Eric Holder to resign as Attorney General

[Maximus]

I'd like to see Holder on the Supreme Court.

 

[gourimoko]

Hahahahaa....

In all honesty, I would prefer there to be at least one civil rights advocate.on the court.. One would be nice.

 

[gourimoko]

Because those are two separate things. I was criticizing his blanket statement regarding us being a "nation of cowards" on the issue of race, which I think is not true. If you want to have a discussion on a specific issue, fine. But that's a different point than going after his blanket statement.

I agree with Holder's statement for numerous reasons. I think you should investigate why he said it, or at least offer a rationale as to why you disagree, rather than casting aspersions about his personal views.

I don't have to know him personally to judge his public statements on their own merits.

You made a comment about his personal worldview that was and is as of yet unsubstantiated.

Okay, what is it about "race" that you want to discuss?

With you? Nothing.

Do you realize that this is the "Eric Holder" thread, not the "racial issue" thread? For you to argue that we should leave Holder's personal views and public statements out of this discussion absurd. It's the entire point of the thread.

You don't know his personal views, that's the point. You're making blanket accusations based on a comment taken out of context. I think it's sad.

You just told me that you thought I was afraid to discuss racial issues. Remember "Honestly, yes"? As to whether he was referencing me personally, I have no idea and its not relevant. He said we are a "nation of cowards" on that issue, and since all of us are part of that nation, it's fair to assume that most of us are included in that. I think that's essentially a "beer summit" where presumptions are made that everything is about race.

I said I wouldn't call you a coward over the internet. I haven't. I do think people, including you, are afraid to address issues of race. Being afraid does not make someone a coward.

Lastly, I think you're reaching with the "nation of cowards" being inclusive of all people. He wasn't referencing himself.

That's disingenuous as hell because it ignores the context in which you made that statement. Someone stated that Holder was polarizing, and the only response you had to that statement was "there's a lot of racists in America." Now why would that be only response you made? Why didn't you mention any other thing he's done, but instead offer racism as the only explanation?

It's the only response because it's the only response I chose to make. It was a terse, concise observation that holds true. There are a lot of racists in America, and I doubt many of them are fans of Eric Holder.

It is disingenuous to claim that I said those are his "only" detractors, which I did not. Reading comprehension here is key. You routinely make these mistakes in your posts. I did not say "only."

I don't think it's vague. But I think it is very telling that the only explanation you offered for why he's polarizing is racism.

Telling for whom?

And if that just mans it's the primary reason, and not the only reason, I don't think that changes the point. You are, like Holder IMHO, significantly overstating the role of race.

Or you're understating it. But it should be addressed, and that's my point.

Not sure how old you are, but I can remember the sheer hatred regarding Nixon

I am widely considered extremely knowledgeable when it comes to U.S. political history and theory. I don't need to have lived it.

To compare Nixon to Obama is mindboggling.

and Reagan,

Even at the time, Reagan wasn't regarded as negatively by his opponents as Barack Obama. Democrats never opposed him with the same level of vitriol as the Republicans have always opposed Obama.

despite the latter-day revisionism that sometimes tries to claim Reagan's mantle for the Democrats.

This is nonsense, Reagan went out of his way to appeal to Democrats.

Republicans actually impeached Clinton,

Clinton deserved to be impeached, but the country backed him. Clinton actually broke the law numerous times, and even lied under oath. I supported the Republican impeachment of Clinton and thought he should have been removed by the Senate. The Democrats at the time allowed politics to get in the way. I do regard the Ken Starr investigation as having been mired in dirty politics, but the truth is still the truth, regardless of the political situation unfolding in the public eye.

and the vitriol directed against candidate Kerry (mostly deserved, IMHO) was far stronger than what was directed against candidate Obama.

This is a boldfaced lie. I volunteered for Kerry's campaign in 2004. This is total nonsense. We saw nothing like we did in '08 in '04. Nothing. Swift Boat doesn't remotely compare to the shit we had to deal with in '08.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of the Democratic electorate preferred Barack Obama to HiIary because of his race?

We believed it was always between 8-12% soft voter support from African-Americans due to his race, that would help in the primaries. However, this was nullified completely by the ~15% soft voter support for Clinton due to her being a woman. This was a continual problem throughout the campaign, balancing the appeal to minorities and women across racial lines. In Ohio, race was the deciding factor.

Or did the vast majority of black Democrats vote for Obama over Hilary solely because they preferred his policies?

The vast majority of Blacks tend to vote for the most liberal candidate, and they also tend to vote for the candidate who is most likely to win. Yes, there were many who favored Obama because of his race, but early on Obama was not the favorite of Black voters, Clinton was. It's simply inaccurate to claim the "majority" African-Americans supported Obama due to his race, that's preposterous and borderline racist in itself.

Clinton had gambled. Her campaign decided that they would make selective divisive moves to divide the Democratic base into liberals+Blacks and everyone else. She gambled that everyone else would outweigh liberals+Blacks. She wasn't far off, either; but her comments and those of her husband greatly damaged her campaign.

She went from having 40% African-American support during the New Hampshire campaign to having only 15-20% support later on in the primaries. This was largely attributed to her campaigns continued efforts to marginalize Obama as Jesse Jackson redux. It culminated when she made her "Hardworking White, Middle Class, Americans" reference.

Well, not only did you ignore the general election,

The general election is less relevant. Mathematically, when evaluating racial bias, we look at primaries or races between candidates who are ideologically very close to one another. Clinton and Obama fit the bill there perfectly. It would be far far less useful to analyze the general election.

but you completely ducked my Blackwell point, didn't you?

No I didn't. Ken Blackwell is an Uncle Tom, I thought that was evident.

Again, there were a lot of accusations in the general election that Republican opposition to Obama was largely based on race. Yet, it was Republican (almost solely) who voted for Blackwell in 2006.

First off, I've not said the majority of Republicans are racist. I've pointed out that 25% of the Democratic electorate is racist. By doing so, I'm alluding to the larger issue of race in America. You telling me that Ken Blackwell won an election is meaningless. I am not asserting that the Republican Party at large, in the majority, is racist or that the majority of Whites are racist.

So again, did Democrats vote against Blackwell because of his race, or because they didn't agree with him on the issues?

This makes no sense to the point I'm making. But to answer your question, yes, most likely we could project that somewhere around 25% (probably a bit less) voted against Blackwell due to his race.

And what's the explanation for the overwhelming majority of Republicans voting for Blackwell in 2006 if they don't like voting for black guys?

The explanation would be you not understanding how to read. I never said the majority of Republicans were racist.

 

[Maximus]

Hahahahaa....

In all honesty, I would prefer there to be at least one civil rights advocate.on the court.. One would be nice.

Can you find one that's not a lawbreaker and serial liar...and to whom the constitution actually matters and not just his political motivations?

 

[gourimoko]

Can you find one that's not a lawbreaker and serial liar...and to whom the constitution actually matters and not just his political motivations?

To be honest, does such a person even exist on the Court today? The entire process has become so politicized. I can't stand any of the justices presenting serving; not the liberals and sure as hell not Thomas and Scalia.

 

[Rich]

Eh, doesn't matter at this point. He's been awful, but the guy who will replace him will probably be just as bad.

I'd have to say the highlights of his tenure are the multiple times he was in front of the House oversight committee and either played the race card, got personal, or decided to just make shit up.

This is probably the best. The "my people" comment is just...well it's Eric Holder. So inappropriate for someone in his position to speak like that, giving off the impression he favors one group over another.

 

[gourimoko]

The amazing part is that you found something wrong with what he said in that clip.

 

[Rich]

Yea, lots of problems with a civil "servant" (what a joke of a term), who works for the public at large, talking about his "people" in an official capacity. Shouldn't happen. It's inappropriate because it gives more than a hint of bias.

Bigger problem is how he pretty much goes off on a tangent to avoid answering the questions that were asked. The Congressman interviewing him read a quote from a guy who said it was one of the biggest civil rights violations he had seen (the Black Panthers in Philly case) and there goes Holder, rambling on about the 60s, when the crux of the question was "why didn't you prosecute the Black Panthers?" He just wanted to divert and turn the entire hearing around as if the civil rights movement of the 60s was being demeaned, when that had NOTHING to do with the hearing at all.

This goes on where he starts talking about George Wallace and his sister-in-law not being able to get into college and god knows what else. When, again, the question was, essentially "why didn't you prosecute the black panthers?"

 

[gourimoko]

Yea, lots of problems with a civil "servant" (what a joke of a term), who works for the public at large, talking about his "people" in an official capacity. Shouldn't happen. It's inappropriate because it gives more than a hint of bias.

Bigger problem is how he pretty much goes off on a tangent to avoid answering the questions that were asked. The Congressman interviewing him read a quote from a guy who said it was one of the biggest civil rights violations he had seen (the Black Panthers in Philly case) and there goes Holder, rambling on about the 60s, when the crux of the question was "why didn't you prosecute the Black Panthers?" He just wanted to divert and turn the entire hearing around as if the civil rights movement of the 60s was being demeaned, when that had NOTHING to do with the hearing at all.

This goes on where he starts talking about George Wallace and his sister-in-law not being able to get into college and god knows what else. When, again, the question was, essentially "why didn't you prosecute the black panthers?"

Rich, I'm not going to multi-quote you. I'm going to just appeal to your intellect here. Bear with me for a second.

Let's start with what you stated first about "people." Eric Holder is using a term used by almost all racial groups, except Whites. Latinos, Blacks, Arabs, in general use the term "my people," to reference their own racial group. Yet in conservative circles, for the Attorney General to reference his own race was shocking. Even you here now, quoted it twice. But to me, it's baffling how or why this would be shocking to anyone. Eric Holder is Black man. He's not trying to hide that fact, and he does not subscribe to the belief that because he is black he must pretend to exist colorblind society.

You're saying he shouldn't address his own race, because it's inappropriate. "Because it gives more than a hint of bias." In what regard? He is saying that he is Black, and that he knows a thing or two about civil rights, due in large part to him being a Black attorney and judge and someone who himself and his family has been actively involved in civil rights cases over the last several decades. What is he biased against in this case? Equal protection under the law applies to all; so by him stating that he understands, and can uniquely appreciate, civil rights violations due to his personal history - who is he demonstrating a bias against?.

Claiming that he's championing the rights of African-Americans is not equivalent to being a Black nationalist or Black supremacist. By saying, "I'm Black, I'm for civil rights" does not equate to "I'm against the rights of White people." At least, it shouldn't. So that's where I get lost in your assertion that he's showing bias.

Then you go on to say that Holder was "rambling" and on a "tangent." Your selective choice of words seems to betray your own personal views I think. Holder wasn't rambling, he spoke directly to the Congressman's claim regarding the severity of the case with respect to American history. It was then and is preposterous now to claim, as Bartie Bull did, that "the incident [was] the most serious act of voter intimidation had witnessed in [my] career."

I don't think you're familiar with the politics surrounding the comment, the individual who made the comment, or the entire narrative that went into this story. I unfortunately am. Long story short, Bartie Bull has said some pretty racist things since becoming a Republican supporter (DINO) oddly enough right around the time Barack Obama was closing in on the nomination. He has referred to the President of the United States, numerous times, as a "hustler." He's been disowned by his former boss Jimmy Carter, and pretty much relegated to the lowest rungs of the Fox News depth chart.

So, when Rep. Culberson prefaces his question, which was long and involved not merely "why didn't you prosecute," with Bull's comments regarding severity he's seen throughout his career - a career which goes back to Bobby Kennedy, mind you - it offended many, including Holder. Numerous outlets, representatives in Congress, and civil rights activists spoke out about this comment. "...the most serious act of voter intimidation I had witnessed in my career." Is he kidding?

Holder's response is well-timed and well-placed. He said, without Fox's editing involved:

"Think about that," (referencing Bull's comments) "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s (during Bull's career with AG RFK) to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,"

I really don't see anything wrong here. Holder is making a very valid point. How can Bull possibly make this remark in good faith considering who he worked for, and what was going on in the 60s not only with Blacks but with the nation in general.

Regarding Holder's comments about his sister, they happened later (which Fox cuts to) but he's describing his own personal experiences and those around him dealing with matters of civil rights. Again, he's describing why he's the correct person to be making these decisions because he isn't ignorant or willfully stupid as some might be.

I think this entire topic really speaks to how poor our information is in this country because when taken out of the spin cycle this is the least offensive thing Holder has probably ever done (how is this offensive to anyone?) Let's talk about spying on journalists or Fast and Furious; but this BPP topic is just nonsense. Again, there are a lot more politics that I didn't put in this post because you didn't ask, but there was a great deal more going on than just this when the Congressman asked the question to Holder.

Not trying to say who is right or wrong here, but I hope the information in this post can help illuminate where Holder was coming from and why he said what he said. He's not trying to be offensive, but the question itself is offensive to many, including him (and in the larger context, towards the President - again, I'll explain if you want).

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I agree with Holder's statement for numerous reasons. I think you should investigate why he said it, or at least offer a rationale as to why you disagree, rather than casting aspersions about his personal views....I do think people, including you, are afraid to address issues of race.

I did offer a rationale as to why I disagree. Based on my observations, there is not a general fear or reluctance to discuss race. At least, not in the sense that (I think) Holder meant. I mean, if Holder meant that some white people are afraid to speak truths because they'll be accused of being racist, I'd agree with that. But I'm not sure otherwise what the hell he's talking about.

Take Ferguson. Were people really cowards when it came to discussing it? Were they "afraid" to discuss the racial aspect of it? Good God, it was a media obsession for weeks, and everyone had an opinion on it. But again, what specific racial issue to you believe I'm "afraid" to discuss? Try bringing it up the specific racial discussion you think I'm afraid to have, and we'll see. Because honestly, I think this is a crap accusation.

I am widely considered extremely knowledgeable when it comes to U.S. political history and theory. I don't need to have lived it.

Are you a published political author or something? Because otherwise, we're all just guys on the internet, and patting yourself on the back doesn't change that, or make any thing you say more credible.

But even if you were a published author, you're claiming expertise regarding contemporaneous public perceptions and comment, and your opinions are necessarily based on second and third hand information. That's simply ridiculous. Even the greatest historians of modern times wouldn't claim to have better knowledge of how Lincoln was perceived in 1864 compared to a literate person who actually lived back then. That's why historians value so highly contemporaneous, first-person accounts.

Anyway, unless you've gone back and read all the articles that were published back then, watched voluminous news broadcasts of the period, and engaged in discussions with lots of people during that time, your knowledge of how Reagan was perceived at that time is inherently limited. You're basically forced to parrot what other people have said or written about how he was perceived. In other words, no matter how much internet reading someone does, he's not going to know what it was like when the Cavs played in the Coliseum nearly as well as a guy who had season tickets.

To compare Nixon to Obama is mindboggling.

Except I wasn't. I was comparing public attitudes to Nixon to public attitudes towards Obama. Although if you run down the list of things for which impeachment was sought, much of what Nixon was accused of doing back then -- wiretaps, secret bombings, using the IRS to target political opponents, etc.., is not exactly unknown today.

Even at the time, Reagan wasn't regarded as negatively by his opponents as Barack Obama. Democrats never opposed him with the same level of vitriol as the Republicans have always opposed Obama.

Says you. I lived through it, and disagree. I read the newspapers every day, watched broadcasts, etc., and the left absolutely hated him. From support for the Contras, "starving" old people and the homeless, the AIDS epidemic, being a warmongerer, etc., the hate was at least as strong. A great many people actually considered him a murderer because of his actions in office.

This is a boldfaced lie. I volunteered for Kerry's campaign in 2004. This is total nonsense. We saw nothing like we did in '08 in '04. Nothing. Swift Boat doesn't remotely compare to the shit we had to deal with in '08.

Again, opinion. While I wouldn't deny that there undoubtedly was a nasty racial undercurrent among a small percentage, the general election saw much harsher tones towards Kerry than anything dared -- except among a small fringe -- with respect to Obama in 2008. It was kid gloves for fear of being labeled a racist.

The best example of this is cocaine. Proof that Bush had used cocaine as a young man was widely considered the "Holy Grail" for Democrats in 2000 and 2004, with the belief it would be a political death-blow. But though Obama freely admitted using cocaine, it couldn't be used as a political weapon against him because the "ooh, if we talk about the smoking pot and using cocaine, it'll look racist." So he got a complete pass.

We believed it was always between 8-12% soft voter support from African-Americans due to his race, that would help in the primaries. However, this was nullified completely by the ~15% soft voter support for Clinton due to her being a woman. This was a continual problem throughout the campaign, balancing the appeal to minorities and women across racial lines. In Ohio, race was the deciding factor.The general election is less relevant. Mathematically, when evaluating racial bias, we look at primaries or races between candidates who are ideologically very close to one another. Clinton and Obama fit the bill there perfectly. It would be far far less useful to analyze the general election.

I'll trust your expertise regarding the Democratic electorate in 2008, but do you recognize that you've changed the point we were actually discussing, which was the hatred and vitriol directed towards Obama? Not only is that different in tone from what may be a mild preference for voting for a person of your own race (which is something that may apply to people of any race), but presumably, we're also talking about completely different groups of people. After all, most of the alleged hatred and vitriol directed against Obama now is (presumably) by conservatives/Republicans, who are not the Democratic primary electorate you are citing. So to me, if we're discussing the hatred and vitriol directed towards Obama by the right, then the general election is the appropriate measuring stick.

It's simply inaccurate to claim the "majority" African-Americans supported Obama due to his race, that's preposterous and borderline racist in itself.

I didn't claim that to be the case. You should reread what I wrote. That being said, I don't see how opining that Obama's race was a determinative factor in the votes of a majority of blacks would be racist in any case -- borderline or otherwise.

No I didn't. Ken Blackwell is an Uncle Tom, I thought that was evident.

Now that's racist. And even if it was intended as a joke by you, the phrase as applied to black conservatives is all too common.

The vast majority of Blacks tend to vote for the most liberal candidate.... I never said the majority of Republicans were racist.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. Because while some people like to insinuate (or flat-out state) that that anti-Obama vitriol is motivated by race, how do you separate race as the causal factor versus the fact that he is just more liberal? As you said yourself, if you're trying to isolate race, you need to find people who are pretty close otherwise.

As much as the GOP hated Clinton, they hated Hilary more because she was perceived as being much more liberal. And if Obama attracted more black votes because he was even more liberal than Hilary, shouldn't we expect the conservative reaction to him be even more harsh, regardless of his race?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

In light of Eric Holder's claim that Americans are "afraid to talk about race", how about Charles Barkley's recent comments relating to the Russell Wilson "not black enough" story? For any who missed them, here they are. Link includes audio of full comments:

http://www.vibe.com/article/charles-barkley-says-unintelligent-black-people-slow-success

Charles Barkley took a controversial stand on race this weekend in response to reports that Seattle Seahawks players believe quarterback Russell Wilson is not “black enough.” In an interview with a Philadelphia radio station, the NBA Hall of Famer pointed to blacks as the reason for lack of success in their own communities.

“Well unfortunately, as I tell my white friends, we as black people, we’re never going to be successful, not because of you white people, because of other black people,” he said.

Stating that young black children are picked on for being intelligent and how blacks in general are ridiculed for being successful, Barkley accused blacks of likening intelligence to “acting white.”

“Young black kids, when they do well in school, the loser kids tell them ‘Oh, you’re acting white.’ The kids who speak intelligently, they tell them ‘You’re acting white,’” Barkley said.

Calling the phenomena a “dirty dark secret” among blacks, Barkley also stated that black athletes go broke because they try to appease their naysayers. He also disputed the glorification of the “thug” persona, calling it a result of brainwashing.

“And for some reason, we are brainwashed to think if you’re not a thug, or an idiot, you’re not black enough,” he said. “If you go to school, make good grades, speak intelligent, and don’t break the law, you’re not a good black person.”

And a related article:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/showb...ey-russell-wilson-not-black-enough/index.html