This is Obamas guy for attorney general. Didn't he help pardon the FALN terrorists. And didn't he help pardon Marc Rich. And isn't he a Clinton crony. Gee the more things CHANGE the more they stay the same.

Holder's qualifications are excellant, but politically Obama had to know he would be controversial choice. My sense is Obama was willing to take the the hit for the greater good down the road - his belief, Holder would do a good job.

I'm not thrilled with this appointment given the controversaries, but I do believe Holder will do a very good job.

Just Some Background -

He was a Ronald Reagan appointee to the bench.

He was interim Attorney General for GWB before Aschcroft took office.

Before that he worked as Attorney in the Justice Department and prosecuted former Democrat congressman John Jenrette for bribery in the ASCAM scandal. He served in the Justice Department for 12 years.

Clinton named him U.S. Attorney for D.C.

in 1997, he became Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

The controversary with the Marc Rich pardon. He testfied in two Congressional hearing ( House and Senate) that he remained neutral in the decision - didn't agree or disagree.

In 2003, a congressional report said he helped in lead up to the pardon and favored it.

In 2004, in private practice, he respresented Chiquita International and negotiated a settlement in which they pleaded guilty and paid 25 mil fine. Chiquita had some illegal dealings with a Columbian group on a U.S. terrorist list.

Holder is against torture and warrantless wiretapping.

That's a nice list you compiled here. But where are the questionable decisions he helped make. And the main point is he is just another old Clinton crony added to the list. If you promise change you should bring in NEW qualified people to do the jobs. Not people that have been there already. New faces and new ideas, that is what he campaigned for. CHANGE.


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39641

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 17keith,

quote:

Originally posted by 17keith:
If you promise change you should bring in NEW qualified people to do the jobs. Not people that have been there already. New faces and new ideas.

Like Bushs "heck of a job Brownie?"

quote:

Like Bushs "heck of a job Brownie?"

You see we are not talking about Bush. We are talking about your messiah. But what can you expect...atypical lib answer. Blame it on Bush.

CHANGE... but lets bring all of Clintons cronies in.

quote:

Originally posted by 17keith:
That's a nice list you compiled here. But where are the questionable decisions he helped make. And the main point is he is just another old Clinton crony added to the list. If you promise change you should bring in NEW qualified people to do the jobs. Not people that have been there already. New faces and new ideas, that is what he campaigned for. CHANGE.


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39641

Here's how I feel about this choice. On political level, I'd rather Obama had not selected someone tagged as component of the controversial Rich pardon. It opens up can of worms.

The Chiquita negotiation also gives fodder, as does the Elian Gonzalez situation. There's the Senate confirmation to follow which won't be smooth sailing - not that he won't be approved, but it becomes distraction and gives your side, bait.

I think Obama is making calculated, well-thought, well-discussed decision to ride out the negative attacks - which will fade - and then be left with an Attorney General selection he desires for the long haul.

So you ask about change. I think people define it in different ways. For me, change from the White House down, is about competency - the working competency of those he selects. Can they effectively do the work for which they were hired? Do they respect the rule of law, are they open-minded, able to compromise, work as team? Can they meet the objectives and intellectual challenges required of them? Can they be trusted with the trust of the American people, can they effectively respond during crisis? Do they have integrity?

I wouldn't want any president to hire a whole bunch of newbies. There's just too much on the line in these difficult times to exclude familiar faces as part of a broader staff.

So, I think a blend between D.C. experience and some without, is fine. Both "The Nation" and "The National Review" criticize the Holder choice. Yeh, How 'bout that! For me, familiarity is fine as long as the person chosen is right for the job. So, for instance, D.C. insiders Daschle, Gates, H. Clinton, Hagel, fine. D.C. outsider, Gov and former Attorney General of Arizona, Napolitano fine. Robert Gibbs for Press Secretary, fine. D.C. outsider Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, fine.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tolerance,