US Presidential Elections 3

[taks]

oh, and btw, obama's "change" is, supposedly, 31/40 positions filled by ex-clinton staffers... change indeed. lo and behold, complaints about NBC being biased and what did they do recently? i saw the ad, a blatant feel-good about obama, and almost fell over. i wonder who they think they're fooling claiming any sort of objectivity? oh yeah, i know...

 

taks

[Enoch]

GD, are you actually suggesting that the White House Chief of Staff be someone other than a "Beltway Insider"? It's a position that demands the ultimate Beltway Insider. Like it or not, getting things done within the government is a skill that takes some practice to learn, and it's a skill that the President's Chief of Staff needs to have. Exclude all the "insiders" and, well, you get the Carter administration.

 

From what I know of him, Holder's potential appointment seems OK to me. One of the biggest challenges right now for the new AG will be restoring the morale of the rank-and-file in DOJ after 8 years of overly (and overtly) political management. Appointing 'one of their own'-- a career prosecutor/judge-- will go over well within the agency. The Rich pardon thing is a little troubling, but I don't think that anybody who wasn't in the room really knows who provided the impetus for that particular blunder.

 

I don't think that the potential Hillary appointment is a particularly good idea, though, so for now I'm left hoping that it's a "crazy like a fox" move, and that Obama's people know that the full disclosure of Bill's donors, etc., will either be refused or will unearth something that would disqualify her from the post. (Which would make the rumors a lovely magnanimous guesture to her supporters, at no cost to the administration or the country.)

[taks]

GD, are you actually suggesting that the White House Chief of Staff be someone other than a "Beltway Insider"?

no, i think he's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the "change" concept, as did i. i wouldn't have expected anything different, either.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

GD, are you actually suggesting that the White House Chief of Staff be someone other than a "Beltway Insider"? It's a position that demands the ultimate Beltway Insider. Like it or not, getting things done within the government is a skill that takes some practice to learn, and it's a skill that the President's Chief of Staff needs to have. Exclude all the "insiders" and, well, you get the Carter administration.

 

From what I know of him, Holder's potential appointment seems OK to me. One of the biggest challenges right now for the new AG will be restoring the morale of the rank-and-file in DOJ after 8 years of overly (and overtly) political management. Appointing 'one of their own'-- a career prosecutor/judge-- will go over well within the agency. The Rich pardon thing is a little troubling, but I don't think that anybody who wasn't in the room really knows who provided the impetus for that particular blunder.

 

I don't think that the potential Hillary appointment is a particularly good idea, though, so for now I'm left hoping that it's a "crazy like a fox" move, and that Obama's people know that the full disclosure of Bill's donors, etc., will either be refused or will unearth something that would disqualify her from the post. (Which would make the rumors a lovely magnanimous guesture to her supporters, at no cost to the administration or the country.)

 

Actually I have no issue with anyone he picks. It's his cabinet he can pick who he pleases. I just find it humorous that after using the word "change" in every other sentence during the campaign he is building an administration that is anything but.

 

As far as Hillary is concerned he is a fool if he regards her as anything other than a rival. If he should become Jimmy Carter 2.0 there is no doubt she will be in a strong position to challenge him in 2012, and will do so gleefully I might add. No one will argue that Ted Kennedy cost Carter the election in 1980, but he sure did not help. If by chance she becomes the Senate Majority Leader she will be in a position to make headaches for him. If he nominates her for the SC it will give the Repubs a BIG weapon against him. By nominating her to the Sec State he can:

 

a) Allow her to serve and use any failure on her part, real or perceived, to destroy her.

b) Allow her to serve and prevent her from using any failure of his administration, real or perceived, against him.

c) Use the vetting process to destroy her as a viable candidate by allowing the skeletons out of hers and Bills closet (via proxies of course). If they do that they will remove a rival and look like the good guys for even considering her to begin with.

 

 

If I were advising Obama, I'd recommend that he nominate Richard Lugar for Sec Def. He is a liberal Republican and it will make Obama look bipartisan. His defense credentials are impeccable and it is an area Obama is weak in. Obama will damage the Repubs in the Senate by taking out a powerful and influential Senator and replacing him with a weaker and inexperienced one (Indiana's Governor is a Repub) and possibly putting that seat in play in 2010. It will make Obama's closest ally Evan Bayh the senior senator in Ind. Lugar may even accept since he will be a part of a very small minority is he stays where he is and the Republicans will not lose his seat if he accepts.

 

That would be smart on Obama's part.

[Enoch]

GD, are you actually suggesting that the White House Chief of Staff be someone other than a "Beltway Insider"?

no, i think he's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the "change" concept, as did i. i wouldn't have expected anything different, either.

Well, if the "change" in question ends up being from "Beltway insiders who make lousy policy decisions" to "Beltway insiders who make better policy decisions," I'd say that he's held up his end of the bargain on that particular end.

[taks]

Well, if the "change" in question ends up being from "Beltway insiders who make lousy policy decisions" to "Beltway insiders who make better policy decisions," I'd say that he's held up his end of the bargain on that particular end.

wow, that's pretty silly, even for you. it was because of people like rahm that the dems got the boot in the first place, now he's being brought back for round 2. and, better policy decisions... clinton's staff? right.

 

taks

[Enoch]

Well, if the "change" in question ends up being from "Beltway insiders who make lousy policy decisions" to "Beltway insiders who make better policy decisions," I'd say that he's held up his end of the bargain on that particular end.

wow, that's pretty silly, even for you. it was because of people like rahm that the dems got the boot in the first place, now he's being brought back for round 2. and, better policy decisions... clinton's staff? right.

The baseline we're talking about isn't the Clintonistas, it's the Bushies. The hash that the current administration has made of things has caused rather a lot of Clinton nostalgia around the country. Generally, most observers expect Obama to draw from a mix of experienced folks and newer faces. And, since there has only been 1 Democratic administration in the last 28 years, that means bringing in some people who worked for Slick Willie.

[Trenitay]

Why would he want to change from Clinton anyway. Its Bushs policies that got us here not Clintons.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Actually it all started under Clinton: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081119...rg/ad0ijcjt1p6k

 

Obama will bring change all right, we're going to have the power grid of a 3rd world country because of his assault on energy suppliers.

[Walsingham]

Why would he want to change from Clinton anyway. Its Bushs policies that got us here not Clintons.

 

I can see why you'd think that, but foreign policy wise, the seeds for the collapse of the UN, and the rise of Islamic extremism... Clinton's watch.

[Trenitay]

Ah. I have no idea how Clinton ran the country internationally so I havent really been paying attention to that, But I probably should.

[Guard Dog]

The Rich pardon thing is a little troubling, but I don't think that anybody who wasn't in the room really knows who provided the impetus for that particular blunder.

 

I don't think it's hard to figure out the impetus at all. Marc Rich gave Bill Clinton $400,000 for his "library". Marc Rich gave Hillary Clinton's senate campaign $70,000. Marc Rich gave the DNC $1,000,000. Marc Rich gave the Clinton legal defense fund $10,000. All of it BEFORE receiving a pardon in the dark of the night on Clintons last day in office.

 

Still having trouble figuring that one out? Rich bought a pardon for $1.48 Million Dollars. Or more accurately Bill Clinton sold a pardon for $1.48 Million Dollars and our new Attoney General Designate Eric Holder brokered the sale under the guise of doing his job. I'm quite certain some of that money found it's way into his pocket.

 

Ah the good old days when the democrats ran the show, corruption was rampant, and I had my taxes jacked up to pay for it all. The good old days are here again.

[Enoch]

The Rich pardon thing is a little troubling, but I don't think that anybody who wasn't in the room really knows who provided the impetus for that particular blunder.

 

I don't think it's hard to figure out the impetus at all. Marc Rich gave Bill Clinton $400,000 for his "library". Marc Rich gave Hillary Clinton's senate campaign $70,000. Marc Rich gave the DNC $1,000,000. Marc Rich gave the Clinton legal defense fund $10,000. All of it BEFORE receiving a pardon in the dark of the night on Clintons last day in office.

 

Still having trouble figuring that one out? Rich bought a pardon for $1.48 Million Dollars. Or more accurately Bill Clinton sold a pardon for $1.48 Million Dollars and our new Attoney General Designate Eric Holder brokered the sale under the guise of doing his job. I'm quite certain some of that money found it's way into his pocket.

 

Ah the good old days when the democrats ran the show, corruption was rampant, and I had my taxes jacked up to pay for it all. The good old days are here again.

Oh, I don't dispute that the whole thing stank of purshased influence.

 

I was more referring to the role that Holder himself had in the affair. According to his version of events, he was mostly passing on recommendations about Rich that had been given to him from others (most notably, Israeli PM Ehud Barak). Recommendations with that kind of juice got Rich around the normal DoJ screening process, and to Clinton's desk. But the ultimate decision on the pardon was Clinton's, and the beneficiary of Rich's largesse was Clinton. Hard to see how Holder had enough to gain or lose in the matter that he would be susceptible to any kind of influence. Sure, he probably should've paid somewhat closer attention and given the Prez some better advice ("Uh, this isn't going to look very good, boss..."), but it's tough lay much of the possible corruption at his feet.

 

It's a concern, but I'm willing to give him a chance. Assuming that money "found it's way into his pocket" is, IMO, taking cynicism and partisanship to rather destructive ends. When we automatically assume the worst about the motivations of people just because happen to sit on the other side of the aisle, we destroy any chance of reasoned compromise. (See also: the "Bush/Cheney are being bribed by Exxon!!" crowd.) Hell, if money was a serious motivation for the guy, he would have never been a prosecutor in the first place-- he'd be making 5 times his salary as a parter at a major law firm.

[Trenitay]

And you think the real good days are the ones where an old fat guy runs the show and we have a 7 trillion dollar debt. And we're paying for an occupation that has no point. Yeah, great fun.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Holder was more involved than he lets on. He's the one who recommended the lawyer (Quinn) to represent Rich, although supposedly he didn't know who the lawyer was for. He also advised Quinn to take the case up directly with the White House. Sure smells like influence peddling.

[Aristes]

Obama won the election and he can pretty much choose his people. In particular, he should have wide lattitude in choosing people who serve at his pleasure in the first place. If these folks screw up, then he'll deal with the fallout. Since I'm seriously worried about the country right now, I hope whoever he puts in place does a good job, because it's pretty damned grim right now. Run for the hills and create a compound grim? I don't think so. I hope not. ...But I don't like the recent trends.

[Guard Dog]

I was more referring to the role that Holder himself had in the affair. According to his version of events, he was mostly passing on recommendations about Rich that had been given to him from others (most notably, Israeli PM Ehud Barak). Recommendations with that kind of juice got Rich around the normal DoJ screening process, and to Clinton's desk.

 

Interesting reading linked below. Apparently Holder did more than just pass a recommendation along, he hand carried it to Clinton, bypassing the US Attorneys in the process (a circumvention of DoJ rules). Additionally, Rich's lawyer, Jack Quinn, was previously Clinton's White House Counsel (a VERY busy job in those days). After the pardon was issued. Quinn hired both of Holder's assistants, at Holder's suggestion. There is at least one clear instance of influence peddling, minor though it is.

 

But the ultimate decision on the pardon was Clinton's, and the beneficiary of Rich's largess was Clinton. Hard to see how Holder had enough to gain or lose in the matter that he would be susceptible to any kind of influence. Sure, he probably should've paid somewhat closer attention and given the Prez some better advice ("Uh, this isn't going to look very good, boss..."), but it's tough lay much of the possible corruption at his feet.

 

I think you will agree the piece linked below sheds a little more light on that but it is true there is no evidence he was paid off. But apparently he took extraordinary pains to make it happen, one has to ask, what WAS in it for him?

 

It's a concern, but I'm willing to give him a chance. Assuming that money "found it's way into his pocket" is, IMO, taking cynicism and partisanship to rather destructive ends.

 

Oh I will freely admit I am openly contemptuous and suspicious of Democrats in general. My political experience with them in Florida left me thinking of that whole institution as an organized white collar crime family. I can't say I hold the Republican Party of Florida in much higher regard but at least I worked with and for a few who were true believers and patriots. But in the Rich case, there is so much money being thrown around it is hard not to believe Holder was not rewarded for his efforts in some way. It's not like the Clinton Admin was clean in any way. Need I bring up $4M in donations from China (via proxies who fled the country to avoid prosecution) followed by the AG's office declining to fully investigate Chinese weapons espionage? None of it proven true, but where there is smoke...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/...amp;ref=opinion

[Meshugger]

Did problems with the chinese espionage go away/was corrected during the current administration? I mean, isn't this borderlining treason?

[Aristes]

GD, do you really think there's a chance in hell that Hodler won't be confirmed? Do you really think that the republicans, even if they keep enough seats to filibuster, will choose to die on that hill? It would certainly be a dumb battle to choose. Yes, Holder was involved in the Rich pardon. I'm sure most of us remember it happening at the time. It certainly goes to highlight the Clinton White House, which always had a certain seedy feel to it. However, I argue two things.

 

Practically speaking, Holder will be confirmed without some unforseen turn of events.

 

Reasonably speaking, why shouldn't Obama nominate Holder? He's already been vetted. He's qualified. He's the democrat in the best position to help Obama.

 

I'm a Republican. I'm undoubtedly more conservative than the majority of people here. ...But we cannot, based on unproven allegations, prevent Obama from fashioning his own team. Frankly, he need not give any sort of nod to the Republicans at all. I suspect he will. Not because of any sort of idealism or his expansive philosophy. He simply realizes that the majority of the country is considerably more conservative than he is. I don't think Obama should have won. Inasmuchas we really know his policies, they appear to be considerably too liberal for my tastes, including the huge stimulous package that he currently proposes, somewhat in excess of $175B. Sure, he looks, smells, and feels like tax and spender. Nevertheless, he's the tax and spender who won by over 6% of the popular vote and a huge EC margin.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, he deserves the right to choose his people and, more to the point, conservatives are better off saving their ammunition for real problems as they arise. I forsee a lot of those. I don't hope for them, but I see them anyhow. Like Bush's, some of them won't even be Obama's fault, but he'll be blamed for what happens while he's in office just like every other president. The rose colored glasses with which the American public currently views Obama will darken soon enough. I guarantee you, the reason won't be Holder.

[Guard Dog]

I said earlier Obama can pick who he pleases. I really have no issue with any pick he might make for his cabinet. And I absolutely believe Holder will and should be confirmed and he is as qualified to be AG as anyone. I was just trying to get Enoch to smell the coffee.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Meshugger]

A quick look at the upcoming national security team under Obama.

 

Thoughts? Maybe GD can dig up something more on these people?

[Wrath of Dagon]

That article confirms that Holder was involved up to his eyeballs, not just being inattentive as he claims. I think something that unconscienable should disqualify him from being AG. Gonzalez was hounded out for firing people he didn't like, this guy is guilty of deriliction of duty having helped a criminal and a fugitive get off scot-free. I hope this is all brought out during his confirmation hearing, and Republicans vote against him, although I'm not sure a filibuster would be appropriate, even if they have the votes.

 

Note that I had a favorable impression of Holder while he was in Clinton's administration, until the Rich business came up.

[Calax]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...government.html

 

and so it begins.

[~Di]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...government.html

 

and so it begins.

 

That's old news. A couple of big-mouthed teenagers who never stood a prayer of getting anywhere near Obama. The real threat they posed was completely ignored by the global media... they planned to murder as many black people as possible... a hundred or more... which was quite possible in a crowded schoolyard with a couple of automatic weapons. Nobody seemed to care much about THAT part of the plan.

[Gorgon]

So are people still up in arms about how Obama must inevitably get assassinated or did that go away.