Putting the Noise Machine in its Place
| Wed Nov. 19, 2008 1:41 PM PST
PUTTING THE NOISE MACHINE IN ITS PLACE....Ezra Klein isn't sure that Barack Obama made the right choice by tapping Eric Holder as his nominee for attorney general:
It's hard for me to believe that Obama couldn't find anyone for the post who wasn't the workhorse behind Bill Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Holder, obviously, was just doing his job, but appearances matter in this town. Republicans will have no problem attacking the choice, and your average voter will be rather confused as to why Obama made it. Whatever Holder's merits — and I grant that they are many — it's a nomination that recalls the worst of the Clinton era, and it's not clear why that needed to be done.
Leaving Holder's broader merits (or lack thereof) to one side, I'd offer a different take on this: do we really want to hamstring ourselves by worrying too much about what kind of temper tantrum the Republican Party is likely to throw over Obama's nominees? I don't doubt they'll do their best to smear Holder, but the Rich pardon happened eight years ago and Holder's role in it was fairly modest. Obviously it's not a good idea to give Republicans too many free shots early in his term, but if Obama truly thinks Holder is the best man for the job, then I think he's done the right thing. Let the talk show clowns wail and the congressional leadership send out their streams of faux outraged press releases. This is a pretty good chance to show that this stuff just doesn't work anymore, and I'll bet Obama realizes it.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
One of my hopes and dreams for an Obama administration is that the GOP's attempts to dredge up Clinton stuff will be seen as the lame-ass wackness that it is. I was pleasantly surprised that the usual Rovian stuff got no traction during the campaign - maybe that carries through to actual governing.
Two wars, economic collapse, ice caps melting ? but please GOP, keep talking about those 1992 pardons. It really hits people where they live. The American public will love you for it.
Also, don't throw me in that briar patch.
One of my hopes and dreams for an Obama administration is that the GOP's attempts to dredge up Clinton stuff will be seen as the lame-ass wackness that it is. I was pleasantly surprised that the usual Rovian stuff got no traction during the campaign - maybe that carries through to actual governing.
Two wars, economic collapse, ice caps melting ? but please GOP, keep talking about those 1992 pardons. It really hits people where they live. The American public will love you for it.
Also, don't throw me in that briar patch.
With the largest mandate in 20 years and 58 Democratic votes in the Senate, should the Obama administration (God I love saying that) really be worried about petty nomination fights? If every single nomination doesn't simply sail through then something is deeply wrong in the US Senate.
It's hard for me to believe that Obama couldn't find anyone for the post who wasn't the workhorse behind Bill Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich.
With people like Ezra on "our" side, we don't have to worry about the noise machine. Ezra is doing the work for them.
The workhorse behind the pardon? Every account I've read says Holder's role was minimal.
No, I think it's vitally important that each and every Obama appointee be cleared by the talk radio crowd. Just the night I heard Michael Savage say that Hillary wouldn't be a bad Secretary of State, and I felt much better about it.
Submitted by Nils (not verified) on Wed Nov. 19, 2008 2:03 PM PST.
Given what George Bush is all too likely to do on January 20, I doubt the GOP will be wanting to make much of an issue of pardons, anyway
However much the right wants to complain, they should do it soon as expectations are rising for a veritable typhoon of pardons from the current administration. We should note who's complaining the loudest and go back see what they have to say when the shoe drops.
From an article by Mario Murillo in counterpunch:
What is not being discussed too much, and was not even mentioned in today's New York Times report, is Holder's key role in defending Chiquita Brands International in a notorious case relating to the company's funneling money and weapons to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, AUC, the right-wing paramilitary organization on the U.S. State Department's own list of terrorist organizations.
... do we really want to hamstring ourselves by worrying too much about what kind of temper tantrum the Republican Party is likely to throw over Obama's nominees?
At the risk of being indelicate, I could give two shits what the Republican Party is likely to think about this particular nominee. They've got an awful lot to answer for after the tenure of Abu G.
I wasn't aware that the Attorney General or anyone else had any say in Presidential Pardons-What was Holder supposed to do, Tell PRESIDENT Clinton-you can't do that!Any Republican complaint had better be carefully worded with Cheney and Gonzalez being indicted by Cheney's Home State of Texas for Vanguard and Prisoner abuse!
Remember: The hearings will take place after Bush leaves office, presumably after handing out wide-ranging pardons for breaking international laws on torture and perhaps war crimes. In the shadow of those pardons, will the Rich pardon even register anymore? I realize most R's are shameless, but still...
One of my hopes and dreams for an Obama administration is that the GOP's attempts to dredge up Clinton stuff will be seen as the lame-ass wackness that it is. I was pleasantly surprised that the usual Rovian stuff got no traction during the campaign - maybe that carries through to actual governing.
Two wars, economic collapse, ice caps melting but please GOP, keep talking about those 1992 pardons. It really hits people where they live. The American public will love you for it.
Also, don't throw me in that briar patch.
Well, let's think ahead to January 19th. Don't you think there might be quite a stream of pardons coming out of this White House?
Do you really think the Republicans want to have this conversation in a confirmation hearing taking place at pretty much the same time? And draw lots of attention to presidential pardons?
Submitted by Howard (not verified) on Wed Nov. 19, 2008 3:21 PM PST.
"...the workhorse behind Bill Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich... a nomination that recalls the worst of the Clinton era..."
Are we sure Ezra is on OUR side, I mean really sure? Because these exaggerations sound like the purest high-octane crap we've heard from the Mighty Wurlitzer for 16 years now. Just sayin'.
In a way, it's preferable to have nominees with some obvious, known flaws, than an absence of same. In this way, one know whence the brickbats will come, and not be surprised buy some inanity manufactured by the kooks who need to come up with something, not matter how unhinged.
In a way, it's preferable to have nominees with some obvious, known flaws, than an absence of same. In this way, one knows whence the brickbats will come, and will not be surprised buy some inanity manufactured by the kooks who need to come up with something, not matter how unhinged.
Submitted by Carl Nyberg (not verified) on Wed Nov. 19, 2008 4:07 PM PST.
By the time Bush is done granting pardons, the GOP will not want to bang on that drum.
Libby was a lawyer for Rich. The unintentional irony would be too galling, even for Fox. End. Of. Discussion.
Ezra is usually more careful than this, but his youth is showing. There was a world of politics before Bush. We need to get out of our turtle shells.
I sent an email to GG requesting some investigative reporting but from my pov, the Rich thing is manufactured outrage. The bottom line: The AG got him convicted with a crime that can carry a life in prison while beforehand, during the plea negotiations they were willing to settle around a year- this at the same time another who did the same thing got elected VP at the time of the pardon.
The "Rich pardon" cry is stupid and people with any sense shouldn't be using it (it's like "card check"). People just yell it out and ignore the facts. Has Ezra (or most other people it seems) ever wondered why Marc Rich has never accepted the terms of this pardon? I mean, it's such a good deal for him, right? Why has he refused it?
Because first of all, he would have to pay a $100 million fine, then he would have to agree to waive the statute of limitations on cicil cases brought against him, and he would have to return to the USA to face those civil cases. He would also not be allowed to use his pardon for criminal charges as a defense in those civil cases.
Top it off with the fact that the criminal charges are not likely to stick, especially under appeal if not initially. The reason he ran was not the criminal charges so much as the civil cases, because he would almost certainly prevail in the criminal case but almost certainly lose the civil cases.
That's why Marc Rich has never taken Clinton up on Clinton's "generous" pardon.
I always thought it was people on the left who were genuinely outraged by the Rich pardon, not conservatives. After all, Rich was just out there despoiling poor countries' natural resources and making tons of money doing so, and he's a loyal supporter of Israel (Ehud Barak lobbied for his pardon). Rich is not exactly the poster child the Republicans are looking for if they want to paint Obama as a radical leftist.
Submitted by Jassalasca Jape (not verified) on Wed Nov. 19, 2008 9:58 PM PST.
RS on 11/19/08 at 5:22,
I don't get it. Lawyers represent clients, that's what they do. Are you suggesting the nation would be better off with an Attorney General who is not a lawyer? Or who has no practice experience? Give us some help here.
"... do we really want to hamstring ourselves by worrying too much about what kind of temper tantrum the Republican Party is likely to throw over Obama's nominees?"
I agree. Like Grant told his subordinates who were always worrying about what Lee would do, "stop worrying about what Bobby Lee is going to do and concentrate on what you are going to do to him."
i'm on your side of the argument, kevin...really, does the "average voter" give a flying f**k about the AG nominee unless he's a crook?
Posted by: bruce on 11/19/08 at 5:54 PM Respond
I bet he does if he's a Muslim American. (Or just brown in general.)
Response to Jassalasca Jape on 11/20/08 at 12:58
There are two concerns (i) Holder's role representing Chiquita and (ii) the complete absence of any mention of that link in the mainstream media - even though the NYT had an editorial on the Colombia free trade agreement.
The first concern is well explained by Murillo (http://www.counterpunch.org/murillo11192008.html , thanks also to junebug on 11/19/08 at 5:44 PM who linked to the entire article). Here are two key paragraphs.
Yet the opposition to Holder's nomination to the top position at Justice should not stop with this sordid history, one that perhaps can be excused as the obligation of a lawyer to defend his or her client regardless of the alleged crime. The disappointment in Obama's pick for AG should stem from the President-elect's strong words during the campaign in defense of human rights, particularly for those of workers in Colombia. On several occasions, including in the last presidential debate held at Hofstra University just three weeks before the election, the Democratic Candidate said he opposed the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement precisely on the grounds of the human rights violations carried out consistently against trade unionists in Colombia, and the ongoing impunity that has followed in most of those crimes.
This is directly connected to the Holder nomination because currently, there is a lawsuit underway from the families of 173 banana workers, who were killed by one of these paramilitary groups in Colombia. These family members do not buy into the argument, made by people like Holder and his Chiquita clients, that the company was forced to make these illegal payments to the AUC. Their claim is that Chiquita Brands International deliberately hired these armed thugs specifically to repress the rights of these workers, a tool used by other major multinationals operating in Colombian hot spots, including Coca Cola, BP, and the Drummond Corporation.
