Sunday, June 02, 2013

6.2.13: Sacrificing Eric Holder

The big question to start with this week is if Attorney General Eric Holder should be fired, should step down, should be charged with perjury... all of those things.  Tom Brokaw said it would be tough for him to stay on, however; Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that Mr. Holder has done nothing to prevent him from continuing his job.  So which is it?  The politics of all these 'scandals' has been quite predictable, typical, and hypocritical on both sides, particularly with the A.P. and I.R.S. happenings.  Republicans are hardly mentioning Benghazi at this point and they should hold that course because they've beaten it to death and looked disingenuous in the process. They seem less interested in the real problem of funding security at our outposts and their lack of interest in questioning the CIA, particularly David Petraeus.  For the others, opponents of the administration have a clear, easy target - the Attorney General.

We all know that the laws in terms of what an Attorney General can and can not do are so nuanced that negotiating them is a complicated kabooki dance in and of itself.  Technically, Mr. Holder didn't perjure himself but there are contradictions in his statements - when he knew things.  He recused himself from the investigation of Associated Press journalists about leaks, but as the Attorney General you have to know what's going on, not just that it is going on.  We agree with Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) that the dragnet approach was overreach (seriously, not to be understated), and as we suggested in a prior column, you have to narrow the search to get the real facts.

With regard to the I.R.S. targeting scandal, Mr. Holder can not be trusted to investigate because of its partisan nature (right there should be a sign).  Never mind the bigger problem of 'social welfare' organizations participating in politics and getting secret donations, which David Axelrod unsuccessfully tried to make the case for.  The problem with listening to that argument is that no one has been held publicly responsible for this targeting so it rings hollow.

We view the A.P. scandal sort of the same way in which we view immigration.  The onus is on the government.  If someone wants to come to the United States for a better life, who are we to begrudge them that? For example, if conditions in this country were so bad that many people were thinking of immigrating to Germany to earn money, would you blame them?  If the government decides that they don't want that to happen then it is their responsibility to protect the borders and make the process more humane.  Same with leaks and the press, again the onus is on the government to keep these things secret and if they can not do that, you can not blame the press for reporting it. As we've said before, investigate those leaks from the inside.  In both these examples, that doesn't excuse people from responsibility.  Most  undocumented immigrants aren't breaking all the other laws we have - let's think of the humanity of the situation.  With regard to the press, they have to bear some responsibility that the information they publish could put lives in danger and it's a civic obligation that they inform authorities that they've come across this information.  It's a critical balance that has to be managed well... by the Attorney General. For the most part, people have lost faith in Mr. Holder's ability to manage things properly.

[A note on Immigration: Senator Schumer said that he expected 70 votes in favor of the Gang of 8's bi-partisan immigration reform bill, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has stated that even though there will be wide consensus in the Senate, don't expect the same in the House as Republicans will block any reform.  Just another example of why John Boehner is the worst House Speaker in the modern political era... Unbelievable.]

The comparisons made on today's program between Mr. Holder and Bush Administration Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez are superfluous with the exception that Presidents will always defend this particular appointee.  The president will not 'sacrifice' him.  Why? (And this is the rub with Eric Holder) Asking your chief law enforcement officer to step down is like a tacit admission of guilt that something was in fact illegally done and no administration, Democrat or Republican, is going to open up itself to that.  Eric Holder is not going to step down - he's going to have to go head on into the storm and face it, despite what Congressman Rogers understandably described as a broader notion of a pattern of this kind of [misleading-type] activity.  As David Axelrod referred it, Washington's 'favorite political blood sport of human sacrifice' will have to wait.

What always raises an eyebrow for us is when Mr. Rogers says that it undermines people's faith in government and its institutions. And to paraphrase Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), she said that people in her district feel betrayed.  Really?  Possibly Congressman Rogers less so, but Ms. Blackburn and Republicans in general have built their entire platform on how government is the problem, that it can not be trusted.  So do they feel vindicated?  Betrayed by some wasteful spending and targeting by the I.R.S.? Sure fine, but we feel betrayed by an administration that falsified evidence that got us into a war where over 4,000 service men and women died.  How's that for a comparison?

Our general feeling is that politicians (people in the business of governing) who say that government is bad obviously are being disingenuous and don't have the best interest of all the American people at heart.  If they did then they'd be able to recognize all the differences there are in this country and hence the necessity of compromise to move everyone forward.

One of the major negative consequences of these scandals is that we're not speaking about the things that are truly important to 73 percent of Americans, the economy and unemployment.  Republican strategist Anna Navarro said that we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time so we should be able to talk about both, however Washington obviously hasn't shown that it can do that - to our collective detriment.  And of course, Republicans will not heed Senator Schumer's warning today that they shouldn't focus on 'scandals' too much.

Unemployment is the grave problem in America that has to be addressed.  And no - repealing Obamacare as Ms. Blackburn suggested is not the cure.  The lack of investment in infrastructure building - 'critical' Jonathan Alter rightly described it - is undoing us.  Rebuilding our past accomplishments and investing in research and development for our future (and we put education in the 'development' part of the latter) are the most important ways forward.  Also, as Mr. Alter pointed out, Congressman Paul Ryan's budget slashes infrastructure spending, R&D and Education funding without cutting the military.  Ask yourself, would you be more worried that we don't have enough planes at our airbase in Aviano, Italy or that the bridge you're driving over every day to work might collapse at any moment?

However, when President Obama discusses these important economic issues, he's just changing the subject.  That's our politically rhetorical reality.

And speaking of reality, we didn't want to leave out the discussion of how 40.4 percent of households in this country now have the woman as the primary bread winner.  When this study came out this week, there was much debate about whether or not this was a good thing.  Anna Navarro said today that it should just be something that each couple (family) figures out for itself.  Our take is that it is neither good or bad, it's just how it is (reality) and shouldn't be used as any impetus to put people down or bring others up. It is up to individual families to figure it out, at this point.

Congresswoman Blackburn said that in today's economy of ideas, women particularly excel, which is great, but the way she said it suggested that men were weaker at producing ideas, which to be fair is not the case.  What she also said was that women should be recognized by companies for their exceptional skills, and we agree.  Actually, President Obama wholeheartedly agreed as well signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which requires equal pay for women for equal work.  Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) voted against that.


Round Table: former top adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); author of the new book, “The Center Holds: Obama and his Enemies,” Jonathan Alter; Republican strategist Ana Navarro, and NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman. 




No comments: