his first term - he has played "defense" - being more concerned with making existing problems worse than he has been with solving them. I also think that is what has restrained both Holder and Obama for prosecuting the "crooks of Wall Street".

This may also contribute to why the far right has been so aggressive in opposing him.

We on the right oppose him so vigorously because we believe his policies are a disaster for this country.

[homersapien 11,513]

Well, I was wondering why he was still there. Now we know.

I thought the part about Holder being able to say what Obama can't was interesting. I think Obama's presidency has reflected the burden of being the first POTUS of his race is heavier than we think. After his first term - or perhaps because of the successes of his first term - he has played "defense" - being more concerned with making existing problems worse than he has been with solving them. I also think that is what has restrained both Holder and Obama for prosecuting the "crooks of Wall Street".

This may also contribute to why the far right has been so aggressive in opposing him.

We on the right oppose him so vigorously because we believe his policies are a disaster for this country.

History will tell.

Meanwhile we are still dealing the the fallout from the last Republican to hold office.

[autigeremt 6,776]

"I think Obama's presidency has reflected the burden of being the first POTUS of his race is heavier than we think."

Oh brother..........give it a rest. The man was reelected for Gods sake. The crooks of Wall Street have an office on Pennsylvania Ave.

You misunderstood my post. I didn't mean it as an excuse. To the contrary, if true, it represents a psychological weakness.

My bad. Apologies.

[homersapien 11,513]

"I think Obama's presidency has reflected the burden of being the first POTUS of his race is heavier than we think."

Oh brother..........give it a rest. The man was reelected for Gods sake. The crooks of Wall Street have an office on Pennsylvania Ave.

You misunderstood my post. I didn't mean it as an excuse. To the contrary, if true, it represents a psychological weakness.

My bad. Apologies.

No need.

I think of it as a "Jackie Robinson complex", only without the superior athletic talent Robinson possessed.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Well, I was wondering why he was still there. Now we know.

I thought the part about Holder being able to say what Obama can't was interesting. I think Obama's presidency has reflected the burden of being the first POTUS of his race is heavier than we think. After his first term - or perhaps because of the successes of his first term - he has played "defense" - being more concerned with making existing problems worse than he has been with solving them. I also think that is what has restrained both Holder and Obama for prosecuting the "crooks of Wall Street".

This may also contribute to why the far right has been so aggressive in opposing him.

We on the right oppose him so vigorously because we believe his policies are a disaster for this country.

History will tell.

Meanwhile we are still dealing the the fallout from the last Republican to hold office.

LOL oh yes...indeed..its ALL Geo Bush's fault...even 6 years removed! O-man is a teflon dude with people like you. Will he ever be accountable for ANYTHING or is everyone who opposes him simply a racist and those against open borders a xenophobe and those against gay marriage a homophobe and those against Hillary a misogynist? I love the way you people effort to demonize your opposition with a derogatory label.

Oh and BTW, what are those successes of his 1st term you referred to?

[homersapien 11,513]

Well, I was wondering why he was still there. Now we know.

I thought the part about Holder being able to say what Obama can't was interesting. I think Obama's presidency has reflected the burden of being the first POTUS of his race is heavier than we think. After his first term - or perhaps because of the successes of his first term - he has played "defense" - being more concerned with making existing problems worse than he has been with solving them. I also think that is what has restrained both Holder and Obama for prosecuting the "crooks of Wall Street".

This may also contribute to why the far right has been so aggressive in opposing him.

We on the right oppose him so vigorously because we believe his policies are a disaster for this country.

History will tell.

Meanwhile we are still dealing the the fallout from the last Republican to hold office.

LOL oh yes...indeed..its ALL Geo Bush's fault...even 6 years removed! O-man is a teflon dude with people like you. Will he ever be accountable for ANYTHING or is everyone who opposes him simply a racist and those against open borders a xenophobe and those against gay marriage a homophobe and those against Hillary a misogynist? I love the way you people effort to demonize your opposition with a derogatory label.

Oh and BTW, what are those successes of his 1st term you referred to?

Apparently you don't understand that it's possible for a POTUS to create a decades-long problem. Should I explain?

(Oh, nice rant. One of your better ones actually. )

[Tigermike 3,078]

",,,,it's possible for a POTUS to create a decades-long problem." You are correct and it will be interesting to see how you spin the clusterfrick that the current administration is causing.

[homersapien 11,513]

",,,,it's possible for a POTUS to create a decades-long problem." You are correct and it will be interesting to see how you spin the clusterfrick that the current administration is causing.

Give me ten plus years and I will gladly weigh-in. (Hopefully I'll still be here. )

Meanwhile, it's easy to look back ten years and see what those policies and decisions have wrought.

[Tigermike 3,078]

Gas was cheaper during those years. So was food.

[Tigermike 3,078]

",,,,it's possible for a POTUS to create a decades-long problem." You are correct and it will be interesting to see how you spin the clusterfrick that the current administration is causing.

Give me ten plus years and I will gladly weigh-in. (Hopefully I'll still be here. ;)/> )

Meanwhile, it's easy to look back ten years and see what those policies and decisions have wrought.

Well that's about all y'all have done, look back and blame. So you really think in ten years Obama won't still be blaming Bush? For that matter, when will you stop?

[homersapien 11,513]

",,,,it's possible for a POTUS to create a decades-long problem." You are correct and it will be interesting to see how you spin the clusterfrick that the current administration is causing.

Give me ten plus years and I will gladly weigh-in. (Hopefully I'll still be here. ;)/> )

Meanwhile, it's easy to look back ten years and see what those policies and decisions have wrought.

Well that's about all y'all have done, look back and blame. So you really think in ten years Obama won't still be blaming Bush? For that matter, when will you stop?

Well, apparently we are back to the possibility of making mistakes that can extend for decades.

Do I need to explain the concept to you?

[homersapien 11,513]

Gas was cheaper during those years. So was food.

It's a damn good thing too. Deflation would be far far worse than inflation. (See Great Depression).

But I was talking more about the costs of the Iraq war in both monetary and human terms (One of the reasons the VA system is struggling) and the financial bubble.

Those are the two that have the longest lasting impact, well except for tax policy and the Supreme Court nominees.

[Tigermike 3,078]

",,,,it's possible for a POTUS to create a decades-long problem." You are correct and it will be interesting to see how you spin the clusterfrick that the current administration is causing.

Give me ten plus years and I will gladly weigh-in. (Hopefully I'll still be here. ;)/> )

Meanwhile, it's easy to look back ten years and see what those policies and decisions have wrought.

Well that's about all y'all have done, look back and blame. So you really think in ten years Obama won't still be blaming Bush? For that matter, when will you stop?

Well, apparently we are back to the possibility of making mistakes that can extend for decades.

Do I need to explain the concept to you?

Apparently we are back to the point of "No matter what Obama and or his administration does just blame Bush." Yeah we know you got the memo.

[homersapien 11,513]

",,,,it's possible for a POTUS to create a decades-long problem." You are correct and it will be interesting to see how you spin the clusterfrick that the current administration is causing.

Give me ten plus years and I will gladly weigh-in. (Hopefully I'll still be here. ;)/> )

Meanwhile, it's easy to look back ten years and see what those policies and decisions have wrought.

Well that's about all y'all have done, look back and blame. So you really think in ten years Obama won't still be blaming Bush? For that matter, when will you stop?

Well, apparently we are back to the possibility of making mistakes that can extend for decades.

Do I need to explain the concept to you?

Apparently we are back to the point of "No matter what Obama and or his administration does just blame Bush." Yeah we know you got the memo.

Obama inherited a mess no matter how how effective he has been trying to get us out of it. You keep insisting I am using this as an excuse. That's BS. I am just stating the reality.

Bush reduced taxes while he increased spending. He started a war for crissakes, then told the people the best thing they can do is go shopping while putting said war on the credit account. He's responsible for some of the most radical judges who are doing damage to our country that will last for more than decades, if it doesn't just outright destroy us.

From what it have read it is not unrealistic for it it to take as long as 10 years to recover from a financial crisis as we experienced. Heck, we haven't even absorbed all the bad paper from it. Banks have yet to write down their true losses.

It's obvious how the war turned out. At least Obama has mostly stopped the loss of life and limb. Now all we have to do is take care of the wounded while continuing to pay the bills.

I am more than willing to hold Obama responsible for the problems he has created, but we won't know for a few more years just how bad - or even real - those problems are. He hasn't done as much as I hoped on re-investment in infrastructure or stimulating our economy but that's probably more of a reflection on his weakness in manipulating Congress.

For the most part, I agree he is in "over-his-head" regarding the presidency. But he certainly wouldn't be first, as his predecessor clearly demonstrated. He has certainly made some mistakes, but compared to his predecessor, they are trivial.

Bottom line, bringing up Bush does not necessarily mean I am praising Obama as you keep insisting. He's still relevant to our condition. Obama didn't get to hit "reset" upon his inauguration.

[TheBlueVue 177]

",,,,it's possible for a POTUS to create a decades-long problem." You are correct and it will be interesting to see how you spin the clusterfrick that the current administration is causing.

Give me ten plus years and I will gladly weigh-in. (Hopefully I'll still be here. ;)/> )

Meanwhile, it's easy to look back ten years and see what those policies and decisions have wrought.

Well that's about all y'all have done, look back and blame. So you really think in ten years Obama won't still be blaming Bush? For that matter, when will you stop?

Well, apparently we are back to the possibility of making mistakes that can extend for decades.

Do I need to explain the concept to you?

Apparently we are back to the point of "No matter what Obama and or his administration does just blame Bush." Yeah we know you got the memo.

Obama inherited a mess no matter how how effective he has been trying to get us out of it. You keep insisting I am using this as an excuse. That's BS. I am just stating the reality.

Bush reduced taxes while he increased spending. He started a war for crissakes, then told the people the best thing they can do is go shopping while putting said war on the credit account. He's responsible for some of the most radical judges who are doing damage to our country that will last for more than decades, if it doesn't just outright destroy us.

From what it have read it is not unrealistic for it it to take as long as 10 years to recover from a financial crisis as we experienced. Heck, we haven't even absorbed all the bad paper from it. Banks have yet to write down their true losses.

It's obvious how the war turned out. At least Obama has mostly stopped the loss of life and limb. Now all we have to do is take care of the wounded while continuing to pay the bills.

I am more than willing to hold Obama responsible for the problems he has created, but we won't know for a few more years just how bad - or even real - those problems are. He hasn't done as much as I hoped on re-investment in infrastructure or stimulating our economy but that's probably more of a reflection on his weakness in manipulating Congress.

For the most part, I agree he is in "over-his-head" regarding the presidency. But he certainly wouldn't be first, as his predecessor clearly demonstrated. He has certainly made some mistakes, but compared to his predecessor, they are trivial.

Bottom line, bringing up Bush does not necessarily mean I am praising Obama as you keep insisting. He's still relevant to our condition. Obama didn't get to hit "reset" upon his inauguration.

And 6 years later your ilk is so defensive of this disaster of a Presidency, almost reflexively, you still insist on blaming Bush. At least you've conceded the obvious, which in my view, is only because one would be in the deepest denial to think this Pres is actually capable of meeting the demands of the Office.

[homersapien 11,513]

",,,,it's possible for a POTUS to create a decades-long problem." You are correct and it will be interesting to see how you spin the clusterfrick that the current administration is causing.

Give me ten plus years and I will gladly weigh-in. (Hopefully I'll still be here. ;)/> )

Meanwhile, it's easy to look back ten years and see what those policies and decisions have wrought.

Well that's about all y'all have done, look back and blame. So you really think in ten years Obama won't still be blaming Bush? For that matter, when will you stop?

Well, apparently we are back to the possibility of making mistakes that can extend for decades.

Do I need to explain the concept to you?

Apparently we are back to the point of "No matter what Obama and or his administration does just blame Bush." Yeah we know you got the memo.

Obama inherited a mess no matter how how effective he has been trying to get us out of it. You keep insisting I am using this as an excuse. That's BS. I am just stating the reality.

Bush reduced taxes while he increased spending. He started a war for crissakes, then told the people the best thing they can do is go shopping while putting said war on the credit account. He's responsible for some of the most radical judges who are doing damage to our country that will last for more than decades, if it doesn't just outright destroy us.

From what it have read it is not unrealistic for it it to take as long as 10 years to recover from a financial crisis as we experienced. Heck, we haven't even absorbed all the bad paper from it. Banks have yet to write down their true losses.

It's obvious how the war turned out. At least Obama has mostly stopped the loss of life and limb. Now all we have to do is take care of the wounded while continuing to pay the bills.

I am more than willing to hold Obama responsible for the problems he has created, but we won't know for a few more years just how bad - or even real - those problems are. He hasn't done as much as I hoped on re-investment in infrastructure or stimulating our economy but that's probably more of a reflection on his weakness in manipulating Congress.

For the most part, I agree he is in "over-his-head" regarding the presidency. But he certainly wouldn't be first, as his predecessor clearly demonstrated. He has certainly made some mistakes, but compared to his predecessor, they are trivial.

Bottom line, bringing up Bush does not necessarily mean I am praising Obama as you keep insisting. He's still relevant to our condition. Obama didn't get to hit "reset" upon his inauguration.

And 6 years later your ilk is so defensive of this disaster of a Presidency, almost reflexively, you still insist on blaming Bush. At least you've conceded the obvious, which in my view, is only because one would be in the deepest denial to think this Pres is actually capable of meeting the demands of the Office.

I am not defending Obama's presidency, I am telling you what the Bush presidency wrought upon the country. And the final bill hasn't yet been paid.

And regardless of Obama's abilities - and I agree that they are limited - or his record, I am way better off as an individual and the country is at least slightly better off as a whole. In 2008, that would have sounded like a pretty good deal. I am not going to start complaining about it now.

You can interpret that as you wish, but it still the cold hard facts.

[autigeremt 6,776]

Cold hard fact? In the real world no one would keep a job with this kind of performance.....unless you worked for government.

[homersapien 11,513]

Cold hard fact? In the real world no one would keep a job with this kind of performance.....unless you worked for government.

Certainly that's true if you are the POTUS. After all, Bush kept his job didn't he?

Even so, there are provisions for "firing" him.

[autigeremt 6,776]

Cold hard fact? In the real world no one would keep a job with this kind of performance.....unless you worked for government.

Certainly that's true if you are the POTUS. ;)/>

And even so, there are provisions for "firing" him.

Yes, but this time he's protected by unusual circumstances.

[homersapien 11,513]

Cold hard fact? In the real world no one would keep a job with this kind of performance.....unless you worked for government.

Certainly that's true if you are the POTUS. ;)/>

And even so, there are provisions for "firing" him.

Yes, but this time he's protected by unusual circumstances.

Which are?