Attorney General Holder ?
While speculation has buzzed over Secretary of State Clinton it now seems that the next US Attorney General will be Eric Holder. Holder, who would be the first African American AG, served as deputy to Janet Reno during the Clinton years. Holder has also been on the unofficial short list for appointment to the Supreme Court so it is possible his stay at the Justice Department would be relatively short.
As you might expect of a former Clinton and potential Obama Justice Department pick, Holder has a center-left judicial philosophy but from what I have been able to read on the net he does not seem to be out of the mainstream.
Indeed some of the more liberal blogs like Daily Kos seem upset over the prospect of his nomination because he does not support legalization of drugs and prostitution.
Just as many of the Bush nominees were too conservative for me I suspect that some of the Obama picks will be too liberal. But if he manages to keep to reasonably mainstream picks like Clinton and Holder I think I will be happier than I was with choices like Ashcroft.
8 Responses to “Attorney General Holder ?”
Considering that the amount of people in jail for Marijuana related crimes and the fact that Marijuana is estimated to be the largest cash crop in the US, legalization might actually be a good idea.
I can think of many good things that could be done with a nice hefty Sin Tax on Marijuana and with the savings to the criminal justice system, education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc…
I wouldn't worry about liberals taking over the government if I was you, it looks like Obama is going to do what Democrats do, tell the suckers who supported to suck it up and run a competent center right government that will f**k over the poor, the working class and the vulnerable.
Here are some of the things I expect the Obama administration to do:
Finally give DC at least one voting representative in Congress.
Remake the Justice Dept, so that it prosecutes without regard to status within a political party, and so that the civil rights divisions is no longer focused merely on reverse discrimination and the rights of fundamentalists to practice in public.
Move swiftly towards energy independence by increasing emissions and CAFE standards, and encouraging R&D of alternative fuels.
Restore our image overseas by portraying us as a good citizen of the world-instead of exceptionalists to whom international law does not apply.
Tax those with $250,000 + and give a tax break to the poor and middle class.
Ensure that women who do equal work, get equal pay.
Allow gays to have civil unions recognized in all 50 states, and do away with “Don't Ask Don't Tell”.
Stop all torture, and stop illegal wiretapping of Americans.
Close Gitmo.
If he can accomplish even this much in his first term, I'll be satisfied. He'd be crazy to use his ample political capital to legalize drugs and prostitution. Those are hardly the worst problems we face, and would jeopardize a unified approach.
Hope Springs eternal.
The only things that are mildly realistic on that list:
Raising CAFE Standards to 35MPG after the Obama Administration bails out the big three and finds a way of shafting the UAW.
Moving Gitmo to some place in the middle of nowhere,USA and shoving the whole affair down the memory hole.
The selection of Holder is sound. His involvement with Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich should be trivial at confirmation time. Holder and Obama know each other well, and have worked with each other, as recently as during the campaign, when Holder did the vetting. It's a 100% sound choice, not a Miers. Who knows, at the end of Obama's term Holder might be a candidate for the Supreme Court. (I know nothing of any such consideration now, but the point is, it would be at least initially a logical choice, as for Attorney General — in contrast with what people think about Harriet Miers.)
Note that Obama picked someone good rather than garbage like Eliot Spitzer or Andrew Cuomo.
K: Good lib 'n' Dem agenda. I'd quibble with some things but it's good overall, a sane, “moderate” liberal policy agenda.
The UAW is HUA like Wagoner and Nardelli. (Admittedly, Nardelli knows Chrysler is merely to be kept alive until it can be sold for a better price than its pieces would get now.) The JOBS bank should have already been terminated; over-65s belong on Medicare; why isn't the fabulous [sic] 2010 contract that the UAW brags about sped up and put into effect _already_, before coming for a parasitic bailout by the federal government? Even blazing lefties like Robert Reich have admitted the UAW needs to make concessions. (The modern model for years has been the “transplants” and that includes pay and benefits, in the real world, as opposed to in Detroit's alternative universe and that of their defenders.) Gettelfinger is either ignorant or trying to bluff when he's about to lose, insisting on no additional concessions. His most stupid aide in Congress, barking Barney “this is union busting, and we need to be bailing out deadbeat borrowers to reward them, too, for voting Democratic this November” Frank, in his many interruptions and immature and inoherent rantings (on television, during hearings, on NPR this morning) even has admitted that this bailout is far from enough and that next year there needs to be and will be more bailouts coming.
Why aren't Toyota, Honda, and Nissan almost bankrupt? Why are they not flying on luxurious company jet aircraft to Washington to plead poverty and arrogantly assume the solution to their problems is a bailout (because, as Wagoner said on a Detroit news program this past weekend, assuming everyone here is dim-witted, there's nothing wrong with Detroit and the basic “business is as good as it has been for the past 30-40 years” — well, if that is an admission he really has never understood how things really are, that is something of a truthful, if oblique, admission!)? Why is only Detroit about to fail? Why are the UAW people still being grossly overpaid, and why are so many being paid nearly 100% of that excessive amount to do _nothing_? Why do stupid people (as a colleague and I, who have been other places in this country, overheard with amazement yesterday here from two “natives”) assume that no reduction in Detroit's work force is in order, or that no factories should close, or that no dealerships should close?
Not everyone in this country is that ignorant or self-deluding.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/motown-dirty-l…
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-…
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-…
Don Quijote— The DC rep is definitely doable–and so is the tax law. The Dems will have a significant majority in the House and now have 58 in the Senate. BTW- I left federal funding of stem cell research off the list– these are mostly mainstream positions– that will only be hindered by our economic malaise and the political power of Detroit and Big Oil.
He has a lot of big hurdles to overcome but maybe you shouldn't give up on the man two months before he even takes office!
But won't be done because there s no upside to doing it.
Only if Big Pharma can get the intellectual property generated by the public funding.
and that of the chamber of commerce, the corporate media, the military industrial complex, various right wing think tanks and organizations
I gave up when he rolled over on the FISA bill.
As long as people like DLS aren't screaming from the rooftops, you know that he is not a liberal.
DQ
The upside to doing it is that you no longer have a disenfranchised group of US citizens.
On the other issues— those obstacles have been there and will be there- but there won't be a better opportunity to get around them than now.
I personally don't think Obama SHOULD alienate the moderates to push forward a radically liberal agenda. Then the D's lose seats in the midterm and we're back at square one. O had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate- who would you rather have in the W H???