The best pressure point here (4.00 / 1)

is Arlen Specter.  Specter has a long history of trying to cultivate a myth that he is a moderate. He does this largely by occasional statements that he opposes some odious choice of the conservative wing of the party.  But when the chips are down they can count on his vote, even when he had kicked up a stink about whatever it is they are trying to do. His actions with respect to Holder are transparently partisan and obstructionist, and without principle.  During the Bush Administration, he briefly suggested that there would be some scrutiny of Bush's judicial appointments, a position he rescinded quickly.

Specter is up for re-election, and likely will face a primary challenge from his right. His electoral appeal in PA has always been as a centrist.  There needs to be someone to ask him questions about why he feels Holder deserves searching scrutiny where not a single one of Bush's appointments deserved any.  The issue is not whether the Senate should roll over, but Specter's (and others') hypocrisy.  

As for this:

Aren't presidential advisors supposed to be able to offer advice freely, without the prospect of Congressional or other outside investigations that would chill their free expression of ideas?  

My answer is no.  All those people in the Executive Branch work for us, not the President. They take an oath to the constitution, not the President.  I'd like to see the hypocrisy and base partisanship surrounding this claim used to kill it.

As Bruce Fein said about this idea:

What nonsense. I have worked in and out of government for 38 years. I have never heard any high or low executive-branch official so much as insinuate that presidential advice had been or might be skewed or withheld if confidentiality were not guaranteed. The gravity of advising the president universally overcomes anxieties over possible embarrassment through subsequent publicity. Moreover, every presidential adviser knows that confidentiality is never ironclad. Presidents routinely waive executive privilege in jockeying with Congress; confidentiality is always subservient to a criminal investigation or prosecution under the Nixon precedent; and leaks to the media of confidential presidential memos or conversations overflow like the Nile. Indeed, President Bush has himself waived the privilege repeatedly in the ongoing U.S. attorneys investigations by the two committees.

http://www.slate.com/id/2170247/

One can (and should) make this argument strongly and still rightly condemn partisan fishing expeditions.

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 08:23:14 AM CST

Yeah, I Didn't Express That Well (4.00 / 1)

That wasn't supposed to be my voice. It was the voice of
Verailles CW. "Everybody knows."

It's much more real than mere facts. Versailles ignores facts all the time. Six times before breakfast, and two dozen on Sundays.

But the CW? &Never!

Except, of course, when the parties change places.

And roger that all the way on Single Bullet Specter.

                               

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:18:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's change the rules - now that a corrupt admin is in place (0.00 / 0)

God help us!

I can hear the good Mr. Lieberman saying...

"The Democratic's corruption isn't as thorough as portrayed in the media; but, to prove their innocence we need to investigate and publicize any hint or suggestion of corruption with more zest and zeal than ever!  We don't need to investigate the Bush administration because we EXPECTED it from them!  It's only fair and just to now hold the Obama administration to the highest level of scrutiny.  Didn't he say that is what he wants?"

Blue Dogs and the media with chorus "hear, hear" and all will be good in the land of sheeple!  God bless the rich!

---

by: ronbo @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:07:44 AM CST

what controversy? (4.00 / 1)

Yeah sending Elian Gonzalez back to his daddy in Cuba was socially controversial but there never was any legal controversy the INS could deport him. The district court made a decision, it was upheld by the appeals court and the Supreme Court.

Republicans in Congress are a bunch of wankers who will never let go of their double standards and hypocrisy. All they want now is a rerun of the Clinton years, permanent probes and baseless insinuations, they'll keep at it until something sticks or they are discredited. If Obama and the Dems are smart they'll work on discrediting.

---

by: T Maysle @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:16:59 AM CST

That's PRECISELY The Controversy! (4.00 / 2)

Those despicable Democrats followed the rule of law!

How could they?

How can we possibly allow an Attorney General who follows the rule of law?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:20:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

All the more reason to investigate war crimes (4.00 / 1)

The attitude of the Democrats to let bygones be bygones ala Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and now Bush II only emboldens the Republicans to go after things like Elian Gonzales.
In all of those administrations serious crimes have been committed and with each passing Republican administration it gets worse.

Nixon's violation of the public trust was child's play when compared to Iran/Contra and that pales in comparison to what has happened over the past 8 years.

The Democrats coming into power though are telling us that investigations are just too political.  A public trial of the Bush War Crimes would just divide the country.  Apparently the Republicans have no qualms and are ready to bring a small but emotionally charged issue to bring up old wounds and divide the country again.  

Perhaps we could rehash the whole Terry Shiavo thing just for good measure.   Of course do the Republicans condemn Obama for voting for the resolution to allow the parents to continue the feeding tube or do they condemn for they condemn him for saying he wished he could take back the vote?  
 

---

by: Gibson @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because The Country's Not Divided Now, Right? (0.00 / 0)

What the Dems refuse to do is pick a fight they can win.  They insist on letting the GOP always have the choice of battles, weapons, time and place.

And, of course, by choice of weapons, I mean separate choices--nuclear weapons for the GOP. Yogurt spoons for the Dems.

Then they can say, "This is just terrible!  Can't you DFHs just stop fighting!"

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:19:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Barack Obama claimed he would rid us of these kinds of (4.00 / 1)

politics ...from the nasty cultural fights of the 60's to the scandals of the Clintons in the 90's, as though the mindset that produced these kinds of poltiics had its geneisis in the minds of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

That's the problem with mischaracterizing problems in order to score poltical points of your own.  You come up with wrong solutions.

The genesis of these kinds of vicious obstructional politics weren't with Democrats like Hillary and Bill Clinton, but with Republicans...all of them standing together...They did that in the 90's to dethrone the Democratic governing majority and they did that to illegitimately smear the Clinton administration.

I have long thought Obama's post partisanship was based upon a basic misallocation of blame.  And he I think will find that lots of it will be directed at him.

The Republicans response to Holder and the auto bailout is a perfect example....so let's see how well the Republicans  all hold together and how much the conservative elements in the Democratic party give the Republicans the room they need to obstruct, and the new president gives them the respect they don't deserve.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 12:57:54 PM CST

It's Up To Us To Wake Him Up (0.00 / 0)

I don't think we can afford to let him keep on in this delusion.  I've got a diary going up soon with one suggestion about how we can start major push-back starting at the inauguration.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 15:08:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Am I wrong here, or (4.00 / 1)

Is what Holder is going through in line for Rahm Emmanuel, as Blagojevich defense leakers start pointing fingers at Emmanuel anonymously in the press?

Emanuel and Obama have remained silent about what, if anything, Emanuel knew of the governor's alleged efforts to peddle Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Emanuel did contact the governor's office about the appointment and left Blagojevich with the impression that he was pushing Valerie Jarrett, a close Obama friend, so he wouldn't have to compete with her in the White House for Obama's attention, said a person close to Blagojevich. The person was not authorized to talk about the governor's discussions regarding the vacancy and requested anonymity.

First thing is Emmanuel and Obama haven't been silent; they've admitted contact and denied offering any "compensation" for a favorable appointment.

Second, they say, because Emmanuel used to advise Blagojevich, and because (supposedly) Blago always took Rahmmy's calls, he is not being forthcoming over his "role" in the sale of Obama's Senate seat.

Mudslinging at its finest, and typical criminal defense tactics here. If there's nothing to prove, just attack the character and suggest the appearance of impropriety. And the AP is complicit for publishing this hog swill.

I'm not saying Holder or Emmanuel are completely innocent; no, just saying they are thisclose to becoming whipping boys to satisfy someone else's agenda. It'll be interesting to see how each drama plays out.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 23:54:36 PM CST