Yes, the next A.G. has spoken out against illegal interrogation techniques, and the second-highest-ranking Republican in the Senate thinks that's a good reason to vote against confirmation.

One might possibly be led to believe---based on the words and deeds of "the second-highest-ranking Republican in the Senate", of course---that these Republicans have something sinister to hide....

Shows how completely they've lost their way. Good- may they spend many a year wandering in the political wilderness.

It's all aimed at creating a controversy that will be breathlessly reported by CNN, Politico, etc., as a means to try to tarnish Obama.

Particularly with Specter accusing Holder (falsely!) of being as bad as Gonzo-- I guess it's mainly an exercise to demonstrate that the Senate Republican feel they don't need a license to lie.

If Republicans intend to have temper tantrums when Bush era policies are investigated, Holder is the place to start. They won't have the facts or the law. So they'll pound on the proverbial table and claim Holder is a partisan hack.

While I would never defend the more egregious violations of rights that the Clinton Administration indulged in, I would strongly encourage Democrats to bring up the actual _crimes_ of the Attorney General that Spector, Kyl and the rest of the unthinking Right defended past his sell-by date.

Besides Al Franken (!!), they have to have some kind of Antichrist to fundraise around, no? I mean, it's not as if they can ask people to give them money based on their actual ideas.

"It all seems rather pointless..........."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As pointless as the years 2000 through 2008 you might say.
I'd like to suspect opposition to Holder on the torture front might be due to fear he'll pursue criminal complaints against various Bushco henchmen. Unfortunately it seems war crimes and murder rate the same Jerry Ford treatment accorded Nixon. How in the hell beating another human being to death with a blunt instrument is equivilant to a bungled hotel robbery and the ensuing coverup is beyond me. I'd suggest asking Obama but he's too busy giving interviews professing no one is above the law to give us an answer to those questions.

Let them run their own little 'I Love the '90s: Politics' edition. It will only make the Senate GOP look more ridiculous which is good for the country in the long run. Obama is one doing nostalgia right.

"It's the economy, stupid."

I'm struggling to wrap my head around the Republican gameplan on this.

Well, from where I sit, the most likely explanation has to do with $$$$$$. The GOP at the moment only appeals to the most extreme and ill-informed members of our society. In other words, they're base is batshit crazy. But they desperately need to hold onto that base for operating capital, i.e. donations. So that means doing things that reassure that base. Which translates into a gameplan that doesn't make a lot of sense to rational people.

Call it niche marketing.

The main reason is to taint and smear him coming in, so if he decides to prosecute Bush Republicans, or fire Bushies in the DOJ, they can delegitimize his efforts (See, he's just a partisan hack!!!)

As for Specter, he's going through the motions because he's bound to have a from-the-right Primary challenge and he needs ammunition. Toomey came close to kicking him last time. He's probably counting on having a tough Primary and coasting in the General, easily tacking back to the center.

I think he may have trouble threading the needle this time, though. He may lose a Primary, and if he doesn't, I think he's lost a lot of Independents who used to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe the Republicans think that an attorney who advocated a pardon for someone who fled the country rather than face an indictment wouldn't make a good attorney general. Am I the only person who reads WM who thinks that the Marc Rich pardon was a disgrace?

Alan Vanneman, is it a disgrace no one (if any) above the rank of Sergeant has been punished for killing Iraqi P.O.W.? If Holder relentlessly hunted down and jailed Bushco and DoD criminals for those killings and torture would that help him atone for any transgressions in the Rich affair?

Am I the only person who reads WM who thinks that the Marc Rich pardon was a disgrace?

It was a disgrace. No question about it.

But it was one pardon, over white collar crime. Sure, justice denied, but in the grand scheme of things it was not torture, or politicization of the DOJ, or any of the other asinine things that Gonzo did.

I think the Republicans just want to remind everyone that Mark Rich's attorney was Scooter Libby and that pardoning rich guys isn't a good idea as a last order of business.

Or maybe they just want to pretend that Al Gore "won" and it is actually Jan. 2001 and he nominated Holder.

If it was me, I wouldn't start Holder's confirmation hearings until after W issues his final pardons.

It is a preemptive strike to de-legitimate any subsequent prosecutions of Rove etc. as partisan retribution. Specter also has several grudges against Holder, per Dengre's thorough diary at Kos.

This is grandstanding to the base, especially on Specter's part (he's spooked by the prospect of another primary challenge from Pat Toomey and therefore is trying to show that he's a big head-hunting right-winger they can trust). Kyl, well, he's a dimwit and he's trying to show to the base that the Senate GOP is still relevant. Good luck with that.

It was wrong to pardon a mostly irrelevant jerk like Frank Rich, but it is really awful to be hard on our own officials breaking fundamental US and international law.

Marc Rich

I think the Republicans just want to remind everyone that Mark Rich's attorney was Scooter Libby and that pardoning rich guys isn't a good idea as a last order of business.

That's why I love the hypocrisy of the Republicans whinging about the Rich pardon. He was their guy, lawyered up with an ultra-insider Republican, and yet the pardon is all Holder's fault when even most Republicans admit he wasn't all that enthusiastic about it.

Now I can't help wondering if Libby was the one who advised Rich to make that big donation to the Democratic Party to cover his real ties.

"I'm struggling to wrap my head around the Republican gameplan on this. Their caucus has 41 members, and even if the GOP were to filibuster Holder's nomination, which seems unlikely, they'd lose."

No, they'd win, because the GOP would only have to THREATEN to filibuster and the Dems would fold. Holder's nomination would then be pulled by Harry Reid.

Why Kyl's inanity? Palin '08, baby. Fabulous!

I'm pretty surprised to see so many liberals favoring Holder. He actually told Marc Rich (thru an emissary) to hire Jack Quinn, he shepherded the Rich pardon (& made an end-run around the prosecutor) thru DOJ, he violated DOJ policies; he was responsible for processing the 14 Puerto Rican terrorists' pardons (they hadn't even asked for pardons) & for the two Weather Underground pardons (this time over the objections of prosecutors & folks like Senator Schumer). He MAY have played a role (he later publicly spoke in favor of DOJ's actions, anyway) in violating the 4th Amendment rights of Elian Gonzoles' family -- 5 am break-in -- and he has been a Mr. Fixit for some pretty creepy corporate guys.

Worst of all, he seems to be really good at caving to the boss -- I hear Gonzo laughing now.

I just don't get why the left has suddenly got so infatuated with Holder. I think with all the fine public-service attorneys there are, Eric Holder was an awful choice for the American people, though I understand, because of his willingness to carry the boss' water, he may be a handy choice for Obama.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com