Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Time For Holder To Resign

44 Comments

It’s long past time:

If all Holder has in defense of his performance and that of his Department of Justice is playing the race card in an attempt to bully his critics into silence, then he truly has no defense at all. With the families of 300 murder victims mourning deaths delivered by the ATF’s weaponry, dismissing criticism of Holder’s performance as attorney general as bigotry is not just despicable, it should be a disqualification for the office he holds.

So, let me get this straight. If I object to a coverup of a government policy that killed three hundred Mexicans, it’s because I’m racist?

44 thoughts on “Time For Holder To Resign”

  1. Oh, come on. We’re talking about the kind of “liberals” who didn’t care when the ATF and FBI spent months fomenting a disaster in Waco that killed scores of Americans. They don’t give a rat’s ass, and they’ll say Holder is the real victim no matter what happens.

    1. Exactly. The only thing they care about is that they got caught. And they’re spinning that as fast as they can.

  2. Holder didn’t accuse anyone of racism in that interview; Morrissey twisted the quote.

    Here’s the original quote:

    “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

    And here’s how Morrissey edits it:

    Holder told The New York Times’ Charlie Savage that the intense scrutiny of himself and Barack Obama relating to Fast and Furious came from a few “extreme” bloggers and conservative media figures whose criticisms were “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

    You guys are so touchy about being called racists that you’re imagining the accusation when it isn’t there.

    1. Here’s the two entire paragraphs straight out of the New York Times:

      But Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games, portraying them as frequently “conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was” to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light.

      Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

      [em. mine]

      How did Morrissey’s edit in any way change the nature of the accusation and how Holder played the race card? If he’d completely plagiarized both paragraphs word for word the meaning wouldn’t have changed from what he wrote.

      Also, Eric Holder is less closely related to Obama than an Estonian is to a Punjabi. Paper on genetic diversity (PDF).

      1. How did Morrissey’s edit in any way change the nature of the accusation and how Holder played the race card?.

        By changing what was “due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American” from “the way I can be identified with him” to “criticisms”.

  3. Jim, you are truly insane if you see a meaningful difference between these quotes. The racism of Holder is completely obvious.

  4. In the actual quote, Holder says that he is identified with Obama in part because they’re both black. Unless you think it’s racist to notice when two people are the same race, that isn’t an allegation of racism. His larger claim is that the criticisms are politically motivated by a desire “to get at the president.”

    In Morrissey’s version, Holder claims that he’s being criticized because he’s black, i.e. that the criticisms are racially motivated. That’s a completely different claim, one that Holder did not make.

    1. Did you ever hear Donald Rumfeld claim that he was given a hard time because Bush haters knew both he and the President were white?

      Part of the very essence of racism is to point out that you face discrimination because you’re the same race as someone hated personally. “He hates me because I’m black and the guy who stole his car was black” is an accusation of racism.

      1. Bush’s cabinet was full of white guys. Holder stands out as the only top-level administration official today who looks anything like his boss (I wouldn’t count Donovan as top-level).

        Holder is claiming identification, not discrimination.

        1. Sorry to break it to you but Bush didn’t just hire white people and that Republicans are not racist no matter how many times the left says they are.

          You would be better served by defending the dependable and not focusing on this particular use of the overplayed race card.

        2. Yeah, Colin Powell and Condi Rice were notoriously white…

          Of course some prominent Democrats called them house slaves, as distinguished from field slaves. Yeah, they really went there.

  5. I guess we should order the strait-jacket for you then as you have re-written the story completely in your mind.

    1. Is it really so hard to read a compound sentence? Holder said: Critics want to get at Obama, I’m identified with Obama because of our relationship and common race, so critics have gone after me. In Morrissey’s version, Holder says: critics have gone after me because of my relationship with Obama and because we’re both black. The role of race in the two statements is totally different; in one it explains why Holder and Obama are linked in the public eye, in the other it is offered as the motivation for critics’ animus.

      Holder did not play a race card, he said nothing about his critics being motivated by race. Morrissey imagined such a statement, and edited the quote to match his imagination.

  6. Does this mean that Holder doesn’t consider the Mexicans and the Border Patrol Agent killed in this goat fornication a big enough reason for people to be angry about all this?

    1. As Morrissey points out, the biggest US source of cartel guns isn’t straw buyers or F&F, but State Department sales to the Mexican government, which subsequently go astray. If what critics cared about was bloodshed on the border, you’d hear more about that than about F&F. But what they care most about is hurting Obama politically, so we hear about F&F.

      1. Again you (like Holder) are trying to cover the crime by making the critics the issue. Directly selling weapons to the cartels is a stupid idea. You don’t have to be an Obama opponent to see that. You don’t have to be trying to score points to mention it out loud. You just have to understand that deliberately making the US Government an accessory to murder (of one of it’s own Border Patrol Agents, among others) is morally indefensible.

      2. As Morrissey points out, the biggest US source of cartel guns isn’t straw buyers or F&F, but State Department sales to the Mexican government, which subsequently go astray.

        So even if that is true, how does that justify accessory to murder? Jim, the murder of hundreds of people has happened through the contrivance of federal officials. It is Holder’s responsibility to pursue justice. It is irrelevant whether there are other federal programs contributing to the cartel wars in a more legal way.

  7. Jim
    December 20, 2011 at 3:38 pm | # | Reply

    Is it really so hard to read a compound sentence? Holder said: Critics want to get at Obama, I’m identified with Obama because of our relationship and common race, so critics have gone after me.

    So Holder’s basically saying, all black men are interchangeable from a white man’s point of view, ie the old “they all look alike to me”.

    You can spin like a top all day long, Jim. In the end, however, you’re trying to cover for someone who just played the race card, albeit in a subtle way. I’ll give him some points for style, but that’s all.

    I can’t decide if you’re being intellectually dishonest, or if you really have no ability to read between the lines.

    1. So Holder’s basically saying, all black men are interchangeable from a white man’s point of view, ie the old “they all look alike to me”.

      No, he’s saying that two black guys look more alike than a black guy and a non-black guy. Stephen Colbert famously can’t see race, but the rest of us notice that Holder looks more like Obama than, say, Biden, or Geithner, or Panetta. Holder is supposed to pretend otherwise?

      I can’t decide if you’re being intellectually dishonest, or if you really have no ability to read between the lines.

      You aren’t reading, you’re imagining, and then blaming Holder for your fantasy.

      1. No, Holder is saying that people think F&F is only important because he is black and Republicans don’t like black people.

        1. No, they don’t like certain kinds of black people: Obama and Holder. It’s a unique kind of bigotry which never existed before Holder made those statements. /eyeroll

  12. Even granting Jim his argument as being accurate; what’s the reason for Holder making the argument at all? There’s no evidence that his assertion is true.

    Hey Jim, can you provide evidence to support Holder’s claim?

    1. Political power is a zero-sum game. No matter who is in the White House, the other party will look for instances of malfeasance and seek to investigate and publicize them. At a minimum, such allegations and investigations distract or deter the administration from pursuing policies that the opposition opposes; at most they can lead to resignations and tarnish the administration in voter’s eyes, and improve the chances of an opposition victory in the next elections. Holder’s explanation — that F&F critics are motivated by politics — is the obvious one.

      As for Holder’s claim that he is publicly identified with Obama, do you really doubt it? A scandal that took down Holder would wound Obama more than one that took down Hillary Clinton or Tim Geithner, and that helps motivate the anti-Obama opposition to investigate F&F rather than possible scandals in other cabinet departments.

      I’m sure that one reason Democrats went after the US Attorney firings under Bush is that they were the work of Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales, two high-level officials with long, close ties to the president. The Dems’ motivation wouldn’t have been as great if the issue had involved more peripheral staff members.

      2. What does that have to do with him being black? Why even bring it up? Per usual, you’ve missed the point entirely.

      3. At a minimum, such allegations and investigations distract or deter the administration from pursuing policies that the opposition opposes;

        Would that be the policy of arming narco-terrorist drug cartels so they can murder several hundred innocent civilians, all to increase political pressure for gun control in the US? Yes, I think it is.

        In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson specifically cited the British policy of arming Indians so they could harrass and murder American settlers on the frontier, as being one of the causes of the seperation. How is arming foreign narco-terrorists so they can harrass and murder Americans on the border any different from the heinous actions that caused us to declare independence from King George III, a step we didn’t take lightly?

        And all Holder can come up with is that some people don’t like him because he’s black?

      4. As for Holder’s claim that he is publicly identified with Obama, do you really doubt it?

        Yes, and I’m still awaiting evidence from you to support it. You made to baseless assertions, but no evidence. Further, your assertions point to Obama having a long term relationship with Holder, such as Rove did with Bush. Again, what does race have to do with that relationship?

  13. Rand, you and the others are missing the point. This isn’t meant to get quantitatively more support for Eric Holder. It’s meant to inflame his already existing supporters, specifically his black supporters, into violence.

    1. Holder’s comment was pretty mild as calls to arms go. Is it your sense that blacks are easily incited to use violence towards political ends?

      1. It wasn’t a call to arms so much as a way to change the narrative a bit, in case this thing gains traction with the public. Instead of having to explain to the American people why the US Government intentionally helped armed drug cartels, Holder would rather claim the whole thing is a nothing burger drummed up by mean evil people who don’t like Obama, who happens to be black.

      3. Look at the record: Watts, SC LA, that riot in New York against the Jews.

        Not all blacks are violent, but enough are to do the Democrats’ dirty work.

        It isn’t just blacks, though. The Wisconsin “protests” aka riots and the Occupy movement were basically months-long blood orgies.

        The GOP seriously needs to fight fire with fire. Republicans seriously need to stop caterwauling about how mean the Democrats are and start getting mean themselves. I guarantee you personally would be saying “I love Rush Limbaugh” about two minutes into enhanced interrogation by a committed patriot. Republicans need to grab hold of their inner alpha male and start smashing things.

        1. Smashing things randomly would not be expedient, that’s what leftist mobs do. Smashing a leftist mob next time it imperils life or property, on the other hand…

  14. I’ve been reading you for many years Rand and I’m pretty sure you are a racist… a human racist. Maybe I’m just projecting? I take humans over Andromedans even though I haven’t met many (Star Trek doesn’t count, does it?)

    OTOH, anyone using the race card is by definition a racist… and a moron (along with any in the media that are taken in by it.) …and Jim of course.

    1. If you can’t really defend the policy, you have to go after the critics. In logical terms it’s a nonstarter of course (the fact that Democrats made political hay over Iran Contra doesn’t mean exchanging arms for hostages was any less a brain numbingly stupid idea), but for people who worship power over all else, it’s the only way to go.

Comments are closed.