General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Progressive: Eric Holder's Five Crucial Failures
http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/09/187870/eric-holders-five-crucial-failuresFirst, he refused to prosecute George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld for breaking the treaty against torture and the statutes that also prohibit it.
Second, he let Wall Street CEOs off the hook for messing around with mortgage derivatives, misleading investors and clients, and crashing our economy.
Third, he prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other Attorney General, and he used the hideous 1917 Sedition Act to go after them. He even pursued James Risen, the terrific New York Times reporter, threatening him with jail.
More at the link.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And fifth, he justified Pres. Obama’s assassination doctrine, and said it applied even to U.S. citizens.
SOURCE: http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/09/187870/eric-holders-five-crucial-failures
salib
(2,116 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)
RussBLib
(9,036 posts)...allowed Colorado and Washington State to legalize marijuana with no objection from the DOJ.
As with most things, a mixed bag.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Too bad that before the tipping point came about, he ignored the wishes of 37 million people here in California, and undid the long hard years of work that activists put in so that we would have med marijuana dispensaries up and running.
Now in many places, one single dispensary is somehow supposed to help out between fifty thousand and a quarter of a million people!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)try to end what he started. Too bad these morons have to actually their disastrous policies come to fruition before they realize how dangerous they are, AFTER destroying the lives of millions of people.
But better late than never I suppose. Meese now acknowledges the threat to Civil Liberties his Drug War has been and is now working with one of his former arch enemies, the ACLU to try to do something about what he was so much a part of.
When even Meese is aware of the harm done, you would expect an AG appointed by a Democrat to have used Meese to demonstrate why those anti-Constitutional laws have to go.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)but you just have to keep following the money. Those in current office have their marching orders.
It is nice to see Meese develop a conscience. Better late than never I suppose.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is not as stupid, greedy and soulless as the one I see every day.
Hope springs eternal they say. I have to STOP this, thanks for reminding me! 
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Or just more lame snark?
RussBLib
(9,036 posts)from Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog
The A.G., for example, has shown amazing leadership on the issue of LGBT rights. He’s challenged Republican restrictions on voting rights. He’s fought for sentencing reforms. He’s condemned “Stand Your Ground” laws and showed effective leadership during the crisis in Ferguson. He cleared the way for Colorado and the state of Washington to pursue marijuana legalization. He’s worked to reverse the disenfranchisement of the formerly incarcerated.
We don’t usually think of the office of Attorney General as one in which a policymaker can become one of the nation’s champions of a progressive agenda, but that’s exactly what Eric Holder has done.
This obviously isn’t to say that Holder’s tenure has been perfect – I would have liked to have seen far more Wall Street prosecutions, and congressional Republicans have demanded his impeachment on more than a few occasions for a variety of strange, perceived failings – but I’d argue Holder leaves his post as one of the most accomplished and important Attorneys General in modern American history.
more
salib
(2,116 posts)Again, he is not only not "perfect", he either missed out on or made even much worse these five very important examples.
So, what is your response to the OP?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... waiting for a reasoned response. This one seems to be a hit and run poster.
RussBLib
(9,036 posts)1-Didn't prosecute Bush/Cheney for torture? Check. Congress and Obama didn't bother either. Big fail.
2-Let Wall Street execs off the hook? Check, except for a couple of low-level managers. Hardly any jail time. Big fines, yes, but the big guys avoided any jail time. They should have done far more.
3-Prosecuted whistleblowers? Check. Obama comes into office pledging protection for whistleblowers, and then they get prosecuted big-time. Holder wasn't acting alone.
4-Vacuuming up phone calls? Check, although I am willing to cut them some slack here in the interest of tracking terrorists. I think the threat is overblown and the reach is too far, but some surveillance is needed. Where do you draw the line? It's easier out here in the hinterlands to think about what ought to happen, but those in power face different challenges.
5-Assassination by drone? Check, but I am willing to cut some slack here too. In an ideal world, we would capture the bad guys and bring them back here to face trial, but I don't think that's all that feasible or possible. I hate war, but see the need for defense and sometimes offense. Drones are a real mixed bag and I think they desensitize killing too much, but it's still better than our own soldiers getting their heads blown off.
I like the Progressive Magazine but sometimes Matthew Rothschild is just too much of a purist. I used to listen to his daily Progressive podcast and the guy was just unwilling to ever cut anyone any slack on anything. I quit listening. There is a need for that kind of purity to keep some eyes on the prize, but it's not for me. Politics and life is too gray. There are often extenuating circumstances. Nobody is all bad or all good. So when I see someone getting slammed with nothing but negatives, I often bristle.
Holder had good points and bad points, that's all. Call me a wishy-washy liberal if you like. I don't really care.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)But don't feel like the Lone Ranger, lots of Tonto's running around. I'd have to count myself one, too. IMHO, most folks are wishy washy. There are folks that are very Chrisian/conservavtive that are pro choice. Liberals that are anti marijuana legalization. Most of us do not see the world in absolutes. In short, I'll stand by you and defend you're right to be as wishy washy as you like, as little as it may help you. 
As for Holder, I agree with your last statement concerning him.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)around, but I've never had anyone explain what they mean by it, it originated with the DLC to be used to shut down the Left.
But talking points need to be analyzed imo. I have asked and asked for someone to explain this particular anti-Left think tank talking point over and over again for nearly ten years now, but have never received an explanation.
I have received yet ANOTHER talking point in response from time to time, the one that goes 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. It was launched from the same think tanks I believe.
My philosophy is, 'don't let the BAD be the enemy of the GOOD', but just speaking in language that doesn't come from some Think Tank, what does the word 'purist' mean to you?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)The positives listed are always on the civil rights issues. The negatives are always on the corporatist and privacy/spying side. Very similar to Obama.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)civil rights issues?
Read this and weep ...
Here's what your "civil rights" hero accomplished. I dare you to read this article & continue to defend his policies and accuse other DUers of not caring about civil rights issues.
http://www.thenation.com/article/176915/scandal-racist-marijuana-arrests-and-what-do-about-it?page=0,0
The Scandal of Racist Marijuana Arrests—and What To Do About It
The federal government has subsidized the criminalization of millions of young people simply for having a small amount of pot.
Whites Smoke Pot, but Blacks Are Arrested.” That was the headline of a column by Jim Dwyer, the great Metro desk reporter for The New York Times, in December 2009. Although Dwyer was writing about New York City, he summed up perfectly two central and enduring facts about marijuana use and arrests across the country: whites and blacks use marijuana equally, but the police do not arrest them equally. A third important fact: the vast majority (76 percent) of those arrested and charged with the crime of marijuana possession are young people in their teens and 20s.
Sources for the information in this article can be found at thenation.com/marijuana and at the site of the Marijuana Arrest Research Project, which is run by author Harry Levine and civil liberties attorney Loren Siegel.
Over the last fifteen years, police departments in the United States made 10 million arrests for marijuana possession—an average of almost 700,000 arrests a year. Police arrest blacks for marijuana possession at higher rates than whites in every state and nearly every city and county—as FBI Uniform Crime Reports and state databases indisputably show. States with the largest racial disparities arrest blacks at six times the rate of whites. This list includes Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Nevada, New York and Wisconsin.
Big city police departments are among the worst offenders. Police in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York have arrested blacks for marijuana possession at more than seven times the rate of whites. Since 1997, New York City alone has arrested and jailed more than 600,000 people for possessing marijuana; about 87 percent of the arrests are of blacks and Latinos. For years, police in New York and Chicago have arrested more young blacks and Latinos for simple marijuana possession than for any other criminal offense whatsoever.
Now for the reason why
* * *
The national crusade against marijuana can be traced to the early 1990s, as the “war on drugs” shifted its focus from crack cocaine to marijuana under Bill Clinton. Since then, Congress has regularly allocated billions in federal funding to local police and prosecutors under the Justice Department’s anti-drug and police programs. Grantees often report their drug possession arrests as evidence of their accomplishments using these funds—and as proof that they should receive more. Federal money has thus subsidized the arrests of millions of young people for possessing marijuana, disproportionately young people of color. Prominent blue-state Democrats like Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have strongly supported these grants over the years; in 2009, the fiscal stimulus actually doubled the anti-drug funding for local law enforcement agencies.
With this federal support and encouragement, arrests for marijuana possession climbed from a crack-era low of 260,000 in 1990, to 500,000 in 1995, to 640,000 in 2000, to 690,000 in 2005, to 750,000 in 2010. The ACLU calculates that these arrests have cost taxpayers at least $3.6 billion a year. And there is absolutely no evidence that they reduce serious or violent crime—or even drug use.
Always follow the money & you will have your answers. Many want to blame "Big Pharma" for these laws, but the truth is "Big Pharma" will profit when legalization occurs.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)that accuses other DUers of not caring about civil rights, or of "defending" Holder's policies, I'd like you to link to it.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)before getting the settlements that he did get? Where have you folks been the last 6 years...have you seen the Congress in action? Have you seen how many times Holder has been in the hot seat before this Congress? It'a a miracle that he was able to accomplish what he has so far. Every obstacle in the GOP book would have prevented him from doing most of the things the OP cites. He has had to fight the Congress on the outside and many GOP embeds on the inside. The Justice Department would have come to a standstill and the distraction to the President would have been unreal.
That said, Holder is on his way out and it remains to be seen what he may do on the way out. But more importantly, I am concerned that his successor will not be as remarkable as he.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)Pointing out to all those who believe that they are not only perfect but have reached every goal they set for themselves in life and who will, indeed, go down in history to be remembered for their accomplishments, that I must be just a lame snarker who won't get on the "Holder is a terrible AG and glad to see him go" bandwagon.
For those who are so critical of Eric Holder, I would like you to name me the Attorney General in our history you most admire. Who pray tell achieved everything the people put on their wish list? (Judge not lest ye be judged comes to mind for some reason.)
I admire Eric Holder for all he was able to accomplish - which is way more than I thought he'd be able to do - and weep for our loss.
That's from last night's show and, along with the remainder of the Holder segment, is also available on the MSNBC site.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/ag-eric-holder-rebuilt-doj-from-the-ground-up-333673027686
Watch the 1st and 2nd segments on Holder.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)If not, please don't waste my time. Those issues are what's important to me.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The only important issues are the issues that are important to me.
Don't waste your time on your issues unless they are my issues.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... that's precisely what you expect of others. Hypocrite much?
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . but they do not detract from nor offset his major failings as set forth in the OP. And unfortunately, his most enduring legacy will be what he failed to do, not what he did.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Many of us don't. Some of us weep for the friends Holder put in prison for doing what is legal in their state. Some of us have been personally affected by Holders draconian raids on legal Medical Marijuana Establishments.
And some of us are incredulous that he can walk out of office claiming he may have changed his mind on legalization, after jailing hundreds of American Citizens who actually participated in Democracy and voted for their own rights only to have their Democracy and their vote ignored by the most powerful law enforcement person in America.
Yeah I have a problem with Holder and I'm glad to see him go.
perhaps you enjoyed Holder's dismissal of national and international law as much as the creators of America's economic downfall did?
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)can point me to an Attorney General who accomplished more than Holder.
The list is here and I'll wait for your response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General
Also you may want to refresh yourselves on who you're fighting for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Wikipedia. Does that excuse Holder from not doing his job? Which would have required him to take action against the banks and greedy bastards who run them. I really enjoyed his prosecution of W, Cheney, et.al. What exactly did the two articles have to do with Holder's record? Nothing.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)As anyone can tell just by the name.
(I included the smiley to assist you.)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And sinister music plays as it's being read.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
I'm stumped.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)My laughter woke the wife. This will not go well.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Reagan's Drug policies? What is your opinion on the massive crimes of Wall St Criminals, who just as a reminder, helped Crash the WORLD'S economies through greed and illegal scams perpetrated against millions of people? Were you FOR letting them off the hook and worse, BAILING THEM OUT?
That should help you decide whether you are on a Dem site or a Right Wing site.
I love DU because it's like my family is in real life.
We argue like cats and dogs due to our passionate feelings, we're fairly hot and cold and when we're hot, we're double plus hot. Sometimes we still into engage in violence against each other although it's been a while since our last knock down, drag out.
But...somebody comes into a heated "discussion" and makes a glib remark about any of us (FR?! Oh no you di'in't!), no matter what side of the matter at hand, and BOOM! Security breach on the left flank! That person is toast. This thread makes me feel like at home late into a holiday meal!
I love it!
As an after thought, what this thread really needs is a clip of Will Ferrell flipping his plate ala SNL.
OK, carry on!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)drag out 'arguments' with people who support the worst of Right Wing policies. Generally my Thanksgiving dinner experiences have been absent any Right Wingers, thankfully.
As for your experiences regarding the mention of freepers? Really? You know people who actually CARE what freepers and their ilk think or talk about? My experiences are that Dems in general, the ones I've known all my life, could not give a rats ass about what they think, probably don't even know they exist.
Maybe you should hang out with more liberals. They tend to talk about issues rather than people.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Politically liberals don't blindly follow political leaders because they are Democrats and have a nice smile. Since you didn't provide any counter to the OP, I assume the nice smile is enough for you.
As an example of your backwards thinking. Holder persecuted whistle-blowers. While the liberals object, I doubt that anyone from the Free Republic would care. Do you care? Or do you side with the Free Republic?
Wella
(1,827 posts)That's a new one. It's those of us who understand how easily the rights of a citizen can be trampled upon who support whistle blower protections.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Holder announced he was stepping down, my first reaction was, "Good"! Our freedoms have greatly diminished over the last fourteen years and Holder helped. I find giving and supporting the assassination of American citizens without due process especially egregious. imho
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)or naturalized citizen aligned themselves with a known terrorist organization like Al Qaida or ISIL and was off in the ME plotting and training to kill Americans ... assassination is too good for them. Traitors are traitors.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Or is the Constitution just the domain of Free Republic?
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Hmmm.... Testimony? Court? What are those things?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That's been upheld by SCOTUS.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)It was largely a cosmetic change, but that still doesn't give us the right to assassinate people simply because we don't like them. Also, it still means that the Executive Branch essentially remains judge, jury, and executioner.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)The AUMF of September 18, 2001 gives the President the right to order the deaths of people like OBL and Anwar Awlaki.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
I fear for our democracy.
Have a nice day!!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I'm not going to school you in it. It's pretty clear it would do little or no good.
I haven't become nasty and vengeful yet, but perhaps if I keep reading your posts, I'll catch on.
Buh-bye!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)With no judge, no oversight.
What could possibly go wrong?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)do you think having citizenship entitles you to being treated differently from another combatant?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)My response is in my previous post.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)how do WE the people know if someone is guilty or not guilty if they are never charged with a crime but simply assassinated on the order of one individual? How will we know if that individual whoever they may be in the future, isn't doing what Kings have always done, murdering a political opponent?
Will you feel the same way when a Republican president, all by himself, orders the assassination of a citizen without any charges having been filed against them. Did you support Bush when he claimed the rights of a King to do exactly that?
And one last question, do you consider the Founding Fathers to be terrorists for their radical claims that no Leader of a Democracy should have such dangerous powers? The King at the time DID regard them as terrorists just to provide you with some more info. before you respond.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go back to Eric Holder. Here he’s explaining when and why the U.S. would use lethal force against a U.S. citizen.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen, even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land, is among the gravest that government leaders can face. The American people can be, and deserve to be, assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws. So, although I cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation, I believe it is important to explain these legal principles publicly.
Now, let me be clear. An operation using lethal force in a foreign country targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: first, the U.S. government has determined after a thorough and careful review that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.
AMY GOODMAN: Holder emphasized U.S. presidents do not need to seek permission from the federal court before acting against a U.S. citizen.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process. It does not guarantee judicial process.
...
AMY GOODMAN: During his speech on Monday, Attorney General Holder strongly criticized the use of the word "assassinate" to describe the targeted killings of U.S. citizens.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Some have called such operations "assassinations." They are not. And the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons that I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self-defense against a leader of al-Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful, and therefore would not violate the executive order banning assassination or criminal statutes.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/6/attorney_general_eric_holder_defends_legality
I concur with Holder. If so called Americans are with the enemy in a time of conflict and a drone hits them I have no problem with it. They are guilty by being with the enemy, supporting the enemy, and being the enemy. I have a bigger problem with our police shooting at least one unarmed man a week or beating up people without cause causing either death or serious injury. Holder is fighting against that.
Our founding fathers have nothing to do with this issue.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)HINA SHAMSI: Problem here is that while Attorney General Holder acknowledges that the Constitution requires due process before the government takes the life of one of its own citizens, he says it is up to the executive branch alone, without judicial review, to determine what process is due and to make that decision without any oversight. And that’s simply not the case in our constitutional system of checks and balances. The public deserves a right to know what standards, evidence and criteria are used when the administration seeks to kill one of its own citizens, and the legal basis for that exercise of authority needs to be reviewed by the court because of the significant constitutional questions that are raised.
I find the implications of this to be way more terrifying than terrorism.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with every person I know who is working hard now to rescind these dangerous Bush policies, to restore the Rule of LAw in this country.
Holder's statements there are chilling. And it's astounding that on this forum where granting the powers of a King to a President was condemned almost unanimously, we should now be seeing support for this gross violation of the Constitution, the very document that our elected officials and military personnel swear to defend and protect.
Chilling, shocking how easily some Americans are to give up all of our rights, depending on which party is stealing them.
How sad to read that drivel from a Democratic appointee. And even more sad to see support for something that we know was vehemently opposed on the left when Bush was making these same egregious claims, simply because a Democrat is in the WH.
We have a lot of work to do to restore the rights granted in the US Constitution, stolen by Bush and continued under the administration WE ELECTED in order to restore them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with every person I know who is working hard now to rescind these dangerous Bush policies, to restore the Rule of LAw in this country.
Holder's statements there are chilling. And it's astounding that on this forum where granting the powers of a King to a President was condemned almost unanimously, we should now be seeing support for this gross violation of the Constitution, the very document that our elected officials and military personnel swear to defend and protect.
Chilling, shocking how easily some Americans are to give up all of our rights, depending on which party is stealing them.
How sad to read that drivel from a Democratic appointee. And even more sad to see support for something that we know was vehemently opposed on the left when Bush was making these same egregious claims, simply because a Democrat is in the WH.
We have a lot of work to do to restore the rights granted in the US Constitution, stolen by Bush and continued under the administration WE ELECTED in order to restore them.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I don't disagree with you. Traitors should pay. However, I'm supposed to take someones word that he was a traitor? We have laws in this country that allow you to face your accuser for a reason. You circumvent those laws to kill someone without a trial, then you are just as much a traitor to the Constitution and the laws of this country.
What happens if Republicans take the Senate, The Exec and the House, and decide that anyone who isn't a right wing Christian is a traitor?
It's a slippery slope as they say..
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)The growing taste for authoritarianism on these boards is pretty appalling.
A generation ago, if you suggested some of the things that many people today accept without resistance, it would sound like material from some horrific dystopian novel.
Honestly, I hope we're dealing with sock puppets here. As bad as that would be, the alternative is even more depressing.
SpankMe
(2,966 posts)His non-prosecution of GWB, swinging Dick and Rummy has to be forgiven out of practicality and political reality. Some things - no matter how right, reasoned and justified - may be so idealistic that they can't or shouldn't be pulled off, as a practical matter.
If a Democratic administration were to prosecute the top Republican dogs - including the president and vice president - of the predecessor administration, this would be viewed as political retribution by enough of the electorate to make a difference in the future - and not in our favor. It would stir up hatred so intense by the opposite party that the country would never again be able to return to an era of bipartisan cooperation on anything. Chaos would reign. The seeking of power would be for power's sake only and would be an all or nothing proposition where the party in power would rule with their absolute agenda in mind with no accommodation, cooperation, or compromise with the minority party. It would be a democratic dictatorship.
In the middle east, and other regions, new totalitarian regimes that took power from old totalitarian regimes would imprison and execute (murder) the leaders of the prior regime as standard operating procedure. Within a week of taking power, Saddam Hussein tried and executed dozens of high ranking members of the party he overthrew - all on television. Some of those he had killed were even relatives of his.
I know this is an extreme example, but there are just certain days of the week when you have let the guilty go free in order to preserve a greater good.
Bear in mind that the Republican party of today is an undisciplined, wild, emotional, violent, unsophisticated, nasty, vengeful and corrupt institution comprising whole platoons of Archie Bunkers. They hold grudges forever and respond with force and anger to even the most trivial slight. Prosecuting W would push them further over the edge than they are now. America wouldn't survive. If a Democrat ever got the Whitehouse again, it is certain that Repubs would find something to prosecute her for when they return to power, even if it was the cleanest Democratic presidency in history.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)against a Dem President. What they accomplished was distract the entire country from real issues facing the people, left a stain on a Democratic presidency and themselves suffered no consequences, actually quite the opposite, the won the next election.
It's always hard to do what is right. What you are saying is, if something is right, but hard to do, just don't bother?
Had Cheney/Bush et al been investigated, the war criminals who are now wanted in other countries, been put where they belong, sure, Republicans would be screaming, but in the process the public who are still ignorant of the massive crimes committed in their names, would be far more informed at this point and the war criminals would not have the power or the time to be STILL pulling the strings on our Foreign Policy, they would be way too busy defending themselves.
This is the huge weakness of the Dem Party. They are more scared of what Republicans will say about them, than about doing the right thing.
librechik
(30,676 posts)Mission Accomplished is more like it. Now back to corporate law, with a huge pay boost.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)I'll take Holder over Ashcroft any day
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Wow.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Gay rights, Civil rights,Voting rights those are progressive issues
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)actual Progressives. Even ASHCROFT had a few moments of conscience when it came to Bush policies. Risking his health and future to try to stop those he had supported from the beginning, from further violating the Constitution.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)I would also submit that your bar is set pretty low. A rock is better than Ashcroft.
Just so you know, I see him as a mixed bag.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Black People, (and perhaps for the gay community, idk). We've (black people) never had that before. He was not the most hateful person in the country, progressive .org!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Clearly, the One Percent and their political tools consider these their greatest successes.
How silly of any of us to consider "success" and "failure" from the perspective of people who don't matter.
K&R
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Oversaw some really good things, and some really bad things, imo.
I certainly appreciate the effort and success he had with civil rights, gay rights, etc.
A historic AG, for sure. At the end of the day, though, I can't really call him great.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Nothing can balance that out. Nothing.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)or even civil rights. Those kinds of issues are useful for motivating the base of each Party and for keeping ordinary American citizens at each others' throats. For example, whether or not LGBTQ persons can get married is irrelevant to the profits of the 1%.
Thus, someone like Holder can work around the edges (from their point of view) on social issues in opposition to Conservatives - but in matters that count, he toes the line.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The corporate posters get all huffy when you speak of political wedge issues, as though that term minimizes their importance. But wedge issues are most effective when they *are* important to people, as racial/gender issues are.
But the economic issues are what's deadly important to the One Percent, and you are absolutely correct that all other issues are wielded politically, as wedges or however else, in service to those.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)We're supposed to spend our energies gasping in horror at the depredations wrought by cartoonish Republican neanderthals, rather than point out that the Democrats are quietly moving the Conservative ball forward one yard at a time.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The very idea that not going after bankers who committed CRIMES by stealing homes and pensions and savings is somehow ok is awfully strange.
He was not the AG we needed at this time. Perhaps if the country were not in rapid decline, accomplishing less than necessary would be adequate.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)of those who are fleecing us at every opportunity.
It would be a mistake to attribute this to incompetence.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)why oh fucking why do others not it understand it?
It's in their face every day. Is the truth so awful, so hideous that were they to blink they might have to confront it?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)so many will not understand what you posted, unfortunately.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have done the few good things he did. Too bad he negated those good things by assaulting the Civil Rights of ALL Americans including the minority communities. It's sort of like giving someone ten dollars with one hand, then taking it back with the other.
Eg, his drug policies were more damaging to the African American community than any other demographic.
So he made a few gestures regarding voting rights, but continued the policies that make voting impossible for them. Turning large numbers into FELONS with zero rights to vote, while incarcerated on minor drug charges and later now felons, unable to vote in many states.
Get back to us on this issue when you find out why he was so determined to continue those horrendous drug policies that disenfranchise minorities sometimes for life.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)that my post above was not a glowing review of Mr. Holder. I thought he was pretty bad, personally. A mixed bag, overall.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)unless Obama nominates someone even worse. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if John Yoo got tapped.
He did some good things, but some of the things he failed miserably at doing were things that affected the civil liberties of all Americans. Not to mention not prosecuting anyone in the Wall Street crisis and letting George and Dick off the hook.
leftstreet
(36,113 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Despites its name and fabled past, I've never found Rothchild's Progressive to be particularly progressive, and this rather unimaginative hit piece is a perfect example of why.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Here's a list of Holder's other rather dubious achievements, hardly what one would consider progressive credentials ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025586874
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And Holder's failure to impeach Bush is what Rothschild's whiney talking points boil down to, ditto the endless variations found at your link.
e.t.a: JMHO, YMMV.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)And you seem to think wanting war criminals to face justice is "whiny". Interesting.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thank you, Scuba.
