Holder's leaving. So what?

I meant to hop on this yesterday as the story broke, but I didn't have time. Better late than never.

Is the Eric Holder departure a cabinet shake-up move designed to move the needle on voters prior to the midterm elections? Maybe so:

But how it is supposed to help Democrats before the midterms is not exactly clear. The Tea Party crowd is roughly zero percent more likely to support Democrats based on a new Attorney General in the administration.

African Americans are not likely to care much, although some might be annoyed if the replacement is not another African American who sees racism in everything. But again, it won't make much electoral difference with them either way.

Hispanic voters are not likely to change their impression of the administration either way as a result of this. Those annoyed by the president over his stall on naturalization of illegal immigrants aren't likely to be any happier, even with a Hispanic replacement if that is in the cards. Holder isn't the primary dial-mover for them, Obama is.

Democratic voters in general certainly aren't focused on Holder vs. a potential replacement. So is it voters on the fence who the administration is focused on impacting? Even for them, with ISIS, the economy, healthcare, Russia and a myriad of other issues on the table, while Holder's departure is worth noting, it's not a game changer - it's far down the list in terms of importance with voters.

UNLESS, Holder's departure is part of a bigger picture and more resignations and changes are to come. But even then, how meaningful is that in a midterm election when it's the executive branch changes in an election about the Congress and Senate?

It's like someone opened the playbook and said, "Hey, a cabinet shuffle before an election can make a difference, let's try that!"

It smacks of desperation, and makes me think that a wave is still certainly possible. Perhaps the Democratic pollsters, the ones who far outdid Republican pollsters in 2012, are seeing things that haven't bubbled to the surface yet.

Two Word Opinions: July 2013 Edition

There are too many things to comment on with dedicated posts today, so here are some quick two word opinions with links to the stories behind them.

Janet Napolitano Resigns: Good riddance.

Eric Holder likely to stick around?  Face palm.

Egypt on the verge of some sort of violence while Obama's administration exhibits: Unfinished idiocy.

Obama advisers blast Obama policy: About time.

Zimmerman verdict coming soon: Don't care..

Zimmerman verdict could cause riots in Miami: Okay, bad.

Rubio's stock sinking with GOP voters: Immigration error

Palin might run for Senate: Improving Alaska

Jobs report worse than expected: Not unexpected.

Bernanke makes unbelievable rate pledge: Jobs mandate?

IRS scandal grows, threatens to derail Benghazi scandal

Breitbart has a startling new twist on the IRS scandal - the IRS has been sharing it's dirt on conservative groups with a progressive group.  No kidding

The progressive-leaning investigative journalism group ProPublica says the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that targeted and harassed conservative tax-exempt groups during the 2012 election cycle gave the progressive group nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was pending. 

The commendable admission lends further evidence to the lengths the IRS went during an election cycle to silence tea party and limited government voices.

So the scandal grows. Unexpectedly.

Eric Holder plays the panic card

I'm Alright Jack.

I guess it could be classified as a sub-category of the race card.  Eric Holder is busy ginning up fear among African American pastors in order to gin up fear among African American voters that their right to vote is under attack by conservative boogymen.

Via Politico;

Attorney General Eric Holder told a council of African American church leaders Wednesday that the "sacred" right to vote is under assault nationwide, with federal lawsuits and at least a dozen state laws that could hinder - or block – minorities’ access to the ballot box this fall.

"In my travels across this country, I’ve heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from citizens, who – often for the first time in their lives – now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation’s most noble ideals,” Holder said in a speech before the Council of Black Churches. The threats of legal assaults and lingering discrimination, he added, means that “some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance.”

As if to underscore the point, however, a voting rights group is worried that Holder and the Justice Department aren’t acting quickly enough to stop Florida’s Republican governor from continuing a purge of registered voters from the state’s rolls because they lack proof of U.S. citizenship.

Not only is that a spurious argument regarding voter disenfranchisement, both Holder and the Politico piece completely ignore the questionable tactic of getting churches to preach politics.  As Rush Limbaugh points out, they are doing an end run around IRS rules:

Representative Emanuel Cleaver (Democrat-Missouri), said, quote, "We will have representatives from nine denominations who actually pastor somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10 million people, and we’re going to first of all equip them with the information they need to know about what they can say and what they cannot say in the church that would violate their 501(c)(3) status with the IRS. In fact, we’re going to have the IRS administrator there, we’re going to have the Attorney General Eric Holder there, we’re going to have the lawyers’ organization from around the country, the ACLU -- all giving ministers guidance about what they can and cannot do."

They're gonna tell 'em just how close they can get to the line. They're probably gonna tell 'em how they can jump over the line a couple times. What's funny about this is Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson. These guys fund-raise from the pulpit! They pass the plate for campaign donations from the pulpit. It's been reported, but nobody does anything about it because nobody's got the guts to. Who wants to criticize black churches for being engaged in politics?

Indeed.

Churches get involved in politics fairly regularly.  Some churches do at least - remember Jeremiah Wright?  There's certainly a line there somewhere that is not supposed to be crossed, but note that some leeway is intentionally allowed for whatever reason.  That's not the real issue.  The real issue is that the Attorney General of the United States is out there trying to smudge whatever that line already is by pressing it as much as he can, for purely partisan political reasons.  You don't think he's blurring it?  Forget for a second about how far away from this a responsible Attorney General would stay from this sort of activity.  Go instead back to the intention of Holder being there in the first place.

Via the Conservative Review:

Representative Emanuel Cleaver, whose Congressional Black Caucus, says quite plainly what his little project is all about.

Cleaver said they would not tell pastors which candidate to support. They will let them know who to regard as the bad guys, though (hint: not Democrats).

“President Obama is going to get 95 percent of the [African American] vote,” and wants to keep that turnout high.

And using the Attorney General of the United States and the IRS to directly do that constitutes multiple violations of the Hatch Act. The most obvious one is this:

May not knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of anyone who has business pending before their employing office.

Every one of these churches (and the churches not getting the special “advice,” for that matter), by virtue of their tax exempt status, perpetually has business pending before the IRS. That’s what makes this particular and blatant partisan encouragement of black churches to pontificate on policy so egregious.

Never heard of the Hatch Act? It would seem not only are those pastors at risk, under the Hatch Act, Holder himself may be crossing that line.  Don't worry though liberals, everyone seems to be afraid to raise concerns about it.  No complaint, no foul.  With it looking lately like Mitt Romney has some electoral momentum, conservatives may not care as much about this as they otherwise would, but they should.  Eric Holder has consistently displayed a preference for liberal agenda over legal scrutability in his decisions.  Either we stand on principle, or we just allow the notion of the rule of law to slowly evaporate bit by painful bit.  Personally, I prefer the former course of action.  That means Holder must be taken to task for these actions, as well as others like his role in the Fast and Furious scandal.  The same goes for those ministers who would simply do his bidding.

Gunwalker scandal leads to ATF shakeup

In light of the Gunwalker scandal (aka Fast and Furious), it looks like some heads will roll. 

Via Fox:

The acting director of the Justice Department division caught up in a firearms trafficking scandal is being removed from his post, sources told Fox News on Tuesday. 

Kenneth Melson, who heads the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, will be reassigned elsewhere in the Justice Department. An announcement is expected late Tuesday morning.

Unfortunately, the wrong head was on the chopping block - is Attorney General Holder going to skate on this? Accountability only goes as high as it needs to in order to satiate the calls for justice.

Sunday Reading Linkage

Happy Father's Day to everyone.  As a special Father's Day edition, I'm linking to some new blogs (for me) in addition to a number of my regular reads.  It'll be a short set of linkage today, as I'm due to get served a coffee from my son momentarily.  It'll be his first brewing of coffee and making of a cup.  I'm sure it will taste great.

Maggie's Notebook covers Project Gun Runner (aka Gunwalker, aka Fast and Furious)with precision. My two cents as to whether Holder knew, which I strongly suspect he did, he will have some type of plausible deniability.

For more on Gunwalker, King Shamus frames the Eric Holder background and helps the 'why he knew' case with a plausible motive.  

Proof Positive has the Klaven comparison of Obama and Ryan on the economy.

Conservative Pup eloquently addresses the alarming, unabated effort to remove religion from the country in contravention of the founders' intent.

Rational Nation USA's Les Carpenter III looks at the nation's historical IQ, and the results are double plus ungood. Watch the video at the end if you want to be particularly taken aback.

Moonbattery has a quick note on Sheila Jackson Lee's reflexive ability to do no right.  This time it has to do with somehow confusing Islamic terrorists with Christian militants. (Hat Tip to Paul Mitchell aka Mean Ol' Meany).

Finally! Eric Holder Takes Action

Eric Holder came to his senses today and started acting like an independent Attorney General and decided to launch an investigation and potentially prosecute anyone found guilty in the Sestak bribery scandal.  Holder has finally stood up and decided to go after illegal activity despite the political implications.

Eric Holder today did not start acting like an independent Attorney General and decided to launch an investigation and potentially prosecute anyone found guilty in the BP oil spill. Holder has NOT stood up and decided to go after activity based on the potential political implications.

One must applaud his fortitude in these trying circumstances.  It figures.

Netenyahu: Radical Islam is World's Greatest Danger

Speaking at the 12th world conference of Russian-speaking press in Tel-Aviv, the Israeli Prime Minister had this to say;

“Most of world terrorism originates in radical Islam,” he said, adding that the greatest danger humanity faces is if the most fanatical and violent ideology attains the most destructive tool of terrorism possible – nuclear arms.

“The greatest tragedies to befall the Jewish, Russian and Ukrainian people, occurred when they did not recognize danger in time. I expect all peace-seeking nations to join hands to stop evil,” Netanyahu said.

Contrast that with Eric Holder, who can not only not admit that, but he can't even bring himself to say "radical Islam".

U.S. Drops Case Against AIG

The Department of Justice declined to comment.

I guess it was just too much of a can of worms for Holder and company.

Could Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Get A Liberal Judge?

Like I'm supposed to know the answer to that one? Of course the terror suspect terrorist, when put on trial in a New York court instead of by a military tribunal could get a very liberal judge, but whose to know until the time comes?  Eric Holder maybe.

By way of background on the issue of where to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Big Government has the story;

This particular example highlights the underlying notion that terrorists should be privy to the same rights as United States citizens. In this instance, President Obama did in fact exercise his discretion (if you can call it that) by allowing the trial to take place in civilian court. Attorney Brian Levi serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University. As Levi noted today, “As a legal matter President Obama could very well also have tried these five detainees before military tribunals, as five others are…”

There is longstanding precedent for the use of military tribunals to deal with the difficult situation of unlawful combatants captured in a time of war. As Arthur Herman wrote in Commentary, this is the original path the Department of Justice and the Bush administration sought:

The rules on Gitmo detention and on interrogation constituted a valiant attempt to deal with an unprecedented legal situation. The same was true of the system of military “commissions” or tribunals for trying suspects at Gitmo. Here the Justice Department largely followed the precedent of tribunals used by the American military during World War II, and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1942 decision Ex Parte Quirin.

As 9/11 victim relatives Debra Burlingame and Tim Sumner lay out in a letter and petition to President Obama, and as anyone who has watched an episode of Law and Order can surmise, there are a host of thorny issues that could arise in the civilian trial of an unlawful military combatant. These detainees weren’t Mirandized. Secondly, their extended detention, a defense attorney could claim, was in violation of the assurance of a swift and speedy trial. Furthermore, given that they were caught on a battlefield, the chain of evidence is not up to par with the (rightly) strict standards of our civilian courts. Could their cases be dismissed outright? These are legitimate legal concerns raised with these cases.

Liberals have argued that he was not caught on the battlefield.  Of course in a War on Terror a battlefield is not confimed to a war zone.  9/11 proved that, but the liberals just don't get it. That and the specificss of the circumstances are a discussion for another post.   I want to focus on what the transfer of venues means.

Liberals may have a valid point in saying that trials prove to the world that America firmly believes in due process and have faith in the country's judicial system.  The question is, does America need to care about what others think?  In Obama's world yes.  Again that's worth discussing at some other point in time.

But let's focus on the possible impacts of creating a civil case.  There is a security risk to the city.  There is a personal safety risk to the judge, jurors and lawyers involved.  There is also a risk of acquittal (though small).

This is going to sound very cynical but might that not be a good thing? Wouldn't acquitting a terrorist send a bad message to terrorists around the world? Sure - their actions have no consequences to themselves personally, it's open season.  It would free a dangerous man, isn't that bad? Not according to Eric Holder, they have back-up charges ready to go. Would it set a dangerous precedent? Probably, yeah.  So how could it possibly be a good thing?

It might shake the sensibilities of Democrats enough to smarten up about the War on Terror and that you can't fight a war as a police action.  Terrorists aren't criminals, they are terrorists.  If it doesn't impact the likes of Holder, it will certainly affect voters and make them realize you have to fight this like a war.  It might smarten up liberals about the battlefield issue.  Why?  Because some liberal judge freeing a confessed terrorist on a technicality or out of pure liberalism, will worry people about the logic of liberal actions.

This isn't a political good thing, it's a national security good thing.  Everyone, me included,  would be horiffied if that monster did not get convicted and sentenced to death for his terrible crimes.  But people need to realize 9/11 isn't ancient history.  They need to realize the new world the national interest now faces.  Ironically it's conservatives who realize the new dynamic and liberals are the ones stuck in a past that never really existed.

Danger: Train wreck in progress

Do you hear that? It's a sound of a train wreck in progress.

After falling flat on their face over the health care issue, and losing considerable job approval ratings in the process, the Obama administration brand marketing wizards have decided that it might be a good idea to divert attention from the carnage in order to repair the Obama brand.

That's not a bad idea. In fact, given the drubbing their agenda has taken at the hands of the Town Hall protesters (or more accurately hard questioners), a diversion might just stem the flow of ratings points away from the President. 

That's not the problem.  The problem is what they did to divert the public's attention.   Keep in mind that as a very leftward leaning President, Obama has his left ear closer to the ground than his right ear.  Consequently he's more likely to hear feedback, both positive and negative, from the far left than from the right.  Town hall protesters are deemed un-American, but complaints from his base are taken seriously.

And what pray-tell is his base unsettled over?  Or rather, going crazy over? The possiblility of the single-payer option  the government-paid option being taken off the table by the administration.  The comments by Sebelius that government as a "competitive" provider is not mandatory to reform, drew far left ire.  Big time.  And the Obama administration heard it.  They were probably prepared to have points siphoned off from the conservatives they felt were willing to give him a chance.  They may have even been prepared to lose some appeal to moderates (though not all).  But to start bleeding support from all sides?  That's the making of a train wreck.

The administration, when confronted with a challenge go back to the playbook.  Early on it was 'blame Bush'.  And up until recently it has been trotting out the President to speak to the press, yet again.  They probably went to the well too often, too soon with that ploy because while it created spikes in approval ratings in the past, it has not stemmed the general tide of downward sloping approval ratings.  They had to try something different.

With their ear to the left side of the ground, they remember what got them elected in the first place.  Their grassroots support had a huge anti-war component to it.  Obama, having made some initial traction with his support base on Gitmo and on ending Iraq, decided to beef up Afghanistan.  It plaed well to the middle because it supported his sales pitch that it was supposed to be about Bin Laden, not Iraq.  The argument probably was tolerated by the far left as a necesary evil to oust the Republicans and to get a Democrat into the White house.  But that anti-war goodwill started getting eaten up with Afghanistan and the apparent cave in on health care may have hastened the President's dilemna.

So going back to the well, and shoring up the liberal support probably seemed like a good idea.  What worked really well for them were the 'impeach Bush' and 'try the war criminals' memes.  So Eric Holder re-ignites the prosecute the CIA fires.  Let's put some people in jail.  This from the same left who felt that protests against Bush would cause Marshall Law to be imposed and every protester would be imprisoned and elections cancelled forever with Bush as the perma-President.  Yes, the hypocrisy is almost comical; they want to prosecute people who were trying to protect the country from an actual foe, whereas they were imagining a foe of freedom in Bush and believed they were going to be prosecuted for it.

The idea of prosecuting CIA personnel for trying to defend the country is assinine.  So bad in fact that there are rumors that liberal Leon Panetta, he of the no-intelligence-experience-but-now-heading-the-CIA fame gets it.  Apparently there were rumors he threatened to quit over it.  If he gets it, why doesn't Holder?  And does Holder have free rein here?  Has Obama lost control of his team?  That would certainly lead to a train wreck.

Alternately, if the White house is behind this agenda, then they have misjudged the American people.  This comes across as a vendetta and worse, as putting the nation's safety at risk by tying the hands of the covert defenders in order to score political points.  If that perception takes hold, you can count on another 10 points dropping off the President's job approval.  Yep, for them, that's a train wreck too.

The last possibility is that since Place Holder is leading this charge, and Obama and Holder have pulled this Alphonse and Gaston routine before, it's all contrived.  Maybe the script calls for Obama once agains to sweep in and say, we're not going to proceed with this - we have to look forward not backwards.  With that approach they temporarily appease the far left with the thinking that CIA folks are going to jail.  They can reclaim the middle ground with Obama saying that Holder's efforts are counter-productive and Obama is more bi-partisan and forward looking.  Of course the left might be enraged again, but if he frames it as saying "I'm above this petty stuff, trust me", maybe they'll buy it for a while.  By buying himself time, perhaps he can still sneak through health care 'reform' (shouldn't that be 'deform') in some shape.  That will appeal to his base partially.  It might keep them content.  And it might buy him time for Democrats in 2010 with the same old tired line that "this will take time to make a difference, so trust us".  Is there a train wreck in there too?  Absolutely - for that ploy to work in Obama's favor, every calculation described above has to go his way.  What could possibly go wrong?

For starters, the conservative giant has been awakened.  People in middle America won't sit still for CIA personnel being charged with crimes.  It might play well in Tehran, but in Atlanta? No way.  People intrinsically understand that in the broader world, you sometimes have to play outside the box in order to protect the Americans.

Secondly, who is to say the far left won't be completely disillusioned if Obama calls off Holder?  And who is to say Panetta won' actually quit?  That damages the President's credibility on both vetting (yet again) and on believability over whether CIA prosecutions make any kind of sense to even entertain.  And if Obama is losing the middle ground rapidly, this also starts to look a lot like waffling on the issue. Even if Holder is under control, it starts to look like he may be a loose cannon. That harms his visionary image and reinforces the lack-of-experience image.

There's just too many what-ifs for raising this issue now to be considered a good idea.  This is certainly a train wreck that's under way.  Stay out of the way of the debris that's going to fly everywhere.  On the other hand, it's in America's best interest for the Obama train to come to a screeching halt.  And if protests help hasten that impact, they need to keep going - even if it means contributing to a train wreck, because the alternative to an Obama train wreck, is an American train wreck.

Your thoughts on an Obama cabinet shuffle?

Based on absolutely no factual evidence, not even gossip or innuendo, I've started speculating about who might be the first to get axed out of the Obama administration (not including lower level names, and not including Walpin - who isn't a cabinet member nor able to be fired by the President...wait, what?).

Why? Mainly because it's fun.

Here's some preliminary thoughts I had on the possibilities:

-Based on the primary battles with Clinton and perhaps Obama's feeling that he had to hire her, maybe she's a contender to get let go. She seems stressed about Bill, but underneath there could still be Obama stress

-Holder continues to say all the right wrong things so he's probably safe.

-Robert Gibbs, I'm surprised doesn't just give up and quit on his own. Seeing him makes me want to yell at my TV screen "It's over Johnny!"

-Biden you can't really fire but at least they're keeping him better hidden for now.

-Emmanuel - no chance, he's the hatchet man not the victim. Where's his off switch?

-Axelrod? Maybe if there's some stickiness to the scandal.

-Sebelius? Nope - too partisan to let go. Perhaps shuffled to the Department of Used Rags.

What are your thoughts? Anyone care to handicap the favorites? And how about the timing?

Newspaper Bailouts vs. Fairness Doctrine

Let me get this straight, the same party that wants to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine as backdoor way of silencing the voices of the right, are also the ones who want to look into the anti-trust laws in order to help save left leaning newspapers?

Michael Calderone at Politico quotes Attorney General Eric Holder as saying;

"I think it's important for this nation to maintain a healthy newspaper industry. So to the extent that we have to look at our enforcement policies and conform them to the realities that that industry faces, that's something that I'm going to be willing to do," Holder said.

Some struggling newspapers in multiple-newspaper cities have limited antitrust immunity under the 1970 Newspaper Preservation Act, allowing them to combine business activities while maintaining separate news operations.

Gee, I think the AG's new nickname should be "Place". It should come as no surprise that the hypocrisy involved is second only to the hubris. The problem with this is that the print media as well as the majority of television media will play along with this because it in the case of print, it's in their self interest to do so, and in the case of both print and television, it's in their ideological interest to do so.

And the stunning pretzel-twist flexibility with which they will try to rationalize this will exceed even this transparent non sequitur;




It's okay to save failing liberal newspapers in the name of public discourse, but right wing talk radio needs to be killed the same way pornography needs to be killed?

How people fall for this in this day and age is mind-boggling. Please, please, please, if you have any liberal or politically independent friends or family, make them aware of this hypocrisy.

Grading the staff

So Obama's picked a centrist cabinet? With a couple of 'minor' exceptions, I beg to differ. Here's a quick synopsis for those keeping score.

State Department: Hillary Clinton. American Conservative Union lifetime score - 7.71. Obama's score was 7.61, yep she's far right of him. She's drag him back to that center line right quick.

Commerce Department: Bill Richardson. Very liberal record of voting and ideas is on display here, and here. Environmentalists' choice. This is a scary bad choice for Commerce.

Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano. Amnesty supporter for Homeland Security? The hits just keep on coming.

Justice Department: Eric Holder. Had Atta survived the 9/11 attack we shouldn't regard him as a POW? Well, I guess he'd want to try him over at Justice. Right. I wonder what he would have done if he'd captured Rudolph Hess.

Treasury Department: Timothy Geithner. Supposedly the most moderate, but with a somewhat thin resume and it's argued, more of the same as Paulson - bailouts, lack of transparency. Well, at least he's supposedly more centrist than everyone else on the list so far.

Defense Department: Robert Gates. Okay, I can live with Gates. But I believe he's there just to serve a purpose for Obama. Obama can play the moderate, consensus-builder card by having Gates and Geithner on board. It also helps with the international visual of continuity.

NSC: Jim Jones. Again, livable but somewhat of an unknown. Probably serving the same purpose as Gates. According to Democracy Arsenal;

He’s a career military guy who wasn’t known during that time for doing much “off
the record” sharing of his views on policy issues — he followed orders,
impressed people enough to keep getting promoted, and either kept his views to
himself or else only shared them with people who are extremely tight-lipped.

UN Ambassador: Susan Rice. Former foreign policy advisor to Michael Dukakis during his 1998 campaign. Good stuff, that. Then there's this disturbing bit from Wikipedia;

In a 2002 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, former Ambassador to Sudan
Timothy Carney and news contributor Mansoor Ijaz implicated Rice and
counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke in missing an opportunity to neutralize Osama bin Laden while he was still in Sudan. They write that Sudan and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wre ready to cooperate on intelligence potentially leading to bin Laden, but that Rice and Clarke persuaded National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to overrule Albright.