The political wrangling surrounding the nomination of Eric H. Holder Jr. for attorney general
appeared to end Tuesday with his most vociferous Republican
critic pledging to back President Obama's choice to lead the
Justice Department.
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
Republican, said he will support Mr. Holder, 58, when his
nomination comes to a vote Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary
Committee, which virtually ensures it will be approved by that
committee.
"I think that Mr. Holder is entitled to the benefit of the
doubt in the context of the excellent record he has," said Mr.
Specter, who is the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
So the Senate Republican caucus is about to end the confirmation
season with a whimper.
pathetic. GOP=Whigs. The sooner it is gone, the better.
BD57| 1.28.09 @ 9:33AM
Specter's playing politics.
He does believe a President is generally entitled to his nominees
(and I agree); in this case, I think he sees Holder being easily
confirmed & doesn't see any "upside" for himself personally
in voting "No."
Given his constituency, he's probably right.
Personally, I don't see Holder's involvement with Rich & FALN
as a "judgment" issue.
If he'd gone through the usual procedures & come out with the
wrong answer, then "judgment" is an acceptable answer.
At least with Rich, though, Holder made sure to bypass the "usual
procedures", the effect of which was to bypass the "checks &
balances" those procedures supposedly represent. That's
"corrupt", not "poor judgment."
JP| 1.28.09 @ 11:27AM
BD57,
In an earlier time, Holder would never have been nominated.
Yesterday, the GOP caught Holder in a big lie (He said he wasn't
aware of the detail's of Mark Rich's crimes. But in 1995, he was
behind a Justice Dept indictment of Rich).
If it wasn't for President Bush's intervention, there was a very
good chance that corruption charges against many in the Clinton
WH would have been issued (perhaps against Clinton himself). In a
fit of goodwill, Bush told Ashcroft to lay-off Rich and
Pardongate. That was in 2001-2002. In all likelyhood, Holder
would have been indicted.
Yet, Holder is acceptable to Obama because he is politcally
valuable. Holder makes John Mitchell look like Learned Hand.
Specter, as usual, dropped the ball.
daddio| 1.28.09 @ 9:06AM
Specter is the poster boy for term limits.
james23| 1.28.09 @ 9:13AM
pathetic. GOP=Whigs. The sooner it is gone, the better.
BD57| 1.28.09 @ 9:33AM
Specter's playing politics.
He does believe a President is generally entitled to his nominees (and I agree); in this case, I think he sees Holder being easily confirmed & doesn't see any "upside" for himself personally in voting "No."
Given his constituency, he's probably right.
Personally, I don't see Holder's involvement with Rich & FALN as a "judgment" issue.
If he'd gone through the usual procedures & come out with the wrong answer, then "judgment" is an acceptable answer.
At least with Rich, though, Holder made sure to bypass the "usual procedures", the effect of which was to bypass the "checks & balances" those procedures supposedly represent. That's "corrupt", not "poor judgment."
JP| 1.28.09 @ 11:27AM
BD57,
In an earlier time, Holder would never have been nominated. Yesterday, the GOP caught Holder in a big lie (He said he wasn't aware of the detail's of Mark Rich's crimes. But in 1995, he was behind a Justice Dept indictment of Rich).
If it wasn't for President Bush's intervention, there was a very good chance that corruption charges against many in the Clinton WH would have been issued (perhaps against Clinton himself). In a fit of goodwill, Bush told Ashcroft to lay-off Rich and Pardongate. That was in 2001-2002. In all likelyhood, Holder would have been indicted.
Yet, Holder is acceptable to Obama because he is politcally valuable. Holder makes John Mitchell look like Learned Hand. Specter, as usual, dropped the ball.
sidnee| 12.12.09 @ 12:46PM
jack wills
ugg new arrivals