In this New York Times article, poor Eric Holder whines about how mean people are to him. At one point, he says it’s because he’s…you know….well, you know. I mean. You KNOW, right?
“This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”
Woot! Oh no, you dinna! Race card played, he pirouettes away…
Mr. Holder, however, attributed most of the hostility to underlying ideological differences. “I think that people, despite my law enforcement background, view me as taking these consistently progressive stands, and I think that, philosophically, there is a desire to get at that person,” he said. “But I think the stands I have taken are totally consistent with a person who is looking at things realistically, factually.”
How realistic and factual is Mr. Holder? When it comes to assessing how he’s being treated, not very. At one point he says…
Years ago, Mr. Holder added, the Justice Department was largely exempt from being used as political fodder. But he said that ever since the Clinton administration, a culture of “hyper-partisanship, questioning people’s motives and bald political attacks” has grown up around it, leaving that tradition “in tatters.”
Is it factual or realistic to say that the DOJ used to be off the table for attacks, pre-Clinton? As though there was no political criticism of Ed Meese, who served in the pre-Clinton Reagan administration? This article talks about Meese plus Attorney Generals from the Carter and Nixon administrations. I wonder – was Bobby Kennedy off limits? How about the Teapot Dome scandal? Here’s a list of Attorney Generals, Mr. Holder…do some Googling.
When it comes to criticism, Eric isn’t a special flower. It’s patently, provably false. And whiny.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments