 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
December 23, 2008
COMEY ENDORSES HOLDER FOR AG.... Jim Comey, Bush's former deputy Attorney General, oversaw the investigation of Marc Rich from 1987 to 1993 as a New York City prosecutor. He admits he was "stunned" by Clinton's 2001 pardon of Rich, a decision Comey obviously still disagrees with. Given this background, one might expect Comey to be a leading critic of Eric Holder becoming the next Attorney General. As it turns out, the opposite is true.
Comey's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee notes that he hopes "very much" that Holder is confirmed. "I'm not suggesting errors of judgment are qualification for high office, but in this case, where the nominee is a smart, decent, humble man, who knows and loves the Department and has demonstrated his commitment to the rule of law across an entire career, the error should not disqualify him," Comey wrote. "Eric Holder should be confirmed as Attorney General." Republicans decided recently that the Holder nomination would make for some ideal grandstanding, not only attacking Obama, but allowing the GOP to return to its heyday of Clinton-era controversies. To that end, Comey's endorsement will, at a minimum, help bolster Holder's defenders. I should add, for those who've forgotten, that Comey's name should sound familiar. Comey was the acting Attorney General in early 2004, after John Ashcroft was hospitalized, and balked at reauthorizing the NSA warrantless-search program, leading to the now-infamous Card/Gonzales hospital room visit. In light of Comey's defense of the rule of law, it stands to reason that Senate Republicans will completely disregard his support for Eric Holder's nomination. —Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)Comments
The ironic thing - or maybe "maddening" would be a better term - is that anything the Republicans want to oppose is dead. Period. It's the filibuster deal. Worse, Presidential appointments go through the Senate. Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Hillary Clinton are wise to not give up their day jobs until they've actually been confirmed in their new Cabinet posts. Chances are, they won't be. Chances are, the Obama government will either do nothing - or be a neo-con lite administration. Bush - the nightmare continues. Posted by: Zandru on December 23, 2008 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINKIt's good to lower your expectations, Zandru, but you're lowering them a bit too far. Nothing is going to get through the Senate that conservative Democrats don't want to get through the Senate. But if all of the Democrats are on board across the party spectrum, then it will be very hard for Olympia Snowe, George Voinivich, Alan Specter and a few others to roadblock. It won't be like the last few years where you needed a good chunk of Republicans to break - only a few will be needed and that's a lot easier to do provided you have a united Democratic caucus behind you. That last provision dictates what kind of legislation will come out of this Congress. It will be something that the conservative Democrats in the Senate will vote for. They're the ones who are going to be holding the reigns in many ways. So, yeah, set your expectations low, but you don't have to be quite THAT pessimistic. Posted by: NonyNony on December 23, 2008 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINKMy better judgement reminds me to stay mum on what could happen. You have even more attack dogs (literally, I mean dogs) coming from the right, Worse, Presidential appointments go through the Senate. Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Hillary Clinton are wise to not give up their day jobs until they've actually been confirmed in their new Cabinet posts. Chances are, they won't be. They're not gonna filibuster Cabinet appointments. Don't be such a deadender. Posted by: Allan Snyder on December 23, 2008 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINKReckless Exuberance Thanks for the encouragement, NonyNony. I think... It seems as if President Obama will have great difficulty in getting through a non-conservative agenda, in any event. But at least there's a chance it won't end up being a neo-Conservative agenda. Allan Snyder, what makes you say that Republicans won't filibuster Cabinet appointments? Over the last 16 years, it has seemed that there's nothing that Today's Republican Party™ won't stoop to. As far as I know, they're still fired up with Bork resentment. The only time they support "an upper-down vote" is when their own people are nominated. Moreover, the Left seems to be coming out against all of Obama's picks so far, judging by the daily exposés on Democracy Now. One might get the opinion that the election of Barack Obama was some kind of major tragedy. Mr. Comey may have endorsed Mr. Holder as a strategic move. Lockheed is under investigation by the Justice Department and Mr. Comey is in the thick of it. http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1198058693078 Posted by: Michael DeKort on December 23, 2008 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINKMichael DeKort - Thanks for the link. Am I wrong? I thought I saw a piece on this Deepwater project on 60 Minutes. Also, are you the Michael DeKort in the article? If so, is the case actively ongoing, or are you hoping it will be resumed after inauguration? Thanks. Posted by: Danp on December 23, 2008 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINKWikipedia says: As a condition to the pardon, it was made clear that Rich would drop all procedural defenses against any civil actions brought against him by the United States upon his return to this country. That condition was consistent with the position that his alleged wrongdoing warranted only civil penalties, not criminal punishment. To this day, Mr. Rich has not returned to the United States. So just what is the big scandal here? Posted by: wmr on December 23, 2008 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINKthe scandal is that the pardon was by a democratic president. Bush senior pardoned a known terrorist, is that pushed as a scandal? Hopefully, Obama will make the repug obstructers pay a heavy price and there are ways that it can be done since the democrats control both congress and the presidency Posted by: grandpajohn on December 23, 2008 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
