Holder is not a progressive. Holder is not a civil libertarian.

[Taverner]

Look - I'll give the Prez benefit of the doubt here, but he has to fire this asshole.

He goes after pot smokers, not bankers

He goes after whisteblowers, not perps

He is in bed with Wall Street, not your street

AG Ashcroft, whom I loathe, was actually better to MMJ

[gateley]

1. I'm not a Holder fan, either, but I'm not sure he could

go after any of these groups without the Administration's okay.

I could be wrong -- Just may truly be independent of WH?

[Taverner]

4. Why did he not prosecute Bear Stearns? Citibank?

I understand Holder was doing what every AG did before him in investigating AP reporters. It is still wrong, even if they are TP groups.

[gateley]

13. I'm not defending him, I'm just saying I don't think he gets to decide who and what he

prosecutes. Like NOT prosecuting Bear Stearns and Citibank -- don't you think word came down from up high to keep hands off? Or maybe, HE didn't want to, for whatever reasons. So I guess I'm really saying I don't know how it ultimately gets decided who gets looked at, who gets a pass.

The AP and TP issues are two different things -- not sure I'm following what you're saying.

[Taverner]

15. He is Attorney General - ultimately, it is he who chooses

If Obama influenced him differently, I would like to know

[gateley]

25. Yeah, that looks good on paper, but I wonder how it is in real life.

For example, do you think Gonzales didn't KNOW how the Bush Administration wanted him to come down on the warrantless wiretapping and torture calls?

I think Bush's administration/relationship to the AG/Justice was far more overtly political than Obama's, but I can't help but think that Holder knows what Obama wants to pursue and what he doesn't, and acts accordingly. Maybe I'm just too cynical. I'm guessing it's like that in every administration.

[Taverner]

26. Good question. If Obama influenced him, we should know that. n/t

[gateley]

30. It could be so subtle and so NOT against the rules that we'd never know.

Obama could just make an offhand remark that could influence Holder's action or inaction.

Again, I think Bushco was an entirely different story. I wouldn't be surprised if they TOLD and DIRECTED Gonzales on the result they wanted. I'd be surprised if they DIDN'T.

[AAO]

79. YOU MAY BE DISCUSSING APPLES AND ORANGES - AT LEAST MCINTOSH VS GRANNY SMITH

Sorry for the all caps. I'm too lazy to go back and change it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. In theory...there are walls between DOJ

And the WH as to who prosecutes and when

[gateley]

27. In theory.

I've become too cynical, I fear.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. I know...just pointing out the theory

For the moment I give them the benefit of the doubt, as more evidence emerges we will see if the cynicism we all have developed is justified.

For the record, I fear it will.

[truebluegreen]

122. Remember how much Clinton loathed Janet Reno?

She was independent; Holder definitely is not. Unfortunately.

[Taverner]

134. I would love a Janet Reno about now

[truebluegreen]

143. Me too.

[Yo_Mama]

85. Yes, Justice is supposed to be largely independent of the WH

I want to know why the hell he didn't go after MF Global. The behavior was clearly criminal.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/mf-global-trustee-sues-corzine-over-firms-collapse/

I have watched with growing awe and horror as med marijuana growers are harried by the federal government (for doing something that is legal under state law) but the wealthy criminals among us have impunity.

By law customer funds given to investment firms must be segregated from firm funds; MF Global deliberately stole their customers' money and yet no one has pursued this gross criminal behavior.

[grahamhgreen]

90. Let's not forget he overturned Sen Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens (R) conviction.

WASHINGTON — Ted Stevens, a pillar of the Senate for 40 years and the face of Alaska politics almost since statehood, was convicted of a seven-felony string of corruption charges Monday _ found guilty of accepting a bonanza of home renovations and fancy trimmings from an oil executive and then lying about it.

[lamp_shade]

2. Your opinion. I admire the guy. n/t

[Taverner]

7. Question: who messed up our economy more? Pot smokers or Banks? n/t

[kwassa]

89. Justice does not enforce economies. Not their job.

Reducing all the issues that Justice handles to these two is absurd. Comparing the two issues is absurd.

[morningfog]

98. What about the laws the bankers violated?

Are they supposed to enforce those?

[TheKentuckian]

142. You mean justice doesn't enforce laws on economic criminals? I'll buy that.

Don't accept it but it makes for a coherent statement.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. The OP gave reasons, what are yours? What motivates your admiration, specifically?

His work with Chiquita? His crusade against the will of the people in medical marijuana states? His absolution of the criminal Banks?
What's your fav rave about Eric?

[The Link]

36. It is simple. To admit otherwise would be to betray Obama.

It can not be admitted that Obama makes many, many mistakes.

[City Lights]

20. What has he done to earn your admiration? nt

[cheapdate]

81. The Department of Justice intervened in a major civil rights case in my hometown.

The case involved our local Islamic community's plan to build a new mosque and community center. The zoning approval was challenged by a group of people fiercely opposed to the plan. The DOJ filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, which acknowledged the status of Islam as a federally recognized religion. The intervention of the DOJ was crucial to upholding the civil rights of the Islamic community and played an important part in their ultimate success.

Eric Holder has my gratitude for getting involved in my community.

But it's not just that, the DOJ under Eric Holder has fought for civil liberties in many other ways across the country that often go unnoticed.

They have vigorously opposed efforts to curtail voting rights in many states -- and they've had great success in doing so.

There are many valid questions and criticisms of the DOJ's actions under Eric Holder, but the picture isn't nearly as uniformly bad as some people make it out to be.

[freshwest]

92. +1

[AnotherMcIntosh]

126. He's upheld civil rights? Not when LEOs deliver unnecessary and excessive violence. Not at all.

[rhett o rick]

64. Then maybe you wont mind telling us why you admire him. nm

[Tx4obama]

3. President Obama will not fire Holder, and should not.

Holder did a great job today at the hearing.

[Taverner]

5. Disagree n/t

[warrprayer]

9. Disagree

Holder was a death squad/torture lawyer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/lawyer-for-chiquita-in-co_b_141919.html

[ProSense]

12. He was a fucking lawyer.

Some people went after Elizabeth Warren for being the "asbestos" lawyer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021387513

[SidDithers]

52. rense? OMFG...

What's next? Alex Jones?

You just blew any shot at credibility with a link to rense. Nice job.



Sid

[warrprayer]

161. Sorry Sid. You are right.

I wanted to make the point that a large number of lawyers are actively seeking to get Bush torture/death squad lawyers disbarred. I saw nothing on the page to give me any idea that it was a right wing site. After having it pointed out, I checked and agree that nothing from Rense belongs on D.U. and have deleted. Will check source from now on.

[SidDithers]

163. ...

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

153. Nice RW nutjob source there

This place had devolved into the fucking Ron Paul Revolution.

Good Grief.

[warrprayer]

160. my mistake.

I googled "Bush - torture lawyers - disbar and got this result. I saw nothing on the page that gave the slightest clue it was a right wing site. Sincere apologies, and due to what I found out from your pointing this out, am deleting. My point was I was trying to show that many lawyers don't want torture/death squad lawyers in the Bar. Next time I will check the source better. Thanks.

[warrprayer]

162. this works better

and still makes my point.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A coalition of progressive groups sought Monday to have 12 Bush administration lawyers disbarred for their roles in crafting the legal rationale for so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that many view as torture.

Alberto Gonzales is among the former attorneys general named in the complaints.
"It is time to hold these lawyers accountable for violating their legal oath," Kevin Zeese, an attorney for the coalition, said in a written statement.

"Just as the bar would suspend an attorney who advised a police officer to torture and brutalize a detained immigrant or criminal defendant, the bar must suspend these attorneys for advocating and causing the torture of war detainees. The disciplinary boards that hear these complaints must act or they will be seen as complicit in the use of torture."

"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/18/torture.bush.lawyers/

[bigwillq]

17. Disagree (nt)

[morningfog]

99. One day of saving his own ass is not worth the 5 years of failures.

[Tx4obama]

103. Looks like you are dismissing all the 'good' things that he has done.

He HAS done good things ya know

[morningfog]

104. The bad and ineffective far outweigh any good.

I can't think of any good either. The closest is when he has followed Obama's request to not defend DOMA. Other than that I am at a complete loss.

[Tx4obama]

105. If that's all you can think of then apparently...

... you do not have all of the 'facts' to base a fully informed opinion.

https://www.google.com/

[morningfog]

106. You seem to have them, lay them on me.

I am not going to Google, "How is Eric Holder awesome as AG."

[Tx4obama]

107. A couple examples in an older post of mine, a copy and paste below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251251944#post12

Sometimes it's more fair to focus on what someone HAS done and not what they haven't.

Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Attorney_General_of_the_United_States


A couple things below that aren't listed in the link above,
there are more but I don't have time right now to post them all for ya

U.S. Arrests 91 In Massive $430 Million Medicare Fraud Bust
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10021487883

New Justice Dept. Task Force Issues Subpoenas to 11 Financial Institutions in Expanded Probe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002231600

[morningfog]

108. Wonder what has come of those 91 arrests and subpoenas from last year.

And, you must excuse me if those two examples don't wow me.

[Tx4obama]

110. There are many more than two ...

Many more in the section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Attorney_General_of_the_United_States

[Tx4obama]

112. Also... yesterday

U.S. charges 89 people in $223 million Medicare fraud schemes
Source: Reuters - Tue, 14 May 2013 08:04 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014483461

[Taverner]

8. "He was a death squad lawyer for Chiquita." - this should be known by all

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/lawyer-for-chiquita-in-co_b_141919.html


Yes, he represented the death squads.

The one who "disappeared" thousands.

[ProSense]

10. Yeah,

"AG Ashcroft, whom I loathe, was actually better to MMJ "

...Mr. Patriot Act, what a guy!

Ashcroft's Pipe Dream, Bongmaker's Nightmare: Feds Arrest 55 in Paraphernalia Crackdown
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/276/paraphernaliacrackdown.shtml

I think HDS (you know) is getting out of control

[Taverner]

11. AG Holder has one upped Ashcroft

These prosecutions have still been happening

You just don't hear about them unless you are working for MMJ rights

[ProSense]

14. That's absurd.

The guy who destroyed civil liberties, a RW kook, is who you're holding up as a model.

[Taverner]

18. No, not a model. A "better than." There is a difference

Nixon was better than Bush

We can all agree with that

It is well known Ashcroft targeted MMJ co-ops

Holder does as well

It is well known Ashcroft infringed on civil liberties

Holder does as well

One difference, however. When Ashcroft was asked to approve Warrentless Wiretapping, he did, in the end, say no.

It didn't help that they were pestering him at the hospital, but he did say no.

Holder is OK with warrentless wiretapping

That is scary

So yes, Holder is JUST A LITTLE worse than Ashcroft

And that is exactly my point

[ProSense]

33. Let's go by your OP, and

show just how absurd your claim is.


He goes after pot smokers, not bankers

Ashcroft's Pipe Dream, Bongmaker's Nightmare: Feds Arrest 55 in Paraphernalia Crackdown
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/276/paraphernaliacrackdown.shtml

He goes after whisteblowers, not perps

The Federal Bureau of Investigation improperly obtained calling records for more than 3,500 telephone accounts from 2003 to 2006 without following any legal procedures, according to a newly disclosed report by the Justice Department’s inspector general.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022846263

He is in bed with Wall Street, not your street

John Ashcroft's First Six Months at the Justice Department: The Right Wing Dream Team Takes Over
http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/john-ashcrofts-first-six-months-justice-department-right-wing-dream-team-t

AG Ashcroft, whom I loathe, was actually better to MMJ

John Ashcroft snuffs out medical marijuana; corporate execs get slapped on the wrist.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2003-07-04/166687/

Voter fraud is actually less likely to occur than lightning striking a person, according to data compiled by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. As Lorraine Minnite, a Columbia University professor, observed in the Project Vote report, The Politics of Voter Fraud, "The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud." In October 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft launched an intensive "Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative" that required all U.S. attorney offices to coordinate with local officials in combating voter fraud. Yet even after the Justice Department declared the war against voter fraud a "high priority," only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting in federal elections between 2002 and 2005 -- and nobody was even charged by Justice with impersonating another voter. (The Justice Department declined to answer questions about more recent fraud prosecutions.) And despite the anti-immigrant frenzy fueling photo-ID laws, only 14 noncitizens were convicted of illegally voting in federal elections from 2002 through 2005 -- mostly because of their ignorance of election law.

http://prospect.org/article/republican-war-voting

But hey, you and the others can whitewash this assholes legacy.

After all, other than that torture thing, Bush and his administration weren't that bad.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/23/1204141/-NJ-Go-Ahead-Admit-It-George-W-Bush-Is-a-Good-Man

[Taverner]

40. You are comparing what people said vs what they did

Obama talked progressive, but I never was under any impression he was anything other than a Center-Left Dem IF EVEN THAT!

His first term made him a Centrist straight up.

But I can live with that.

It's the people from the Conservative side, who are real excited to prove how they can be "Top Cop" (I come from a family with a State AG and several cops) they will go after who is easiest to arrest. That happens to be those with the least money.

We can't have that attitude anymore - it is K I L L I N G us!

[ProSense]

45. What? n/t

[Taverner]

47. Ashcroft talked big, and actually was pretty bad

But Holder is no different

And on warrentless wiretapping, he is WORSE

[ProSense]

48. That comment is frankly an admission that the OP is nonsense. n/t

[Taverner]

50. OK - please point out where the nonsense is?

cut and paste

[ProSense]

53. Here:

"OK - please point out where the nonsense is?"

....the entire OP is nonsense. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2849205

[Taverner]

54. That is not an answer. That's just being obtuse.

[ProSense]

56. Actually, "being obtuse" is missing John Ashcroft. n/t

[Skittles]

102. the fact you did not understand that response speaks VOLUMES

[BobbyBoring]

84. Really!

Obama is the continuation of Jr. Bush. Holder is the continuation of Ashcroft. It doesn't matter who did what first or he did the same things he did. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of what side of the fence you sit on. Holder needs to go just as Ashcroft, Addington, and Yoo needed to go>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Harmony Blue]

136. +1 Some people are in denial

but you lay it all out....do the comparisons and it is clear.

[byeya]

22. No one in this thread is holding up Ashcroft as a modal. Ashcroft was bad. Holder is bad.

Nothing can be done about Ashcroft; undoing the mistake of appointing Holder can be done.

[Taverner]

42. Ayyyyy-MEN!

[awoke_in_2003]

77. Not to defend the asshat Ashcroft...

(a prude who has to put curtains over statuary breasts) but the president didnt veto the Patriot Act when congress renewed it. Neither party gives a good god damn about the Constitution other than to pay it lip service. Their words mean nothing- watch their actions.

[Logical]

114. So Obama dislikes the Patriot Act? That is your stance? n-t

[bigwillq]

19. K and R (nt)

[Taverner]

21. It bothers me that so many progressives here are carrying Holder's water

Just because he had a D after his name

Yet they crucified Anthony Wiener for, well, posting a pic of his wiener

What's worse for us: posting a pic of your penis or not going after the folks who plundered America?

What's worse? Being a death squad lawyer or posting a pic of your dic?


ON EDIT: and most of these progressives are truly committed to civil rights and freedom

It's a knee jerk reaction, but every one of them should look and think

[bigwillq]

24. This partisan pony show is getting this country nowhere

Both parties stink. The two-party system is ruining America.

[Taverner]

28. This being DU, however, the true civil libertarians will come to their senses

It's really hard to side with Faux News

But for once, they are right

[LostOne4Ever]

111. Are you talking about the station

Are you talking about the station that called the Heritage foundation mainstream?

Even a broken clock is right more times a day than they have been since their inception.

[Taverner]

120. I am talking what is public information now

Things which Holder has admitted to

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. And yet sane people don't give a shit about third parties. Green, Tea or otherwise.

[bigwillq]

31. The more parties the better, imo.

So I'm either insane or sane. Not really sure!

[Taverner]

34. Agreed. I would love there to be as many parties as in Europe. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

57. The whole future paradigm is changing. The Parties as they exist right now are fundraising

organizations and not much more. The need for some central massive fundraising apparatus is fading fast. The reason for the Parties to exist at all will be morphing quickly to a less top down format or they will lose power and become accessories or options rather than the sole power brokers they have always been.

[Taverner]

121. "The Parties as they exist right now are fundraising organizations and not much more"

This needs spreading

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. Well, you should start a campaign. I'm sure Jill Stein, Roseanne, Rocky & Gary Johnson would be....

delighted to give you some pointers. That's about all they can give you, but hey, it's a start. You guys crack me up. There are probably dozens of political parties in this country. Your trouble is, rational people think you're ALL nuts.

[bigwillq]

38. If I'm nuts, so be it.

I voted for Rocky Anderson in Nov '12.
And proud of it!

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. You mean I overestimated you?

[LostOne4Ever]

113. Damn Striaght

[Taverner]

32. There is the DSA - Democratic Socialists of America

The Socialist wing of the Democratic Party

We're small, but we do exist!

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Well, if you have to remind people you exist, then "small" doesn't truly describe you!!!

[Taverner]

124. Small, yes. Democratic, yes. Hopeful, yes. And in the end, ethical, yes. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

109. And how can you change that?

By not voting or voting 3rd party?

The only way to fix the two party system is to play by its rules. This means picking a side and doing what you can to help it get elected and to weaken the other party to the point of irrelevance.

Once that is done you work for change from within the system. You can then push for reforms that make third parties relevant or to change the party into the kind of party you want it to be.

[bigwillq]

145. It will be very difficult to weaken the other party, whether D or R

I will continue to vote for third parties in elections where the outcome is pretty much decided, and I will encourage others to do the same.
I live in CT. Obama would've won CT with my vote or not.
I voted third party in an attempt to win a certain % of the vote.

[NorthCarolina]

86. Your first mistake

is in calling them "progressives". They are not.

[Taverner]

123. There are many here whom I respect who are answering for him

My prediction is that in one week they will not

People can be wrong

[morningfog]

100. No progressives are carrying his water.

[warrprayer]

37. the 3rd wayers are coming!!!

but we knew that was going to happen didn't we

[ProSense]

41. You're celebrating a RW asshole and complaining about "3rd wayers"? n/t

[warrprayer]

63. you must be thinking of someone else

I never mentioned a right wing asshole other than Poppy Bush puppet Holder

[Dragonfli]

141. He didn't celebrate a RW asshole so your accusation is uncalled for

On the other hand since Third Wayers are right wing assholes, those celebrating Holder are and you should take up your concerns with them.

Just because Right wingers are in our party that doesn't change what they are. Our party simply has a tent so incredibly big we will take anyone that cares to enter it, regardless of how far right their views are, they need only register D and are welcomed with open arms.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. The "third wayers" win national elections. The far left....not so much.

[Taverner]

51. Yet the Far Left are, well, correct

[Tarheel_Dem]

55. And ineffective. If you can't win, you're irrelevant.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Which is why Third Way candidates are so awful they keep losing House seats and Senate seats

and they are unelectable in the vast majority of Democratic America. The dismal turn out in the more conservative States the last two midterms is enough proof for anyone who cares about our majority and has the stomach for the truth. The 'moderates' lose. More and more often.
But the Third Way and moderate types are happy with GOP majority. They say 'both sides' and 'only the middle is good'. So they don't care whose in the majority, they are always in the middle. Measuring out their principles with a yardstick and string to make sure they are not too far away from Michelle Bachmann and not too close to Bernie Sanders, their position is relative, measured, and so contrived that voters laugh them out of the ballot box.

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. "Third Wayers" make far lefters ineffective? Isn't it the voters who make that choice? You need...

to win, and prove you can win nationally, not just play the role of spoiler to get mad props from me. Otherwise, it's just the usual sound & fury, signifying nothing. "Gore=Bush" was a popular refrain from folks like you in '00. I can't help but wonder how much different things might be today had some idiots not been suckered by a third party Charlatan, whose only goal was to help the Republicans, you guys claim to despise.

I don't buy any of your bullshit. No group of people has given more assistance to the rightwing of this country than the far left (or those who pretend to be) Take some responsibility for the election of Bush/Cheney, and how that changed this country for many years to come. You guys smell blood in the water, but you've smelled it before, and when the smoke clears & nothing sticks, you'll be on to the next poutrage du jour.

The talking points of some of our more "principled" posters seems to be if you're just liberal enough & loud enough, you can win anywhere. I bet Kooch, Russ, Jill, Roseanne & Rocky et al would've paid a mint for that bit of wisdom.

[NorthCarolina]

88. LOL

Biggest I've seen in quite a while too!

[LostOne4Ever]

116. It is still more

It is still more than not getting elected at all.

Because did we not have a thread here a week ago saying there was not a single true leftist in all of the national government?

[Taverner]

119. Franco was effective, should I be like him?

[LostOne4Ever]

115. Henry Clay

"I'd Rather Be Right Than Be President" ~Henry Clay

Thing is, being correct does not get things changed.

If you want to change thing, you got to get democratic butts elected, and thats not going to happen by running to the far left.

[Taverner]

118. Stalin changed a lot too. Should I be like Stalin?

[LostOne4Ever]

127. What you should be

What you should be is realistic about the world we live in and the political realities in which we have to work. Overall, the country is center right. We have to get democrats elected and make the republican party obsolete if we are to pull the country to the left.

[Taverner]

129. I just want the best for us

I am middle class, yet I see my job prospects being shipped to other countries

They bring in "guest workers" who get paid less than minimum wage at times, yet they have degrees and even at slave wages it is better than at home.

There is a problem here

This is irrelevant to the OP - I know

But it seems no matter who is in DC, no one gives a shit, save one or two, about the workers

That is, you and me.


You might own your own business, but you are a worker unless you could sell your business, take the profits and live comfortably for the rest of your life

[LostOne4Ever]

132. We all want the best for us

We just have different views on how to accomplish that.

I agree with you on every point you just said. But I see this as the only realistic way to accomplish that.

We are already trying grassroot campaigns to change minds, but its slow going.

If we don't vote we dont affect change.

The 2 party system makes voting for 3rd party candidates a waste.

Working within the system is the only way I can see that we can fix these issues.

[Taverner]

133. 'Tis why I am a member of the DSA

Democratic (as in part of our party) Socialist Alliance

The more we can create within the party, the better

[LostOne4Ever]

135. I support that.

And wish you the best with achieving change within the party by working within the system.

Peace

[Taverner]

137. I know Obama is the best we are going to get

And considering what we could get, that's not half bad

But Holder - we could do better

[warrprayer]

59. Is that you, Rahm?

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. Win a fuckin' election, then we'll talk!!!

[warrprayer]

67. get thousands

to come camp out in every city demanding a voice for the Americans who can't afford to buy a lobbyist and we'll talk

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. Jill & Rocky sure could have used them. Oh that's right, they voted for Obama.

[morningfog]

101. A win is a win and that is all that fucking matters.

[Taverner]

49. The third wayers deserve a seat at the table too

But we need a seat too, and we don't have one

[SidDithers]

58. Says the guy linking to fucking rense...

Sid

[warrprayer]

62. Hi Sid!

pleased to merit a response from you! You know, Sid, I actually get where you are coming from. When the stakes are as high as they are, giving the dark side an inch can lead to unthinkable disaster. And I believe your motives are good ones, and your support for the Democratic party is laudable.
The problem for me is/was, the only thing I ever see in your posts is your effort to attack "the enemy within". I recently read with pleasure a post from you that was an original op, about a historic event if I'm not mistaken.
I wish you would tell us more about yourself, why you as a Canadian are so interested in Democratic politics, (which I see as a good thing).
If you could do this you might find a lot less knee jerk opposition and a lot more constructive dialog. And, my sincere thanks for all you have done for the Democratic party.

[Bobbie Jo]

158. How about

You tell "us" more about yourself. It looks like you are still relatively new here.

You seem to have a good command of the narrative, though.

[warrprayer]

159. O.K.

mid 50's, lived in Pa. all my life. In my teens - 20s, I became interested in Democratic politics starting with canvassing for McGovern as a teen. Later became a Steelworker (USWA) and watched Reagan destroy the steel industry and decimate my union. I was among the first 18 y.o. to vote, a right purchased by my older brother and those like him during the Vietnam war. After seeing the fruits of Bush, I once again found myself canvassing, this time for Barack Obama. Don't want to bore you much more.

[Bobbie Jo]

156. Here:

the 3rd wayers are coming!111!1

Fixed it for ya.

[ms liberty]

65. I wanted Elliot Spitzer as AG. I don't give a damn how many hookers he slept with...

Spitzer knows how to go after the white collar crooks, and that's what I wanted.

[LostOne4Ever]

117. I like this idea! (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Holder lost me when he made throwing pot smoking cancer patients in prison a priority.

I think he needs to go.

[ProSense]

68. Wanting

"Holder lost me when he made throwing pot smoking cancer patients in prison a priority."

...Holder to go is one thing, hyping Ashcroft is another thing altogether.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2849205

[warrprayer]

70. ....

[ProSense]

74. Fuck John Ashcroft, teabaggers and RW apologists. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Good point.

I'd like to believe we could have someone better than this one OR the previous two.

[MotherPetrie]

71. K&R

[Nye Bevan]

76. K&R. Cut him loose (nt)

[ProSense]

78. President Obama is not going to fire Holder.

Holder knows his stuff and he has the President's confidence. I bet that's why Holder pisses off a lot of people, primarily the RW.

Obama has 'confidence' in Attorney General Eric Holder
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/obama-has-confidence-in-attorney-general-eric-holder-163951.html

[cali]

154. knows his stuff? what does that even mean?

Or rather, how is that meaningful?

Holder has gone after whistleblowers and pot smokers and neglected to go after tortures and white collar criminals.

[AAO]

80. I've read this entire thread, and I've made up my mind.

I side with Taverner. Holder needs to go. "Courage!"

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. the most serious of the three so-called "scandals" will receive the least pressure to do something

about it. The Republicans and the right-wing media may not like Holder - but they are not going to object to mainstream media having their communications subpoenaed - especially if done under the auspices of the "war on terror", They are going to want to be able to do the same thing when they get a chance.

[kimbutgar]

83. If Holder leaves it will be impossible to get another AG confirmed in this senate

We will have some deputy and not a real AG who will have no power. We're stuck with Holder. The obstructionists will not let Obama get any his cabinent members confirmed. That's why the president is not asking him to leave.

[limpyhobbler]

87. Obama is the decider. Don't give the boss a free pass.

[Taverner]

130. In the end, the buck stops with him. That's why he should fire him.

If the President fired Holder, I would be way more than satisfied

If the President put Holder on paid leave, I would be satisfied

He can do this

[DainBramaged]

91. Well said

He and Hapless Harry Reid should open a lobbying firm, dolts are us...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. Why didn't he bring me the pizza I ordered? I wanted pepperoni with extra cheese.

He brought me anchovies and green peppers. He should be impeached! Asshole!

[SidDithers]

94. Thanks, Obama...

Sid

[Octafish]

95. He made his bones by checking off on the pardon for Marc Rich.

He made his fortune defending the death-squads of Chiquita in Colombia.

No bankster got left behind in the slammer.

The guy's modern and with the Program.

[Taverner]

131. Worse - he made his bones defending death squads

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/lawyer-for-chiquita-in-co_b_141919.html

[jazzimov]

96. Holder does what he HAS to do.

He upholds his office. He does his job. It has nothing to do with his personal feelings - he does what the Law requires him to do.

I respect him for that.

[ProSense]

97. But

...he's no Ashcroft: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2849205

Yikes!

[Taverner]

125. So did Beria nt

[samsingh]

128. i agree

[Taverner]

140. I will give the Prez the benefit of the doubt

But he should step up and fire Holder

[ProSense]

139. Ashcroft:

Ashcroft: I Would Try Boston Bombing Suspect As An Enemy Combatant
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022737343

July 26: Attorney General John Ashcroft concludes that waterboarding is lawful, allowing the CIA to go ahead and use the technique on Zubayda.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/04/22/the_torture_timeline

But hey, he's allegedly "better to MMJ"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2849205

[SidDithers]

144. Fuck Ron Paul...nt

Sid

[MrMickeysMom]

146. I agree...

But, if you think he's the only one in bed with Wall Street, check some things about his boss. I haven't seen a banker that he didn't cow tow to, either.

Obama never was a progressive and as far as a civil libertarian... ahh... nope, negative on that one, too.

There's an old pair of comfortable shoes hanging in both their closets somewhere. Too bad, isn't it?

[geek tragedy]

147. Law enforcement officers will never be civil libertarians. nt

[Dragonfli]

149. Yes, I suppose cops are pretty anti civil liberties

A great many heads were busted by cops during the civil rights movement. They were and still are as dangerous as the KKK in many places. After LBJ, I thought the anti civil rights people left our party with the dixiecrats, in other words, I thought our party would remain protectors at the federal level at least from the anti civil liberties Klan with badges types. Times are reverting...

[geek tragedy]

150. Civil rights and civil liberties are different categories

of concerns--some overlap, but in general civil liberties are re: free speech, due process for accused criminals, etc whereas civil rights are about discrimination, equal protection etc.

In general, law enforcement should have zero tension with regard to civil rights, but civil liberties and law enforcement have inherently contradictory agendas.

[Dragonfli]

151. Civil Rights are Civil Liberties

ACLU, NAACP, Anti-Defamation League, NCLR, AAPD and NARAL are examples of pro civil liberties groups. Anti Civil Liberties groups have been trying to pretend they aren't anti-civil liberties by attempting to change the meaning of Words since the KKK. It doesn't change the fact that our civil liberties are rights!

I was reluctant to label all of law enforcement "anti civil liberties", because I thought we had made progress at least with Democratic Party appointments in LE at the Federal level and in many northern states since the head busting days I remember. I am just now agreeing with the poster, we HAD made progress post Dixiecrat, but are reverting back and mimicking the R's promoting an anti civil libertarian stance using terror and state security as the rationalization.

It is becoming quite clear.

[geek tragedy]

152. Other way around--all liberties are rights, but not all rights are liberties.

ADL and NAACP won't be arguing for the right of KKK and Neo-Nazi to hold marches in their neighborhoods, or against hate crime laws, like the ACLU does.

Not to say one is right and the other is wrong, just that they disagree because their missions are different. The NAACP is concerned with preventing racism and group-based discrimination, whereas the ACLU values individual rights first and foremost.

Similarly, the basic thrust of civil libertarians is to make it more difficult to arrest and put people in jail. That's an inherent conflict with people whose job it is to arrest people and put them in jail.

[Dragonfli]

164. You are clearly misinformed, ACLU would only argue for the actual rights of KKK or anyone really.

They never argued for the KKK or anyone having a right to oppose the civil liberties of others, as the KKK did when they colluded with segregationists that tried to deny the civil liberties of those not lily white and bigoted, don't you remember the part they played? Free speech is a right granted via our civil liberties, The ACLU will argue for your right to claim the bill of rights is in opposition to law enforcement, they would not argue that you have a right to deny the rights of others by opposing the liberties granted by the bill of rights (as some misguided belief that that is your duty as a LEO). LE is actually supposed to protect our rights. We are moving backward, I have already granted, but you do not seem to grasp what civil liberties are.

Many of the groups are formed to protect the civil liberties of specific targeted groups, such have typically been minorities, semitic people, women, disabled, LGBT as well as other targets; a new target of anti civil liberties proponents are those involved in occupy or 99% movements, the principle is the same and the occupy movement may need a "letter group" to specifically try to protect their rights (which are being stomped on by LE).

I don't have the time to teach a course to you on civil liberties, but I can give you a quick primer

Civil Liberty is the right and freedom that usually provides an individual with specific rights such as right to life, right to a fair trial and freedom of expression among others. This concept dates back to the English legal charter the Magna Carta 1215 and the protection of civil liberties is a key responsibility of all citizens of Free states.

Civil liberties are basic rights and freedoms guaranteed, either identified in the bill of rights or in the constitution. These are; freedom of speech, right to privacy, marry and vote. For more please click: http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-vs-liberties.html

Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that protect an individual from the state. Civil liberties set limits on government so that its members cannot abuse their power and interfere unduly with the lives of private citizens.

Freedoms and rights provided to individuals by the laws governing a country are called civil liberties. They may include the right to life, right to free and fair trial, freedom of expression and association, protection from torture, freedom from slavery, freedom of conscience, religion among others. Civil liberties form the basis for democracy in most states and have given rise to many civil activist movements.

The Evolution of American Civil Liberties
A Short History

The civil liberties we have today weren't created; they evolved.

Inch by inch, technicality by technicality, the British system of law that once allowed for the absolute rule of the monarch gradually became a system that respected Parliament and, when it was transplanted to the United States, eliminated the monarchy from the equation entirely. The Bill of Rights, once an unenforceable series of promises, has become the centerpiece of our criminal justice system. Here's how it happened.

1215: The Power of the Monarchy is Reduced
The Magna Carta restricts the absolute power of British monarchs, holding them accountable to the rule of law.

1689: The Rights of English Subjects Are Defined
The English Bill of Rights guarantees free speech to members of Parliament, bans cruel and unusual punishment, and supports a limited right to bear arms.

1776: The Power of the Monarchy is Rejected
In the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Britain, Thomas Jefferson argues that the sole legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights.

1787: A New Democratic System is Established
The new U.S. Constitution establishes limited roles for the President and Congress, but does not yet grant significant power to the Supreme Court.

1789: The Rights of U.S. Citizens Are Defined
The U.S. Bill of Rights protects the natural rights of U.S. citizens from infringement by U.S. Congress, but because the Supreme Court has no power to strike down legislation, it is in effect little more than a statement of principles. At this point in history it applies exclusively to the U.S. government--and not to U.S. states, which have their own, separate bills of rights.

1803: A Mechanism for Protecting Rights is Created
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court strikes down its first law and in so doing establishes its power to strike down unconstitutional legislation.

1868: The Rights of U.S. Citizens Are More Clearly Defined
The Fourteenth Amendment is ratified. Although its original purpose is to limit the efforts of Southern states to severely restrict the rights of recently freed slaves, it effectively makes individual states accountable to the human rights standards established in the Bill of Rights--though it will be more than a half century before the Supreme Court comes to that conclusion.

1925: State Legislatures Must Respect the Rights of U.S. Citizens
In Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court holds that states are bound by the U.S. Bill of Rights by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. The means by which the Fourteenth Amendment extends the power of the Bill of Rights is most commonly referred to as the incorporation doctrine.

1965: The Right to Be Left Alone is Defined
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court holds that the Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution imply a right to privacy. This right to privacy will later be cited in court rulings legalizing abortion (Roe v. Wade, 1973) and striking down laws prohibiting gay sex (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003).

[Iggo]

148. Well, duh.

He's a cop, first and last.

[Dragonfli]

165. Yes, cops appear to hold the misguided belief that it is their job to be anti-civil liberties

How do they not know basic law and that the civil liberties granted by our bill of rights and constitution ARE the law they are supposed to uphold, rather than fight against?

I had to try to explain what civil liberties are to what is either a LEO or an extreme authoritarian. He actually made the argument "the basic thrust of civil libertarians is to make it more difficult to arrest and put people in jail. That's an inherent conflict with people whose job it is to arrest people and put them in jail." He apparently thinks that it is the job of cops to simply put people in jail and their civil liberties somehow seek only to keep these cops from doing their job, he does not appear to know it is supposed to be their job to uphold the law, a really huge part of our law is the protection of our civil liberties, not a battle against them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2855499

I tried to teach, but I don't think the actual laws regarding the rights of citizens mean much to cops and/or extreme authoritarians

[NCTraveler]

155. Careful what you ask for.

His replacement could be used as a negotiation piece to garner republican votes for a piece of legislation. I have seen how Obama negotiates, and his strategy is that of unity and appeasement.

I don't feel comfortable with firing him while not knowing his replacement.

[Taverner]

157. I would love to see Eric Schneiderman become AG

He would do something about Wall Street