Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditQuick! 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."
If that's unsettling, consider the fact that Holder was part of the legal team that in 2005 developed strategies for securing re-authorization of the Patriot Act.
Much will be made of Holder's role as a deputy attorney general in helping former President Clinton arrange for the last-minute pardon of fugitive/Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich. (Holder said he gave Clinton a "neutral, leaning towards favorable" opinion of the proposed pardon.) And it will also be noted that Holder, as a corporate lawyer in private practice after leaving the Clinton team, played a key role in negotiating an agreement with the Justice Department that got Chiquita Brands International executives off the hook for paying protection money to right-wing death squads in Colombia.
But the first questions for Holder should go to the issue of his attitude toward the role of the attorney general in defending the Constitution. Holder's defenders will point to some eloquent speeches he has given, including one he delivered in June to the American Constitutional Society. In that speech, the former deputy attorney general condemned the Bush administration's "disastrous course" set by the Bush administration on issues such as torture and the practice of rendition.
"Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe," Holder said, correctly. "For the sake of our safety and security, and because it is the right thing to do, the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights."
That's a good message, to be sure.
But it must be juxtaposed against past statements made by Holder, such as this one: "The Attorney General is the one Cabinet member who's different from all the rest. The Attorney General serves first the people, but also serves the president. There has to be a closeness at the same time there needs to be distance."
What we need to know is this: How close would Holder, as attorney general, get to obeying his oath to defend the Constitution?
The place for that to happen is in a very serious, very aggressive confirmation process that should not simply presume that Holder will "get it" when questions about the Constitution arise.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
And again, another pick disliked by the Hard Left (Mr Nichols) and (as I heard today) the Hard Left (Sean Hannity)...
must be a good one.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 9:11pm
Deep breath everyone.
Were you expecting Obama to chose Ralph Nader?
See? Holder's better already.
Posted by Egalitare at 11/18/2008 @ 9:55pm
*And again, another pick disliked by the Hard Left (Mr Nichols) and (as I heard today) the Hard Left (Sean Hannity)...
must be a good one.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 9:11pm*
Are you saying Sean reformed? ;)
My personal opinion? He's been around forever. He's served in both a governmental capacity and the private world. If there was one decision I'd have the most blind faith in Obama for, the top lawyer in the land is pretty close to it. Plus if you're that concerned about it John, suggest that it be brought up in his confirmation hearings.
Otherwise I agree Mask, any appointment that makes no one happy is probably the best. Also consider: how many of us questioned Obama's strategy during the election? And how did that all turn out?
Posted by yutsano at 11/18/2008 @ 9:57pm
I'm beginning to see this new 'change we can believe in' Obama adminstration as something more like a Clinton 3rd term administration. I'm really hoping I'm wrong.
Posted by lltrix at 11/18/2008 @ 10:02pm
*I'm beginning to see this new 'change we can believe in' Obama adminstration as something more like a Clinton 3rd term administration. I'm really hoping I'm wrong.
Posted by lltrix at 11/18/2008 @ 10:02pm*
If Obama appoints a single old Clinton Cabinet member anywhere your grouse might have merit. However so far he has called upon second and third tier Clintonites who were not directly involved in the policy making. Besides which, if they're competent, who cares so much where they used to work?
Posted by yutsano at 11/18/2008 @ 10:15pm
Just another reason why I voted for Ralph.
I have already had to sign two petitions against Obama appointments.
Who won the election, again?
Posted by neaguy at 11/18/2008 @ 10:41pm
well...the thing about lilly livered sycophants is this...
their action and competance depends largely upon the nature of their master. good, smart boss, good sycophant - bad boss, bad sycophant.
no boss...lost in the woods.
i'm assuming he knows how to do his job and his boss will direct his efforts far better than mushmouth directed his sycophantic AG's (and all the rest)...
ah, the deep seeded shaved ape impetus toward warm, fuzzy, fascism - present in even the best of us.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/18/2008 @ 11:18pm
the Hard Left (Sean Hannity)...
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 9:11pm
COUNTDOWN WITH SEAN HANNITY!!!!
Hannity: Gay marriage is a question of love
Everyone deserves the same chance at permanence and happiness
Nov. 10: In a Special Comment, Countdown's Sean Hannity disagrees with the passing of Proposition 8 in California and urges people to accept love between people of the same sex.
SPECIAL COMMENT By Sean Hannity
Anchor, 'Countdown'
msnbc.com
updated 9:13 p.m. ET, Mon., Nov. 10, 2008
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/18/2008 @ 11:19pm
i think mr. obama's trying to keep all this as "normal" as possible.
trying to keep things calm.
it must be pretty hard to do an about face with a lumbering ship as grande as the u.s. of a. in such storrrmy seas.
trying to keep things calm.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/18/2008 @ 11:23pm
Just another reason why I voted for Ralph.
Posted by neaguy at 11/18/2008 @ 10:41pm
Direct descendant of Cervantes?
Posted by yutsano at 11/18/2008 @ 11:27pm
And the 1st Bush found Holder amenable enough to appoint him a DC court judge.
A choice, indicating, yet again, that Obama will be captive to corporate interests.
Andrew Cuomo would have been a fighter.
Holder will be a yes-man.
Expect no DoJ investigations of anyone on the current Bush team.
Expect no changes for the better in restoring civil liberties.
Posted by sloper at 11/18/2008 @ 11:30pm
Posted by yutsano at 11/18/2008 @ 11:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
watch out for fast flying tomatos and various detritus from the p-nut gallery, left and right, for some time.
while the cynical "everything sux" left dreams naderite dreams, the cynical "everything sux, but thats ok - i've given up on decency" right can weep and gnash teeth (and dream fascist dreams of triumphant vengeance) until either...
all the problems get fixed, or...
the rapture.
till then i'll be fine with "better than bad" (which is good).
lowered expectations - the secret of happiness!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/18/2008 @ 11:42pm
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 12:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
good stuff, comrade. there's some trotskyesque pragmatism i can respect.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/19/2008 @ 12:13am
By the way what USA needs is a 21st Century Socialist Political Party and not Obama. State-Socialism of the XXI Century is the only solution for America's financial problems. There is no other alternative and solution: Libertarianism, Corporate Bushist Capitalism, Third way neoliberalism, protectionist-ron paul capitalism, welfare-capitalism, and all forms of *reformed* capitalism won't cure USA's deep problems. Only a true project and transition toward a system of nationalized corporations under state and workers control and radical change of the US constitution could save USA. However Obama is the only thing we got now, because USA doesn't have a United Socialist Party like Venezuela does. so for now we gotta work with the only option we have: OBAMA, so go to http://www.change.gov and *push* Obama toward socialist policies.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 12:15am
ibbleblibble You know i know that in USA there is this tradition of labeling people. But this is not about pragmatism or being a "commie". I am being realistical as possible. And indeed, corporate capitalism (The system of private ownership of all corporations under a tiny oligarchy) won't save US deep rooted economic problems.
Reformist neoliberal Clintonist Capitalism, protectionist free market alas Ron Paul, or the current Bushonomics won't save USA. Only a true radical change of direct participative-democracy and a socialist-economic model can save americans.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 12:19am
Yes yes -
Posted by winyahn at 11/19/2008 @ 12:23am
Ain't that just like a hard left leftist. Their so hard to please. Just like that quote, "a radical is a man with two feet firmly planted in the air".
Posted by neme at 11/19/2008 @ 12:24am
Ain't that just like a hard left leftist. Their so hard to please. Just like that quote, "a radical is a man with two feet firmly planted in the air".
Posted by neme at 11/19/2008 @ 12:25am
I don't really understand how come most american citizens are so in love with capitalism and with right-wing ideology. When the whole world knows that capitalism and the right-wing ideology is the *root* of the world financial collapse, of all the wars, of 9-11 inside job, and all the evil things happening in this world, not even Hitler.
I mean even democrat party voters love capitalism and right-wing ideology. Some times i think that Democrat Party and Republican Party are part of the same corporate cleptocratic narco-terrorist conspiracy that his country has had. I think Americans deserve something a lot better than the corporate Wal-Mart Democ-rats or the corporate Wal-Mart republic-rats.
I don't know why people cannot connect the dots. Maybe coz they are glued to their TV 8 hours a day.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 12:25am
Ain't that just like a hard left leftist. Their so hard to please. Just like that quote, "a radical is a man with two feet firmly planted in the air".
Posted by neme at 11/19/2008 @ 12:27am
Radicalism means going to root of problems. hahaha i don't know why right-wing bubbas hate debating. Right-wingers love to label and insult instead of debating. Redneck right-wingers have such a small brain that instead of debating and deffending their right-wing neoliberal ideology have all these small cheap talks without an substance really. What we need is SOLUTIONS for USA not INSULTS and DUMB SMALL TALK
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 12:29am
This country is so emotional, i mean US voters are so emotional. I don't know why the Obama voters hate Ralph Nader so much. It's like if they were raped by Ralph Nader himself or something. We gotta apply science to reality, not emotions. Vote with your mind, not with your heart. Politics is not love.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 12:32am
I don't know why the Obama voters hate Ralph Nader so much.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 12:32am
Could be because Ralph's a fraud? He's been a fraud for at least a dozen years now. Anyone who's expressed a desire to see Bob Dole and George Bush in the White House (and Ralph has done precisely that) and calls himself a progressive is a fraud. Anyone in Nader's position who could say nothing about the theft of Florida in 2000, about 90,000 voters, mostly African-American, disenfranchised wrongly by the GOP candidate's brother , and then call himself a progressive is a fraud. Anyone who says that it's OK if SCOTUS removes the right to privacy by first overturning Roe, and then calls himself a progressive is a fraud. Nader's best work was 40 years ago. Now he's, metaphorically, just doing Elvis in Vegas.
Posted by jmusolino at 11/19/2008 @ 12:49am
I too voted for Nader, and proud of it. Obama is constructing Clinton III. And you voted for change?
Posted by philbq at 11/19/2008 @ 01:00am
*I too voted for Nader, and proud of it. Obama is constructing Clinton III. And you voted for change?
Posted by philbq at 11/19/2008 @ 01:00am *
Other than some strange notion that Nader is a "pure" progressive, give me a reason why Nader is a better candidate for President.
Posted by yutsano at 11/19/2008 @ 01:13am
I too voted for Nader, and proud of it. Obama is constructing Clinton III. And you voted for change?
Posted by philbq at 11/19/2008 @ 01:00am
It's a bit premature to say that Obama is constructing Clinton III. I don't care how many Clintonites he has on his transition. I'm Bernie Sanders-type left, and I say that the more people he has who've seen the poor transition of 1992-3 the better - they know the pitfalls. He needs to hit the ground in a full sprint, not falling on his face like Clinton did. And, yeah, I voted for change. Nader hasn't represented change in decades, for a lot of reasons, some of which I mentioned earlier. He's a tired, old egomaniac, one who should be nowhere near a position of power. And looking at the last 4 elections, the man's judgment sucks. I, for one, have had more than enough of poseurs and clowns like Ralph Nader.
Posted by jmusolino at 11/19/2008 @ 01:17am
>Quick! Name the veteran Department of >Justice insider who, shortly after the Patriot >Act was signed into law and as the Bush >administration was proposing further erode >barriers to governmental abuses, ???? that >dissenters should not be tolerated?
Where's the verb?? Doesn't SOMEONE over there know how to proofread? The website is full of typos (Nichols' column in particular). No matter how good the content, this sort of sloppiness detracts -- and doesn't contribute much to the argument for Democratic competence!
Posted by thm61 at 11/19/2008 @ 01:30am
President- elect Obama, needs to have people around him who knows how to get around the legal passways in order to do some of the things he promised. But for those who do not like who he pick, I would suggest before you critizise him, think about the things he has already accomplished. I would also like to point out, he has already proven he is smart, and he needs to surround himself with the best in order to meet the challegnes that the U.S. currently faces in order to be sucessful at providing americans with the best leadersship possible.
Big "C"
Posted by curtis44 at 11/19/2008 @ 01:42am
I agree with an above poster about Nichols bringing his detractions of Holder up at the confirmation hearings. The fact is noone is going to be happy because everyone has their own ideas regarding cabinet positions. I'm going to wait until he gets into office and actually has presidential powers before I start bitching and moaning. I swear the only website with more bitching is the espn comments section.
Posted by k330k at 11/19/2008 @ 07:22am
Change:
From Bush 2008
To
Bush 2003.
Better than Palin/McCain? sure, but not change. Back to the future would be more accurate.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2008 @ 07:45am
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 12:32am
Do I detect a Russian accent in you writting?
Posted by Truthman at 11/19/2008 @ 07:59am
Posted by neaguy at 11/18/2008 @ 10:41pm
Wait a minute....so you voted for Nader...
and then ask "who won this election, again"??!!?!??!
Anybody see a slight discrepancy of logic there?
((BTW, FROSTY...obviously a typo. Hannity the "Far RIGHT".)
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2008 @ 08:57am
<Name the veteran Department of Justice insider who, shortly after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law as the Bush administration was proposing to further erode barriers to governmental abuses, that dissenters should not be tolerated?>
Quick! Name the journalist who thinks the above fragment is an English sentence!
Someone named John Nichols seems to be the culprit! But it's OK, he can email me for a good ESL course.
Posted by roimort at 11/19/2008 @ 09:26am
jmusolino: you lack political knowledge and u speak like most americans by using labels, insults and all kinds of cheap, small chats !!
wake up !!
The real *fraud* is the one party system of this corporate plutocratic imperialist country in favor of the rich.
The one party cleptrocracy composed of Democ-rats and Republic-rats !!
THAT'S THE REAL FRAUD IN AMERIKKKA
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 09:50am
Why do Democrats hate Nader and call him a "fraud" without any evidence of him doing fraud. Last time i checked the real fraud is Nancy Pelosi, The Clinton Dynasty and the elitist democrats for supporting wiretapping, the Patriot Act, and the War on Irak. The Democrats are the *real* fraud not any socialist, or independent candidate to the bi-partycracy mafia we have in this country
Wake up and think with your brains, not with your hearts, for GOD SAKE !!
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 09:52am
I don't really understand how come most american citizens are so in love with capitalism and with right-wing ideology. When the whole world knows that capitalism and the right-wing ideology is the *root* of the world financial collapse, of all the wars, of 9-11 inside job, and all the evil things happening in this world, not even Hitler.
I mean even democrat party voters love capitalism and right-wing ideology. Some times i think that Democrat Party and Republican Party are part of the same corporate cleptocratic narco-terrorist conspiracy that his country has had. I think Americans deserve something a lot better than the corporate Wal-Mart Democ-rats or the corporate Wal-Mart republic-rats.
I don't know why people cannot connect the dots. Maybe coz they are glued to their TV 8 hours a day.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 09:54am
Marxist Socialist, i'd like to hear your definition of right wing ideology. You seem to apply it to anything you disagree with, so i am curious. Americans love capitalism because it works, and socialism doesn't. There are many, many examples of this in history. See, Union, Soviet.
Posted by bholm at 11/19/2008 @ 09:58am
bholm: Capitalism is bad and socialism is good. Under Capitalism US poverty levels have increased. Under Socialism Venezuela's poverty levels have decreased.
I speak with statistics and evidence, unlike you, and capitalists who deffend the kapitalist system with pure emotions.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:11am
bholm: damn man, i don't know but US citizens, specially in right-wing states like Tennessee just don't care about politics, not even mainstream politics, instead most US citizens specially in these chauvinists, xenophobic nazi states think that by hating and blaming others they could indeed fix USA major racist, politico and economic problems.
I wish that American citizens were like Venezuelans who are smarter, more rational and less emotional. And who chosed to be architects of their own destiny by choosing the right political system which is SOCIALISM OF THE XXI CENTURY, instead of letting themselves to be robbed in war and peace by CAPITALIST BANKERS LIKE USA CITIZENS ARE BEING ROBBED RIGHT NOW WITH A 1 TRILLION DOLLARS BAILOUT SUCKED OUT OF USA CITIZENS POCKETS (TAXES)
I don't really foresee a positive change for USA. i am in Tennessee, and Obama got like 20% in this state. This state is ultra-fascist, there are not even socialist parties in this state (Go figure).
To tell you the truth, i don't really see a socialist system in the future for USA, but a fascist system real far to the right, more far-right and extremist than Bush and Reagan. or a complete desintegration of America, into 3-5 nations. There is too much egoism, depression, pessimism, apathy and hatred in this country.
and remember that hatred is the main trait of right-wing ideology.
.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:16am
Gosh, the Obama worship comes to a halt. Finally, criticism. But why direct it towards Holder alone? Obama voted for the Patriot Act and FISA. And according to an AP article released yesterday, Obama's administration will not pursue prosecutions of US torturers. Holder's statement that the AG represents the people and the president (which is true) convince me that he has already agreed that the anti-torture rhetoric of Obama will remain just that: rhetoric. If you guys had actually done your job and engaged in criticism of Obama, say, 10 or 11 months ago, then perhaps we would have had a more honest portrait of him. Shame on you - not Holder!
Posted by damitajo1 at 11/19/2008 @ 10:17am
bholm: What USA really needs is a 21st Century Socialist Political Party and not Obama. State-Socialism of the XXI Century is the only solution for America's financial problems.
There is no other alternative and solution: Libertarianism, Corporate Bushist Capitalism, Third way neoliberalism, protectionist-ron paul capitalism, welfare-capitalism, and all forms of *reformed* capitalism won't cure USA's deep problems. Only a true project and transition toward a system of nationalized corporations under state and workers control and radical change of the US constitution could save USA. However Obama is the only thing we got now, because USA doesn't have a United Socialist Party like Venezuela does.
Ignorance and dumbness are great things in the minds of many people. For example, there is this good well intentioned proyect called "Free State Project" but their ideology is Ron Paul Neoliberal Capitalism. And that ideology would only work if resources were widely available, where thru a free-market each person could get relatively rich without the *interference* of the state.
However, the wordl is like a big pizza. That pizza could be well distributed with a free market if there were only 2 people. but if there were 10 people waiting for that big pizza, then a socialist re-destribution system would be more rational.
What i am trying to state is that the "Free State Project" of New Hampshire Neoliberal Ron Paul Libertarians just won't work. If ever they try that sooner or later their independent state's economy will grind to a halt, because of the fact that a Libertarian Ron Paul economic model would be much more *worse* than the Henry Paulson Bushonomics state-capitalist economy. The problem is that Americans are too closed minded, too *relativists* (Each american
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:22am
What i am trying to state is that the "Free State Project" of New Hampshire Neoliberal Ron Paul Libertarians just won't work. If ever they try that sooner or later their independent state's economy will grind to a halt, because of the fact that a Libertarian Ron Paul economic model would be much more *worse* than the Henry Paulson Bushonomics state-capitalist economy. The problem is that Americans are too closed minded, too *relativists* (Each american has their own world-view, and their truth is 100% facts and truth, no questions asked). And that's the problem of this country: The excess of dogmatic pragmatism, closed-mindedness, inability to connect dots, and the excess of narcissistic relativism.
So for now we gotta work with the only option we have: OBAMA, so go to http://www.change.gov and *push* Obama toward 21st century socialist policies.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:22am
lvliberty1: with capitalism USA will get worse, you can believe what ever you want to believe, but you won't change that cold hard ugly truth, that corporate capitalism and private ownership of all corporations of this country under a tiny minority and corporate lobbists, won't solve USA's financial problems.
I do bring SOLUTIONS to the debate instead of EMOTIONS
Think with your brain, not with your heart
i don't know why Americans are so emotional
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:25am
damitajo1: I thought that The Nation magazine was a socialist magazine for *exclusively* socialist people, who hate capitalism. But i see more capitalists in this magazine than socialists.
Or are they Republican Party members who are infiltrated in this website?
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:27am
lvliberty1: Move to New Hampshire, they have a capitalist libertarian proyect in that state called "Free State Capitalist Project" Maybe their libertarianism alas Luwig Von Mises might make you rich
But to tell you the truth i don't why Latin American progressive leaders have chosen *socialism* over *libertarianism*, in order to fix Latin America's poverty and problems. Ask Evo Morales, Rafael Correa and Hugo Chavez why socialism is better than KAPITALISM
hmmmm
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:30am
But to tell you the truth i don't why Latin American progressive leaders have chosen *socialism* over *libertarianism*, in order to fix Latin America's poverty and problems. Ask Evo Morales, Rafael Correa and Hugo Chavez why socialism is better than KAPITALISM
hmmmm
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:30am | ignore this person | warn this person
Actually....the above leaders and countries you discuss are causing a flight of investment capital and growing poverty and crime. Castro has been blaming the capitalists for how long now?
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 10:35am
Was Mr. Holder a pick of Obama or Emanuel?
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 10:38am
Onevote: not really, you are not well informed. Poverty levels have decreased in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia since they have adpoted a reformist, welfare capitalist economic system. Which are not socialist systems yet, but a lot better than the Clintonomics and Bushonomics.
In fact USA poverty levels have *increased* with Clintonomics and Bushonomics (Neoliberalism)
I think you have to document yourself better on political models before judging countries economies.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:40am
I think you have to document yourself better on political models before judging countries economies.
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 10:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
Okay.....I will take a look at your sources...what are they?
I suggest you read Saving the Americas by Andreas Oppenheimer - a gentleman I will venture to say is more acquainted with the subject than you are. I await your sources.
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 10:44am
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 12:19am | ignore this person | warn this person
sorry - have not had time to go through all of your posts, so perhaps you have addressed this elsewhere, but...
where you from, and if not from US, how have you gotten your ideas of the US?
i know that when i lived in costa rica i liked the socialist aspects of their society and was also bowled over at the power of (north) american culture - and not necesarily proud of it, by the way. many did get kind of a warpe view of the usa, but then in my opinion there are indeed warped aspects of my country.
i'll not rehash things here (neither the time nor space) but in the past i have indeed been HIGHLY critical of my own country, especially the satano-aynrando softcore obverse democratic corporate fascism so prevelant here - especially prior to its recent repudiation by reality.
in classic fascism a political party co-opts business and denigrates democracy, but in the usa it has worked the other way, wiith powerful private entities co-opting government. since a shared national nostalgia is need ed by fascism to fire up the masses in ignorant populist desire to be exploited, and since terms like "freedom" and "democracy" are inextricable from the nationalism of the american concience, american style fascism not only operates bassackwards in terms of who controls whom, but also is forced to maintain a facade of democracy in order to utilize the shared mythology of "america".
but the facade is stronger than it appeared some four years ago and the results of the neocon's crypto-fascist machinations have become too obvious to too many schmuks and drones, and i DO believe that ultimately certain socialist concepts WILL result such as some form of universal health care.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/19/2008 @ 10:50am
the market works fine up to a point, MARXIST-SOCIALIST, but beyond that point is no more perfect than even the best government. the irony is that "socialist" concepts like universal health care often result in positive situations for business.
why would american corporations oppose something like universal health care? it seems to me they would be fighting for it tooth and nail so THEY did not have to bother with such and could concentrate on doing whatever they do.
???????????
regardless i'm not going to criticize obama much until he has time to show what he is all about, if then. i do not agree with everything he has said or done, though i did pick him before the first primary and worked on his campaign.
i THINK that he will do the best he can to implement certain programs that the most ideologically retarded of the rightwing will call "socialism", and...
so effing what? those bastards are nuts and have damned near ruined my country anyway, and i don't see gulags and hospitals for the politically insane in western europe. what i see there are happier people who save more, enjoy their lives with a little less, don't worry as much, and do just fine witha slower, more steady, more sustainable (wise) rate of economic growth.
if thats socialism, i say huzzah to socialism, and now that the big rolling lie of the crypto-fascist neocons has been exposed for what it is and many americans awaken from their silly pop culture-consumerist pipe dreams to the real world of cause and effect reality, i think most have no problem with a little socialism.
two steps forward, one step back is the pace of progress and better than bad is good.
lowered (realistic) expectations - the secret of happiness and the path to sustainable, secure, growth.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/19/2008 @ 11:04am
JUST A NOTE TO ALL OF YOU HERE !!
I AM NOT A DOGMATIC REVISIONIST, SECTARIAN SOCIALIST FROM THE USSR XX CENTURY SOCIALISM SCHOOL OF THOUGHT !!
I AM AN OPEN MINDED REALIST-SOCIALIST.
I DID VOTE FOR OBAMA AND BIDEN !!
I DO DEFFEND OBAMA-BIDEN AND EVEN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY FROM THE FASCISM OF REPUBLICAN PARTY !!
I EVEN HAVE LIKE 10 OBAMA BUMPER STICKERS IN MY CAR AS A REVOLUTIONARY TOOL AGAINST THE KKKKK RIGHT !!
WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS TO TRY TO PUSH OBAMA TO MOVE TO THE LEFT, LIKE PEOPLE DID TO FDR !!
TAKE CARE ALL
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 11:13am
Just one more thing: I believe that US progressives should quit using the word *progressive* and replace it with *socialism and socialist*.
I think it is the task of all USA progressives to make socialism more mainstream, to introduce socialism and the word socialism to all americans.
Just like Mccain and Palin did !!
We gotta thank Mccain and Palin for talking about socialism
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 11:16am
I suggest you read Saving the Americas by Andreas Oppenheimer - a gentleman I will venture to say is more acquainted with the subject than you are. I await your sources.
Oppenheimer is not a good source for what's really going on in Latin American countries. He's a supportor of the status quo and he has no credibility outside of his niche in Miami.
Posted by Gainsbourg69 at 11/19/2008 @ 11:30am
"That's a good message, to be sure.
But it must be huxtaposed against past statements made by Holder, such as this one: "The Attorney General is the one Cabinet member who's different from all the rest. The Attorney General serves first the people, but also serves the president. There has to be a closeness at the same time there needs to be distance.""
For one thing, what the hell is "huxtaposed"? But more importantly, isn't serving the people first a GOOD thing?
Here's a prescient article from June of this year... I think it shows that Holder is a dedicated public servant and far from a Clinton lackey.
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202421743636
Posted by hawkeye11 at 11/19/2008 @ 11:34am
Oppenheimer is not a good source for what's really going on in Latin American countries. He's a supportor of the status quo and he has no credibility outside of his niche in Miami.
Posted by Gainsbourg69 at 11/19/2008 @ 11:30am | ignore this person | warn this person
Investor's like the status quo, not scary populist preaching by corrupt charlatans. This is why investment capital is fleeing Latin American. And have you heard lately that Miami is The Capitical of Latin America? Much of the investment capital that is leaving is being put in Miami banks. Now who doesn't know whats going on again?
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 11:36am
I'd like to know what your sources are for your statistics, marxist-socialist. Because Huge Chavez is probably one of the few people in the world who would say that Venezuela's poverty is lower than America's. I don't need statistics, just common sense. America has the world's strongest economy, even still with this recession we're in. Those Latin American leaders you cite are borderline dictators, abusing and hanging onto power in any way they can. You must subscribe to the Venezuelan State Newspaper or something, since Chavez controls almost all media in venezuela.
Posted by bholm at 11/19/2008 @ 11:38am
You must subscribe to the Venezuelan State Newspaper or something, since Chavez controls almost all media in venezuela.
Posted by bholm at 11/19/2008 @ 11:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
I was expecting Marxie to supply us with the state inspired propaganda but apparently he can't even do that!
Posted by OneVote at 11/19/2008 @ 11:42am
Every time there is one more of these crazy articles I will gleefully remind the loony left that I told you so during the primaries... Guess what? Obama will govern from the center and triangulate the lot of you. Oh the sheer joy of seeing you guys going nuts!!! Is this crackling the sound of self immolation?
Posted by dasgupta at 11/19/2008 @ 11:58am
Mask is just a Clinton toady which I suspected all along. Really, If you cannot see that this is Clinton III you are blind or as I said have political sympathies for the Clintons. Remember the slogan: CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. I seriously doubt it.
Posted by jimijazz at 11/19/2008 @ 12:01pm
I would have thought Henry Waxman might have had a chance as Attorney General.
Shows how naive I am eh?
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 12:05pm
Ugh, Henry Waxman. For some reason i can't stand him, even besides his politics. Somethin about the weird moustache and his attitude.
Posted by bholm at 11/19/2008 @ 12:19pm
Posted by bholm at 11/19/2008 @ 12:19pm
Yeah just like Dennis Kucinch who also looks a little goofy.
But both of them have been among the few voices in Congress who have spoken the truth and fought tirelessly to bring us a little light in the dark of the last 8 years.
I am just not shallow enough to give a damn what they look like.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 12:38pm
No, thats not the sole reason i dislike them. I disagree with their politics also. Kucinich, he's from Cleveland near me, and at least he speaks his mind all the time, and doesn't change whenever public opinion does. But i disagree with him on almost everything. But to each his own.
Posted by bholm at 11/19/2008 @ 12:44pm
Posted by bholm at 11/19/2008 @ 12:44pm
Just out of curiosity, whose politics do you agree with?
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 12:47pm
lol, oh boy, here's gonna come the onslaught after i reveal this. I'm moderately conservative. Center Right. I'm not a Bush fan or anything like that, but i tend to disagree with the democrats on a fair number of issues.
Posted by bholm at 11/19/2008 @ 12:51pm
Fair enough as far as I am concerned.
I am what might be called a "Cradle to Grave" Socialist. But anyway like you said, each to his own.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 11:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
OK!
LOL
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/19/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/19/2008 @ 1:04pm
I was going to say the same thing you did.
I always enjoy reading the unemotional posts of marxist-socialist. Reminds me of myself when I was a youngster..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 1:09pm
damn this online newspapers has more capitalists than Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com
What are all you GOP people doing here
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 1:28pm
bholm: So you think Venezuela's poverty-levels haven't decreased with the Bolivarian Socialist Economic model?
So you think that the US Corporate Capitalist free market model is better for us americans than the Bolivarian Socialist Economic model?
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 1:31pm
chaoszen: Go to http://www.johnmccain.com/ they love capitalism in that page. specially Joe The Capitalist Fascist Plumber, and the other rednecks
Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/19/2008 @ 1:33pm
Joe the fascist plumber? lol, thats funny. Its good to see that you are against free spech, Marxist-Socialist. It sure seems as if you don't like opposing views to your own being present here. If you're willing to have an honest argument about the previous points mentioned, i'd be more than willing. If its just going to be more emotional tirades against capitalism, then leave me out.
Posted by bholm at 11/19/2008 @ 1:38pm
Finally, a real marxist for the cons to get at.
however, methinks you are being conned by a con.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2008 @ 2:05pm
Please, for the sake of The Nation's credibility, run articles by a proofreader. Within 10 seconds, I got
"...the former deputy attorney general condemned the Bush administration's 'disastrous course' set by the Bush administration..."
and
"...it must be huxtaposed against..."
Yes, blogs are immediate, but they don't have to be THAT immediate.
Posted by pb53 at 11/19/2008 @ 2:40pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/19/2008 @ 1:37pm
Larry, Marky Socks is a poser.
He's a conservative like you pretending to be the "outrageous Marxist" stereotype.....or he's the Left's version of LIBZSUK.
Either way....not a real deep thinker.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/19/2008 @ 3:50pm
Still the posts are fun to read. Unlike many of yours..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 4:20pm
I think we are in some danger of Clinton III. I used the opportunity presented by a Plouffe survey to tell him what I thought. I don't like what I've been reading about Holder and I don't like Bill's conflicts of interest re Hillary as S of State. Hagel has no such conflicts--why not choose him?
I think Nader does have an ego problem, although I agreed with his election analysis and only voted for Obama to block the GOP from a third term. Marxist, I totally agree with your analysis--we could use some socialism other than paying for the big banks! I have mixed feelings about Chavez and feel more comfortable about Morales. We are led by two corporate parties but I've never seen a chance to get rid of them.
Posted by mimsky at 11/19/2008 @ 4:41pm
Lefty, schmefty. Why not David Iglesias? Or that (Republican) woman who got fired along with Iglesias for vigorously prosecuting Duke Cunningham? If I recall my political science correctly, the leftiest lefties agree with the tightiest righties on civil rights. Maybe we just need a "pure" conservative.
Posted by girlcousin at 11/19/2008 @ 4:49pm
Eric Holder is a Progressive, just like many of us here.
He changed his tune in 2004, when he saw the effects of Bush's policies:
www.acslaw.org/files/2004%20convention_Lewis_speech%20transcript.pdf
Posted by ExxonMcBushCo at 11/19/2008 @ 4:52pm
I think we are in some danger of Clinton III. Posted by mimsky at 11/19/2008 @ 4:41pm
I think so to. There is lots of talent out there to chose from. People who are and never have been connected to the Hill and a bunch of Washington Insiders.
Obama does seem to be stuffing his cabinet with anything but some creative and knowledgeable people outside the beltway.
It shows a lack of imagination that would be necessary for "real change". I'm starting to feel hoodwinked by the soaring rhetoric of a man who in reality may have little imagination.
To soon to tell. I just hope I didn't totally waste my vote on a man with no imagination or any real intention to institute change I can believe in. We could be such a great country..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 6:53pm
I heard on our local public radio station, KBOO.fm, and the show "Democracy Now" that Eric Holder has been working as a partner at a law firm, currently defending Chiquita in Columbia, including charges that they paid columbian terrorists $1.7M to suppress working families fighting Chiquita - that is, violently supress.
It was very interesting, as the person Democracy Now was interviewing was Cornell West, author of "Hope on a Tightrope".
Cornell was quite surprised when he was informed about this, saying it was the first he ever heard of it, and would want to ask Eric Holder questions about it.
Hmmmm.
Posted by odysseus14 at 11/19/2008 @ 7:10pm
Posted by odysseus14 at 11/19/2008 @ 7:10pm
I read that aswell. If that is true. Then John Holder has no business heading the Justice Dept as Attorney General.
It would also say much about the judgement of Obama, who I am sure would have been aware of this.
Uh Oh Spaghettio!
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 7:23pm
I meant Eric Holder.. Don't know where John came from. ha.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/19/2008 @ 7:25pm
Boy, this next four years is going to be better than I thought. Eric Holder? The guy who approved the pardon of fugitive tax-dodger Marc Rich? Yeah, just the man we need to "clean up" the DOJ. New slogan for the Obama Presidency:
"Change you can believe in....NOT!" "Change you cannot believe!
Vote for your favorite. I can't wait to see where HRC goes. Sec'y of State? That will make for some great hard-hitting investigative pieces in the NYT about conflicts of interest. Well, probably not.
Posted by twillie at 11/19/2008 @ 11:30pm
Posted by twillie at 11/19/2008 @ 11:34pm
Twillie, not that it matters, but Marky Socks is likely a conservative Repub just like you.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2008 @ 10:15am
Your're probably wrong on both counts. He sounds just wacky enough to be a true far-left wingnut. Why would he come to a liberal blog and spout this stuff? And, I'm a moderate. Being pro-choice disqualifies you from the conservative wing.
Posted by twillie at 11/20/2008 @ 11:09am
Posted by twillie at 11/19/2008 @ 11:30pm
do a little research Twillie. Look up who some of the legal staff were that wrote Richs pardon request. One name in particular may stand out to you, his nic is "Scooter". He is a felon now too.
Glass houses and what-not.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2008 @ 11:09am
He is also no longer employed in the Bush White House. Apparently, otherwise he could have been promoted to AG in the Obama Administration.
And, the pardon was signed by Holder, his superior.
"Change you can believe in!" And you fell for it, crabwalk.
Posted by twillie at 11/20/2008 @ 11:30am
From the House Committee on Government reform, 2002: "It should be noted that Lewis Libby's involvement in the Rich matter – like that of Garment and former Reagan Justice Department official William Bradford Reynolds – was limited to settlement negotiations and never included work on the pardon matter. Libby, and to a lesser extent, Garment and Reynolds, have been mentioned by President Clinton and others as prominent Republicans who supported the Rich pardon. This representation is inaccurate, as Libby, Reynolds and Garment worked only on settlement negotiations, and did not work on the pardon."
Crabwalk, did you think no one would bother to check? If you want to peddle BS, do it over on moveon.org, where facts are unimportant.
Posted by twillie at 11/20/2008 @ 2:04pm
Actually, I think we SHOULD "get rid" of all bureaucrats, not just the "petty" ones. I think our country would be a much better place. At the very least, it would be much more efficient.
Posted by GBGB at 11/21/2008 @ 2:51pm
President-Elect Barack H. Obama Obama for America 5046 Greenwood Ave. P.O. Box 8102 Chicago, Il. 60615 Chicago, Il 60080
RE: Supplement to Opposition to the Appointment of Mr. Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") for His Past Collusion with the Judicial Branch in violation of Separation of Power and the Rights of Parents.
Greetings:
At this critical time it is imperative to restore integrity and public confidence in DOJ by compelling the next AG comply with the words proclaimed on the RFK Justice Department Building, "No Free Government Can Survive That Is Not Based on The Supremacy of Law. Where Law ends, Tyranny Begins, Law Alone Can Give Us Freedom"
But, the investigation of the evidence of malfeasance confirm that Mr. Eric Holder does not meet this for two reasons:
First, Mr. Eric Holder's record in DOJ confirm that he subscribes to the collusion of DOJ with the Judicial Branch in violation of the rights of citizens and the mandate of separation of power.
The evidence is that during the past 32 years that I have conducted federal civil rights litigation on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics1-Mr. Eric Holder was in DOJ working with the Judicial Branch to make the government less accountable.
Thus, if he is appointed and is by the Senate, the policy of DOJ to permit less and less ability of citizens to control abuse of government and its employees will continue.
The evidence confirms during the past 32 years the Courts, DOJ and the Bar have made it almost impossible to make the government accountable by disregarding the legislative mandates under both Civil Rights and Watergate legislation. Query--Who can now afford to sue the government for malfeasance, even if one could find a lawyer willing
Posted by IsidoroRDL at 11/22/2008 @ 12:37pm