Aha, and now it appears with his AG pick - "but wait, there's more!"

Holder isn't exactly a friend to civil liberties, either:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/384564/the_trouble_with_eric_holder

Quote :

"Quick! Name the veteran Department of Justice insider who, shortly after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law and at a point when the Bush administration was proposing to further erode barriers to governmental abuses, argued that dissenters should not be tolerated? Who invoked September 11, explicitly referencing "the World Trade Center aflame," in calling for the firing of any "petty bureaucrat" who might suggest that proper procedures be followed and that the separation of powers be respected? John Ashcroft? No. Alberto Gonzales? No. It was Eric Holder, the man who has reportedly been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States. Appearing on CNN in June, 2002, the former Clinton administration Justice Department aide sounded as if he had just stepped out of the Bush camp: "We're dealing with a different world now. Everybody should remember those pictures that we saw on September the 11th. The World Trade Centers aflame, the pictures of the Pentagon, and any time some petty bureaucrat decides that his or her little piece of turf is being invaded, get rid of that person. Those are the kinds of things we have to do.""

But I'm sure this bodes well for civil liberties, right? That's one of those things Obama's going to bring the change right down upon, right?

...right?

11/19/2008 5:29:00 PM

so we're blasting the guy for expressions made in June of 2002 regarding 9/11? It was fresh in everyones mind. it was a traumatic event.

Look, for my own admission, in September of '01 I flew a flag on my car and talked, only half-jokingly, about how we ought to just _____ all them goldurned a-rabs.

in the winter and spring of '02 i was a strong supporter of the Bush Admin and how he was waging the war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

I have ALWAYS regarded extreme Islamicists as a fundamental danger to world peace -- both prior to and since September 11 2001.

Since that time, however, the Bush Administration has revealed that sleazy neocons hiding behind folksy-talking faux-cowboys are actually a GREATER danger to world peace, and I've refined my own positions.

So, while initially concerning, youre going to have to come up with something a bit more recent than June 2002 to make me thing Eric Holder is going to be another shoot-first, torture-later AG




[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 6:14 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 6:13:58 PM

Quote :

"In short, Obama needs people who understand the system and can work with the system effectively. not some starry-eyed idealists [or academic policy wonks who will spend the first 2 years flailing about trying to figure out how the phone system works. Metaphorically speaking."

so, he doesn't want people like himself, right?

11/19/2008 6:20:41 PM

Quote :

"so we're blasting the guy for expressions made in June of 2002 regarding 9/11? It was fresh in everyones mind. it was a traumatic event."

Well gee, I seem to recall a certain contingent, which admittedly included myself, bitching about John Ashcroft and his trenchant remarks. So, what, it doesn't count when it's Obama's boy now? Because hostility towards civil liberties in the midst of a crisis is kind of when it actually counts.

Quote :

"So, while initially concerning, youre going to have to come up with something a bit more recent than June 2002 to make me thing Eric Holder is going to be another shoot-first, torture-later AG"

Okay, he's a rabid anti-drug warrior too. And I haven't seen too many people exactly playing the dual role of defender of civil liberties and hard-line drug warrior. (See Biden, J. for more info.) Showing hostility toward those who would show cooler heads toward civil liberties in the midst of a crisis hardly speaks well then, of his own instincts.

So, in short, his positions are nearly identical to Obama's VP and Chief of Staff.

How's that change feeling?

11/19/2008 6:23:53 PM

gotta say, honestly i'm pretty disappointed with his cabinet appointments so far.

11/19/2008 6:28:03 PM

Quote :

"I seem to recall a certain contingent, which admittedly included myself, bitching about John Ashcroft and his trenchant remarks"

I don't remember anyone in the Bush Admin getting too much grief in the first year. Admittedly, i wasn't following what the extreme left wing was doing, but for the most part i think everyone was giving Bush And Pals a fair chance. (Okay, actually i do remember Asscroft being a running joke.) The first year, Bush's approval rating was at a record high, and nearly the entire nation was united by the events of 9/11. It was not until Guantanamo, and then Iraq, that the Bush Admin started its downward spiral.

Look, I will admit that on the face of it some of the remarks are troubling. But I'm not going to hold people to what was said about 9/11, in 2002, fresh after the WTC was destroyed. And I'm also confident that Obama -- unlike Bush -- is not going to be steamrolled by a bunch of cronies with ulterior motives.

The fact of the matter is that OBAMA is going to architect the policy -- not Biden, not Holder, not Emmanuel. It's very clear to anyone who's followed Obama's tightly run campaign, that he's the captain and his subordinates are only going to be the drivers. I absolutely trust that he's a lot intellectually stronger and politically astute than Bush ever was.





[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 6:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 6:40:59 PM

He'll probably keep Gates around as Defense secretary. That would be a pretty good move.

Hopefully Gates doesn't count as his token Republican, since he's not really political at all other than being a favorite of the Bushes and Reagan before that.

Quote :

"And I'm also confident that Obama -- unlike Bush -- is not going to be steamrolled by a bunch of cronies with ulterior motives."

It's usually a good idea to view your leaders with a bit of mistrust. I love Obama's intellect and coherent policies that he has spelled out, but I don't like how he is surrounding himself with some very partisan, ideologically driven appointees. Is there a specific reason why you believe that he will be less susceptible to the whims of his cabinet than Bush has been?

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 6:46 PM. Reason : 2]

11/19/2008 6:41:57 PM

Because he has an IQ that's about 2 full standard deviations above Bush's. For one thing.



[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 6:49 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 6:49:22 PM

Stupid people are often the most resolute in their actions.

I fail to see how Obama's intelligence has any bearing on the control he has over his cabinet, or vice versa.

11/19/2008 6:55:32 PM

well, for one thing, he might actually be able to perceive when he's being manipulated?

Okay... do you want me to admit that I'm not *entirely* thrilled by Eric Holder? Becuase that would be true: i am not entirely thrilled. I do wish he would have picked an AG i could have been more excited about.

but still, the AG serves at the pleasure of the President. I do not believe Holder is going to go off the reservation and start prosecuting bong makers on a whim.

Seriously -- i'm withholding judgment. Obama's got a year, give or take, to get up and running. I got behind his campaign two years ago because I trust his judgment. his recent cabinet selections have not changed that.




[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 7:05 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 7:02:31 PM

I'm not asking you to admit anything. I'd just like to see strong Obama supporters not be so blindly accepting of everything the guy does, and feel the need to defend his every decision.

I, too, am withholding judgement on Obama until I see the tangible results of his Presidency. I will say that I am a bit concerned about some of the appointees so far, in that there seems to be more partisan politicians than department-specific experts in the group. Bush appointed a lot of partisan hacks, and along with his idiocy it sunk his Presidency. I hope that Obama has the leadership to direct policy to his cabinet, rather than vice versa.

11/19/2008 7:19:30 PM

Quote :

"Okay... do you want me to admit that I'm not *entirely* thrilled by Eric Holder? Becuase that would be true: i am not entirely thrilled. I do wish he would have picked an AG i could have been more excited about."

Yes, that would be a fantastic start. Let's start there. Then you can explain to us where exactly this "change" we've been promised will be coming from. Competent advocacy against civil liberties? Whoopideedoo.

Quote :

"but still, the AG serves at the pleasure of the President. I do not believe Holder is going to go off the reservation and start prosecuting bong makers on a whim."

You have to be pretty dense if you think this is where the pattern Obama has established is leading. That is, with the whole, "off the reservation" part, at least.

Let's be clear - if Obama keeps picking people - like Biden, Emmanuel, and now Holder, who are hard-line pro-War on Drugs and anti-civil liberties, what exactly does that say about Obama's priorities?

For someone who's expounding the virtues of a president whose IQ sits "two standard deviations above the last," you sure seem to be slow on the uptake as to the pattern, here.

11/19/2008 7:22:00 PM

really, it's great to see just how far Obama is distancing himself from the politics of old. About two doors down, max, it seems.

11/19/2008 11:28:25 PM

^ and you sure seem to be soap box's most precocious poster right now.

Maybe I just feel like the jury is out for Obama to develop his own talent and that's about that. Holder wouldn't have been my first choice at all and I'm definitely skeptical - but then again I'm not like some of you still bitter over Nov 4 ready to pounce on something...anything...now am I?

Or maybe I know the type of president Obama will be and it was never about Change (TM) that I cared about. I care about competence, bottom line. I mean shit - the only people who think Obama's really a radical are the ignorant, net roots, and Joe the Plumber. Wake up. You drumming the 'how's that change' theme is really falling flat with me.

11/20/2008 12:32:20 AM

Quote :

"Or maybe I know the type of president Obama will be and it was never about Change (TM) that I cared about"

As long as we're clear on the point that issues don't matter - only competence - then we're just fine here. You know, as long as the trains run on time...

11/20/2008 1:17:25 AM

Quote :

"As long as we're clear on the point that issues don't matter - only competence - then we're just fine here. You know, as long as the trains run on time..."

he never said issues don't matter. just that obama isn't as radical a person as some say he is.

11/20/2008 1:23:48 AM

Because even slightly rising to the defense of civil liberties or questioning the wisdom of the War on Drugs now makes one a radical.

Whelp, at least the train run on time, folks.

11/20/2008 1:27:04 AM

Quote :

"it was never about Change (TM) that I cared about. I care about competence, bottom line."

QFMFT

11/20/2008 1:42:48 AM

Janet Napolitano

11/20/2008 2:26:29 AM

Maybe Obama doesn't understand the term "secretary" isn't literal.

11/20/2008 2:58:59 AM

Comeon DrSteve....ok, let's start here...I didn't mean to insult you earlier (that was not productive). But..

Quote :

"Because even slightly rising to the defense of civil liberties or questioning the wisdom of the War on Drugs now makes one a radical."

I never said that. I just meant from a larger sense....the idea that Obama would bring in this sweeping tidal wave of change off the register of anything seen in Washington before is a hyperbole. An often mistake though from blogosphere or netroots folks, half of his volunteers, or even his critics...they like to harp on this theme and take every inch of indication that he isn't fulfilling this idea (already) and stretch it into a mile. I still maintain that the change Obama will bring is a more almost ruthlessly cunning, visible, modern, and efficient form of government for this country. It oozes from top down in his strategy room. Most importantly though, a mandate for new charter that we hadn't had in this decade. Or so I hope.

I say all that not because I want my stances confirmed as you suggest, but because I do believe that and have maintained it since he broke the scene. We'll see if he can do it, he's taking the office in a year where this country is completely in the shitter and his administration will be saddled with tons of problems.

But I feel my point (if there is any point to be had) is that he absolutely has the competance to. McCain didn't.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 9:27 AM. Reason : -]

11/20/2008 9:26:15 AM

Quote :

"I never said that. I just meant from a larger sense....the idea that Obama would bring in this sweeping tidal wave of change off the register of anything seen in Washington before is a hyperbole. An often mistake though from blogosphere or netroots folks, half of his volunteers, or even his critics...they like to harp on this theme and take every inch of indication that he isn't fulfilling this idea (already) and stretch it into a mile."

Here's the problem - these people you list? They compose a rather large group of people. Including people who like to talk out of both sides of their mouth, like joe_schmoe. (And we all know this one is true - because there's scores of threads demonstrating it).

If your position is that Obama is in effect a second Clinton - that is, a competent, able politician who will surround himself with competent, able advisers - then so be it. This is not something I doubt about Obama - I think it is widely acknowledged that he's a smart guy, and while I think he takes some dumb positions (either as pandering or simply through the kind of arrogant belief in governmental fiat that many smart people are prone to), I don't think he'll govern ineptly, or surround himself with supplicants. In fact, I agree - we'll probably see a much more smoothly-run government than we've seen in the last 8 years. (As smoothly as government can be run, at least.)

The flip side of this, however, is that Obama is going to micro-manage his political capital. Which means, as I have long asserted, that the man will stick his neck out for nearly nothing that will cost him anything. Something which ultimately means we're not going to see a whole lot of "change" on some of the worst Bush policies like Obama's supporters have been arguing that we will - something which some folks around here have yet to acknowledge. This trend is being demonstrated over and over again by Obama's staff picks.

11/20/2008 11:14:29 AM

I somewhat (reluctantly) can agree with that. I certainly can't say it is an impossibility, but I hope you're wrong.

I do agree that he has an almost surgeon's precision hold on his political spend. Sometimes it's tiring to watch but I can totally respect the high level at which he approaches things. In my view Obama thinks real 'big game', which is good because he wants to be remembered as a heavy, a landmark president. In order to do that he'll need to run an administration with bold and strong policies...we'll see what happens.

I still think his most important pick so far (Rahm Emmanuel) was a good indication of him meaning bidness.....you can say alot of things about him, but he gets shit done and maintains such a good ear on the ground in congress. It's the treasury pick that has me nervous.

11/20/2008 11:29:31 AM

^ Kainen,

RaEmm is also a Clinton admin vet that is a fairly consistent supporter of free trade. I agree that he is a very good pick. But I think he's also an indication that Obama won't bring the type of change many of supporters are expecting.

DrChaos phrased it so well I have to repeat it.

Quote :

"The flip side of this, however, is that Obama is going to micro-manage his political capital. Which means, as I have long asserted, that the man will stick his neck out for nearly nothing that will cost him anything. Something which ultimately means we're not going to see a whole lot of "change" on some of the worst Bush policies like Obama's supporters have been arguing that we will - something which some folks around here have yet to acknowledge. "

PS* How far into the admin do you think we will be before Obama announces that we are not going to withdraw form Iraq as quickly as planned (things are going much better over there now so there is less reason to leave and Obama's withdrawal period of 16 months was pretty ambitious anyways)???? My guess is 2 months or less. But we'll see. And I'm very glad that I can say that.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ``]

11/20/2008 12:08:19 PM

Quote :

"things are going much better over there now so there is less reason"

wait, what?
Things are going good, so we might as well stay?

11/20/2008 12:42:06 PM

Quote :

"Something which ultimately means we're not going to see a whole lot of "change" on some of the worst Bush policies like Obama's supporters have been arguing that we will - something which some folks around here have yet to acknowledge."

My guess is that in Obama's mind change is more about a change in the way politics works. In a direct attempt to engage and understand the other side. From his early speeches it seemed that's what he meant. He had a lot of good things to say about Reagan, etc.

However, like many politicians he became a vessel into which people poured their hopes and dreams and wisely he did little to stop them from assuming "change" meant: find the policy you don't like, it will be different under Obama.

11/20/2008 12:44:52 PM

agent,

Leave less quickly, which yes means staying longer as they transition to a stable country.

11/20/2008 12:48:15 PM

While I was very vocal before and (directly) after the election of Obama, I'm now going to treat him like a new basketball coach at NCSU. He needs time to put his policies in motion. Just have to wait and see.

That being said I think some of you Pro-Obama individuals need to open your eyes and realize you're not going to get the "change" you want. Please stop with this BS about needing to reuse democrats with experience from the Clinton Administration. So you're basically saying there's nobody else in the whole country as well or better qualified? How are you going to get "change" in Washington if you keep recycling the same people. You're foolling yourselves by saying you can't get anything done quickly in a new administration without "experienced White House staffers". Thats just ridiculous.

But like I said, I'm not going to really bellyache about much till he's had time.

11/20/2008 12:53:15 PM

Quote :

"You're foolling yourselves by saying you can't get anything done quickly in a new administration without "experienced White House staffers". Thats just ridiculous. "

Haha, wasn't this the basis of McCain's campaign? that Obama was too inexperienced?

11/20/2008 12:58:35 PM

Quote :

"That being said I think some of you Pro-Obama individuals need to open your eyes and realize you're not going to get the "change" you want. Please stop with this BS about needing to reuse democrats with experience from the Clinton Administration. So you're basically saying there's nobody else in the whole country as well or better qualified? How are you going to get "change" in Washington if you keep recycling the same people. You're foolling yourselves by saying you can't get anything done quickly in a new administration without "experienced White House staffers". Thats just ridiculous. "

my line of thinking here is that his first set of people that he starts with should have a number of people experienced with the workings of washington and the executive branch. this is not a time in our country where we have time for new blood to learn the ropes.

11/20/2008 1:15:12 PM

Quote :

"this is not a time in our country where we have time for new blood to learn the ropes."

Practically ripped from the debate notes of the Clinton campaign! Classic.

11/20/2008 1:16:20 PM

moron, um exactly?
Apparently experience doesn't matter....unless you're Sarah Palin or the White House staff??
Jeez. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ``]

11/20/2008 1:20:16 PM

Quote :

"Practically ripped from the debate notes of the Clinton campaign! Classic."

except no one has experience being president except former presidents. people do have experience getting things done in the white house. the job of the president (at least a large part of it) is to make big decisions about what he wants his office to do and what people he appoints to do those jobs.

and sure i think that obama's youth and lack of experience in washington could be a hindrance. but i think he overcomes much of that with his intelligence, demeanor, discipline and judgment. we'll see if i'm wrong about that i suppose. and one indication of those good qualities is knowing when to surround himself with smart and experienced people in all areas (especially those where he does not have expertise).

11/20/2008 1:38:50 PM

^ and no one has experience on making big decisions and hiring smart people....besides former Presidents????

Look, in a certain sense, you're right. No one besides the President has experience with deciding whether to launch a nuclear attack and stuff like that. But to suggest that no previous life experience could be helpful in being President is an overstatement.

You can prove me wrong by saying you would like a mechanic or waitress to be President. After all, they may be smart people with good judgement too. Why would they really need to have experience in politics at all if nothing prepares you for being President?

At the very least, a political track-record helps the voter decide how well you actually do some of the tasks that are important to being President (do you hire loyal yes-men or competent individuals) and what issues you work hardest on.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ``]

11/20/2008 2:05:45 PM

Quote :

"DrSteve: They compose a rather large group of people. Including people who like to talk out of both sides of their mouth, like joe_schmoe."

what?

how about backing that one up? I always consider reasonable opinions on various issues. And when i've been wrong, I have admitted it. is that "talking out of both sides of my mouth?"

Or should i be more like you and keep charging forward, steadfastly refusing to consider any contrary opinion? by your posts, you obviously think youre the smartest person in the room. I'm sure you're a real blast at social events.




[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 2:22 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 2:22:22 PM

Quote :

"how about backing that one up? I always consider reasonable opinions on various issues. And when i've been wrong, I have admitted it. is that "talking out of both sides of my mouth?""

Context, motherfucker. Do you read it?

You've been on this Hope and Change (tm) bandwagon for months, now. Latest example I can think of your, "[x] days until I get my flag back" thread. Now you want to claim that it's been all about pragmatic, competent governance all along.

Want me to post more examples? Because by God, I will.

Quote :

"I'm sure you're a real blast at social events."

Harsh words coming from a whiney, condescending little asshole, I think.

11/20/2008 2:31:07 PM

RAWR


anyhow.... i dont see that Obama is going off in a "anti-civil liberties" direction yet. and i'm still expecting a lot of change from the status quo of 8 years of the Bush Administration.

and i've got my flag back.

so, you know, fuck you and all your pessimistic complaining.






[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 2:32:57 PM

Let's face it, you're useless around here. You know it, I know it, TSB knows it.

11/20/2008 2:34:26 PM

okay. I'm glad to know you speak for the entire forum.

megalomania, much, KingSteve? theres medication that can help you, you know.

11/20/2008 2:39:21 PM

Quote :

"^ and no one has experience on making big decisions and hiring smart people....besides former Presidents???? Look, in a certain sense, you're right. No one besides the President has experience with deciding whether to launch a nuclear attack and stuff like that. But to suggest that no previous life experience could be helpful in being President is an overstatement."

i actually said that i think his lack of experience could be a problem, but i think he makes up for that lack of experience with other skills.

11/20/2008 2:49:43 PM

^ but you made it sound like experience is less important for a President to have than his staff.
I disagree.

11/20/2008 3:12:26 PM

Quote :

"okay. I'm glad to know you speak for the entire forum."

Who said I claimed to speak for the forum? It's just a fact - you're basically useless around here. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who would speak to this. You're like a left-wing version of hooksaw - right down to the creepy old guy trying to pretend he's still part of what's "hip" and incessant name-calling. The parallels are downright eerie, to be honest.

At least hooksaw, however, acknowledges that no one takes him seriously...

11/20/2008 4:24:13 PM

anyone who thinks that they are "of use" to anyone on this website (especially in soap box) has some real issues

11/20/2008 4:27:40 PM

Then let's clarify.

Some people around here are useful at contributing to the discussion around here.

Some people are not.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which category joe_schmoe falls into.

11/20/2008 6:09:48 PM

Wow... you do have issues, don't you? i think you're actually keeping some kind of score here, or something.

hey, just so you'll know: E-rep and $1.50 will get you a bus transfer.

11/20/2008 6:16:53 PM

Which of us is the forty-something-year-old hipster still trying to play it cool with the college kids?

Because last time I checked, it ain't me.

Maybe you and hooksaw should hang out, sometime. You guys would have so much to discuss.

11/20/2008 6:24:03 PM

(1) i hain't hit 40 yet. so stop the hate.
(2) i probably would go have a beer with hooksaw, given the opportunity
(3) you're no spring chicken yourself, old feller. how about you join us?


but, ANYhow....

i'm surprised no one has talked about Janet Napolitano, as new DHS Secretary

i mean, what a shit job that must be. the whole department is a clusterfuck, i think it ought to be scrapped and its component divisions absorbed back into the DOT or HUD, or become their own entities. Of course, the likelihood of that happening is virtually nil.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2008/11/napolitano_faces_contracting_c.html?hpid=topnews

any thoughts? i understand she's a pretty popular Gov (AZ) and was a respected state AG before that. I haven't really followed her much more than that though.

is she going to be another Anti-Drug Crusader and Civil Rights Destroyer like the rest of Obama's cabinet?





[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 6:40 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 6:29:58 PM

Well, Napolitano opposed REAL ID... mostly because it was an unfunded federal mandate:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special12/articles/0618real-id0618.html

Quote :

"In a letter explaining her support for HB 2677, Napolitano cited a White House estimate that Real ID would cost at least $4 billion to implement. But thus far, she said, the federal government has only appropriated $90 million to help Arizona and other states offset those costs. "My support of the Real ID Act is, and has always been, contingent upon adequate federal funding," Napolitano wrote Tuesday. "Absent that, the Real ID Act becomes just another unfunded federal mandate.""

So, not exactly encouraging. Although obviously not as bad as it could be.

11/20/2008 6:46:11 PM

New likely appointments...seems like he's pulling some former military heavies as people for his national security spots...

Quote :

"Retired Four-Stars Leading Candidates for Obama's National Security Team November 20, 2008 6:22 PM Democratic sources tell ABC News that President-elect Obama appears to be turning to two retired four-stars for his National Security Adviser and his Director of National Intelligence. Marine Gen. James L. Jones (Ret.), the former head of NATO and U.S. forces in Europe, has emerged as the leading candidate to serve as the National Security Adviser for President-elect Obama. Admiral Dennis C. Blair (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Pacific Command and a 6th-generation naval officer, has emerged as the top candidate to be President-elect Obama's Director of National Intelligence. He recently met in Chicago with the president-elect."

11/21/2008 9:31:18 AM

well, at least he didnt pick some Air Force pantywaist.

11/21/2008 11:28:36 AM