Civility Politics

Let us now praise the ever-hopeful and idealistic Michelle Obama.

While campaigning for a Virginia state House candidate, former Attorney General Eric Holder said

They have used the power that they have gotten for all the wrong things. They want to keep themselves in power. They want to cater to the special interests. It is time for us as Democrats to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are.

Michelle always says- Michelle Obama, I love her, you know she and my wife, like really tight, which really scares me and Barack but Michelle says "when they go low, we go high." No, no.

When they go low, we kick them. That's what, that's what this new Democratic Party is about. We're proud of hell to be Democrats. We're willing to fight for the ideals of the Democratic Party. We;re proud our our history, we're proud of our present and we're proud of the future that we can create for this country and we're not in this just to make a statement. We're in this to win, alright?

To her credit, Michelle Obama responded. To her discredit, she was wrong when she stated

Fear is not — it's not a proper motivator. Hope wins out. And if you think about how you want your kids to be raised, how you want them to think about life & their opportunities, do you want them afraid of their neighbors?”

Hope worked for Senator Obama in the fall of 2008. By the fall of 2012, the bloom was off the rose, Obama's margin over the GOP opponent declined, and only Chief Justice John Roberts' vote to uphold the the President's Affordable Care Act saved the nation from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. In July of 2016, 62%-70% of Americans were "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time."

Still, President Obama- as is his style- went high and, running for a third Obama term, Hillary Clinton did, also, Unfortunately, her (ultimately winning) opponent did not:

“One of the candidates, as you recall, was predicting that the election was going to be ‘rigged’ in some way,” said Jeh Johnson, the former secretary, referring to President Trump’s unsubstantiated accusation before Election Day. “We were concerned that by making the statement we might, in and of itself, be challenging the integrity of the election process itself.”

Mr. Johnson’s testimony, before the House Intelligence Committee, provided a fresh insight into how the Obama administration tried to balance politically explosive information with the public’s need to know.

Ian Bremmer recalls

The U.S. government under Obama knew what the Russians were doing. Obama was warned repeatedly by Eastern European governments that Russia was meddling in their own elections. And while Latvian elections don’t exactly rank high on the list of an American president’s priorities, the White House could have guessed what the Russians were gearing up to do — and should have sent them a forceful message to knock it off. Obama apparently issued a direct warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin when they met in person in September 2016, but it came too late and had little effect.

So give Michelle Obama some credit. It's not all of us who can convince themselves that the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny exist, and that the American people are yearning for happy talk from politicians.  With any luck, however, she will convince few other Democrats and Eric Holder's clear notion of reality will prevail.

Share |

Honesty Is His Last Policy

According to Wikipedia, "A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

No one is more skilled at employing this tactic than than the king of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, who on "Fox News Sunday" stated to host Chris Wallace

.. there's no acknowledgment of any progress, Chris. If you listen to these people, the president, the mayor of New York, you would think it's 200 years ago. You would think we haven't even started working on these problems, and that's not true.

And I think for the president to promote this division as he just did in that clip that you said...

Not to be outdone by himself, the following day he claimed New York City mayor Bill DeBlasio

and Obama are running around saying that nothing's been done. The protestors, "There hasn't been any progress."  That's absurd.  But the country is roiling, all of these protests, the country dividing. There are people today who think race relations -- polling data is out -- race relations in this country are worse than they've ever been.  See, that can't possibly be true.  We've come a long way and nobody is out saying this. Nobody's trying to tamp this down. 

Obama may think, "Well, if I try to tamp it down I'm being insensitive to the protesters." This isn't good for anybody except the few who are profiting from it.  And I mean profiting from it in two ways:  power and money.  And of course those are two powers that are hard to contend with, but nevertheless the policy that is being engaged in here is destroying, literally destroying the fabric of our country. 

The New York mayor has movingly emphasized "black lives matter" and the need "to re-train police forces in how to work with communities differently."  The flavor of DeBlasio's remarks has been to sympathize and empathize with the protesters of violence against black men. However, Limbaugh clearly has distorted (if not lied about) the remarks in order to pretend the mayor has claimed "there hasn't been any progress."

Limbaugh's smear of Obama is identical ("if you listen to these people, the president, the mayor of New York"), which is not surprising for a guy who speaks of "these people."   They're all alike, in his mind.  But while Rush's criticism of DeBlasio, discouraged by how young black men such as his son still face hurdles other individuals do not, is inaccurate, his attack upon Obama demonstrates clearly how much of a cretin Limbaugh is.

Here (as quoted by Media Matters) on November 23 on George Stephanopoulos' "This Week" is the man who is charged with arguing "there hasn't been any progress":

Well, you know, we go in sort of ebbs and flows. I think that my own experience tells me that race relations continue to improve. If you think about just in our lifetimes -- we're about the same age - where we've traveled, there's no way to say that somehow race relations are worse now than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or 50 years ago. Part of what happens is that they get a lot more attention today -- occasionally problems that used to be pretty common 20, 30 years ago weren't videotaped.

On December 7- the day before Rush assured us Obama "is running around saying that nothing's been done"- Yahoo News reported that the President two days earlier had told BET News

This is something that's deeply rooted in our society, it's deeply rooted in our history. But the two things that are going to allow us to solve it: No. 1 is the understanding that we have made progress. And so it's important to recognize -- as painful as these incidents are -- we can't equate what's happening now to what was happening 50 years ago.

 If you talk to your parents, grandparents, uncles, they'll tell you that things are better -- not good, in some cases, but better.  And the reason it's important for us to understand progress has been made is that then gives us hope that we can make even more progress.

But if there is one individual- and there is one- whom the right smears more consistently, it's Eric Holder, and on Fox News Sunday, Limbaugh contended

Look, Eric Holder is the one who uses the word or the phrase "occupying force" to describe the New York PD. That's the way this regime talks about Israel. I'm not putting these words in their mouth. I'm not the one who's saying them. But I do think we have to honestly interpret and analyze and honestly hear what they are saying.

Except that Eric Holder never used the phrase "occupying force" to describe the NYPD. Instead, on December 1 in Birmingham's Ebeneezer Baptist Church the Attorney General had stated (video below)








The problems we must confront are not only in Ferguson. The issues raised in Missouri are not unique in that state or to that small city. We are dealing with concerns that are truly national is scope and have threatened the entire nation. Broadly speaking without mutual understanding between citizens whose rights must be respected and law enforcement officers who make tremendous often unheralded sacrifices every day to preserve public safety. Without that kind of interaction without that kind of trust there can be no meaningful progress. Our police officers cannot be, and cannot be seen as an occupying force disconnected from their communities that they serve.

Our police offices cannot be, and cannot be seen as, an occupying force disconnected from their communities that they serve.  When Rush Limbaugh claims Holder described New York police as an "occupying force," he is putting words in his mouth.  Presumably, he realizes that if he says he's not putting words in someone's mouth, his audience will assume he's not.  Limbaugh's game is to persuade his followers that because Barack Obama and Eric Holder disagree with them, he must be dividing the nation.  And he'll make up whatever he needs in order to convince them.

Yesterday, I argued that Rush Limbaugh was right about something, that shutting down the government didn't hurt the GOP and doing it again would not do so.  But he still is a disreputable snake-in-the-grass.  All is right with the world.





Share |

Occupying Ferguson

You can see this one coming from a mile away.  The Justice Department has promptly jumped launched an investigation into the police riot in Ferguson, Missouri (first photo below from Reuters/Mario Anzuoni, the following two from AP/Jeff Roberson). Police Chief Thomas

Jackson held a press conference on Wednesday, curiously at the same time as a peace march nearby. He said the Justice Department and local NAACP are coordinating a meeting between Ferguson police authorities and the Brown family.

“Race relations is a top priority right now,” Jackson said. He later said he was open to guidance on how to improve tensions within the Ferguson community: “Tell me what to do and I’ll do it”...

Brown’s shooting at the hands of a yet-to-be named officer, identified as a white man by a witness to the shooting who spoke with msnbc, unearthed decades-old tensions between the Ferguson community and the police department, which is 93% white.

Black residents say officers routinely harass them and that and old-boys network has kept the department from hiring more officers of color.

Jackson said that he has worked to improve the diversity of the department and that he has raised the base level of pay for officers, worked to improve equipment and create a welcoming culture to entice black applicants.

He said when he first took the job here after 31 years with the county police, about 10% of department staff were minorities or women. That number has slipped in recent years.

“Whatever we’re doing is not enough. We’re trying but obviously it’s not good enough,” Jackson said on Tuesday night, following a town hall style meeting at a local church, where he joined Gov. Jay Nixon, Ferguson mayor James Knowles and various community leaders in pleading for peace.

That's a good start which, likely will lead to improved race relations, hence community relations, in Ferguson, although it appears most of the mischief has emanated from St. Louis County police rather than from local law enforcement.But it isn't enough, and isn't the primary problem, as ex-San Jose police chief Joseph McNamara understood as early as November, 2006, when he wrote (in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal no longer available without a subscription but excerpted here by Digby)

Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed. An emphasis on "officer safety" and paramilitary training pervades today's policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn't shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed. Police in large cities formerly carried revolvers holding six .38-caliber rounds. Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic pistols with 16 high-caliber rounds, shotguns and military assault rifles, weapons once relegated to SWAT teams facing extraordinary circumstances. Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.

Yes, police work is dangerous, and the police see a lot of violence. On the other hand, 51 officers were slain in the line of duty last year, out of some 700,000 to 800,000 American cops. That is far fewer than the police fatalities occurring when I patrolled New York's highest crime precincts, when the total number of cops in the country was half that of today. Each of these police deaths and numerous other police injuries is a tragedy and we owe support to those who protect us. On the other hand, this isn't Iraq. The need to give our officers what they require to protect themselves and us has to be balanced against the fact that the fundamental duty of the police is to protect human life and that law officers are only justified in taking a life as a last resort.

Updated in response to the death by firearm of 18-year-old Michael Brown and ensuing protests in Ferguson, Paul Szoldra explains

While serving as a U.S. Marine on patrol in Afghanistan, we wore desert camouflage to blend in with our surroundings, carried rifles to shoot back when under enemy attack, and drove around in armored vehicles to ward off roadside bombs.

We looked intimidating, but all of our vehicles and equipment had a clear purpose for combat against enemy forces. So why is this same gear being used on our city streets?...

Putting aside what started the protests for a moment, it's worth discussing the police response to the outrage. In photos taken Monday, we are shown a heavily armed SWAT team.

They have short-barreled 5.56-mm rifles based on the military M4 carbine, with scopes that can accurately hit a target out to 500 meters. On their side they carry pistols. On their front, over their body armor, they carry at least four to six extra magazines, loaded with 30 rounds each.

Their uniform would be mistaken for a soldier's if it weren't for their "Police" patches. They wear green tops, and pants fashioned after the U.S. Marine Corps MARPAT camouflage pattern. And they stand in front of a massive uparmored truck called a Bearcat, similar in look to a mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle, or as the troops who rode in them call it, the MRAP.

When did this become OK? When did "protect and serve" turn into "us versus them"?

"Why do these cops need MARPAT camo pants again," I asked on Twitter this morning. One of the most interesting responses came from a follower who says he served in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division: "We rolled lighter than that in an actual war zone."

Let's be clear: This is not a war zone — even if the FAA banned flights under 3,000 feet. This is a city outside of St. Louis where people on both sides are angry. Protesters have looted and torched a gas station, and shots were fired at police, according to The Washington Post.

The scene is tense, but the presence of what looks like a military force doesn't seem to be helping.

"Bring it. You fucking animals, bring it," one police officer was caught on video telling protesters. In Ferguson and beyond, it seems that some police officers have shed the blue uniform and have put on the uniform and gear of the military, bringing the attitude along with it.

In Afghanistan, we patrolled in big, armored trucks. We wore uniforms that conveyed the message, "We are a military force, and we are in control right now." Many Afghans saw us as occupiers.

And now we see some of our police officers in this same way. "The militarization of law enforcement is counter-productive to domestic policing and needs to stop," tweeted Andrew Exum, a former Army infantry officer.

If there's one thing I learned in Afghanistan, it's this: You can't win a person's heart and mind when you are pointing a rifle at his or her chest.

There will be righteous outrage in the political class over an overwhelmingly white police force applying excessive force against a black community and (as it appears now) an unnecessary killing of a young black man by one of those white officers. But notwithstanding criticism from Senators McCaskill (D-MO) and Paul (R-KY) and Attorney General Holder, it will be more difficult to alter significantly the Pentagon program  in which local law enforcement agencies have used the drug war as an excuse to be armed and outfitted to the teeth.  

The policy must be changed; for If they buy it, they eventually will use it, especially as the sunk cost fallacy sets in.  And that will happen across the country, and not only in black communities.

Share |

The Truth Shall Set You Apart

Truth-telling is an unusual commodity in American politics, whether on the local, state, or national level.  So perhaps it's no surprise when we fail to get it from a President or from either of the two individuals of his own party most likely to succeed him.  (The other Party is beyond hope.)

The latest to promote the "they all do it theme" is Vice-President Joe Biden, who on July 11 told (video of a news report, below; the speech itself, here) the annual summer meeting of the National Governors Association

I probably shouldn't say this but then again I'm Joe Biden.... The way things have gotten today- and I'm not singling out any party or group of people, just the politics, the culture- it is, uh, it's become too personal., too corrosive.... You folks, the Democratic/Republican governors are the best hope we have where for bringing back an atmosphere we can disagree without being disagreeable...where we can have significant ideological differences but at the end of the day it's all about finding a solution.











Bipartisanship may be the norm at NGA gatherings but is rejected by GOP governors as well as their members of the House and Senate.  Of the 21 states which have rejected free money- AKA medicaid expansion- wherein the federal government would pay 100% of the cost for three years and 90% thereafter to increase health coverage of poor people, 18 have Repub governors.  The other three- Missouri, Montana, and Virginia- have state legislatures controlled by the GOP (map, below, from The Advisory Board Company).

Biden is only following the lead of President Obama and former Senator Clinton, both of whom have expressed similar bipartisan sentiments, and in venues in which it is completely optional.  Fortunately, a member of the Obama Administration has chosen to be forthright and, not surprisingly, he's someone not running for anything.  Attorney General Eric Holder. Criticizing House Speaker Boehner's move to sue the President and Sarah Palin's call for impeachment of Obama, stated on ABC's "This Week"

For whatever reason, [some] Republicans decided early on that this was a president they were just simply not going to cooperate with.  And over the past five-and-a-half years, we have seen demonstrations of that, where the president has reached out his hand, offered compromises that have simply not been met [in the way] they have been in the past by a Republican Party willing to do the appropriate things.

As Charles Pierce has written, "We allow ourselves only two major political parties. One of them is completely out of its fcking mind. This is a national problem." It may no longer matter whether its leaders are sincere or insincere, catering to tea party conservatives, playing a good cop, bad cop routine, or merely having fun at the nation's expense.



Share |

Fevered Complaints

Go ahead- just try.  Try to satisfy the right wing.

On Sunday afternoon, Barack Obama issued the following statement:

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

Millions of Americans attributed George Zimmerman's actions to racial profiling and/or racism and demonstrations broke out in major cities throughout the United States.  Many people contended that the nation's entire criminal justice system hinged on race and that animus toward blacksstill saturates the country and its white citizens.  And our first black President merely asks that we honor a deceased teenager with compassion, understanding, and attention to reducing deaths by firearm.

And the right wing couldn't take it. A Daily Caller blogger sarcastically responds "Now we’re getting down to it. Gun control. A Hispanic guy shot a black guy who was beating his head against the sidewalk, so let’s grab up all the guns. Let’s keep people from being able to defend their own lives."  Breitbart implies that the speech was characterized by a "push for gun control laws.  "One at scaredmonkeys.com writes rhetorically "So much for respecting the juries verdict. So let’s get this correct, Barack Obama wants to honor Trayvon Martin with gun control?"

Uh, no, he doesn't.  At least as far as we know, he doesn't want us to do any more than to "ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis." But If conservatives believe that the only way to cut down on "the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives" is through gun control, so be it.  With few of them ever having acknowledged the role of poverty, joblessness, food inadequacy, discrimination, or environmental factors, a recognition of the importance of national gun control measures is a major step forward. (Obviously, they believe no such thing or perhaps would never admit to recognizing the value of sensible firearm regulation.)

The day after the President's statement, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke (transcript here) at the annual convention of Delta Sigma Theta, a black sorority, where he stated

Of course, as this celebration unfolds, we are also mindful of the pain felt by our nation surrounding the tragic, unnecessary shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida last year – and the state trial that reached its conclusion over the weekend.  As parents, as engaged citizens, and as leaders who stand vigilant against violence in communities across the country, the Deltas are deeply, and rightly, concerned about this case.  The Justice Department shares your concern – I share your concern – and, as we first acknowledged last spring, we have opened an investigation into the matter.

Independent of the legal determination that will be made, I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally-charged issues that this case has raised.  We must not – as we have too often in the past – let this opportunity pass.   I hope that we will approach this necessarily difficult dialogue with the same dignity that those who have lost the most, Trayvon’s parents, have demonstrated throughout the last year – and especially over the past few days.  They suffered a pain that no parent should have to endure – and one that I, as a father, cannot begin to conceive.  Even as we embrace their example and hold them in our prayers, we must not forego this opportunity to better understand one another and to make better this nation we cherish.

Moreover, I want to assure you that the Department will continue to act in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law.  We are committed to standing with the people of Sanford, with the individuals and families affected by this incident, and with our state and local partners in order to alleviate tensions, address community concerns, and promote healing.  We are determined to meet division and confusion with understanding and compassion – and also with truth.  We are resolved, as you are, to combat violence involving or directed at young people, to prevent future tragedies and to deal with the underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes that serve as the basis for these too common incidents.  And we will never stop working to ensure that – in every case, in every circumstance, and in every community – justice must be done.

Early the following morning, the editors of National Review Online posted a commentary arguing the Attorney General and President Obama

want to fuel the narrative of ever-simmering American racism. Holder made that clear in a speech on Monday at Howard University’s Delta Sigma Theta sorority, claiming — in a less overtly offensive tone than in his 2009 “nation of cowards” speech — that the shooting of Martin presented an opportunity “to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised.”

There is nothing less honest than exploiting the Martin family’s tragedy, injecting racism where it has no place, and leaving Zimmerman to twist in the legal wind under the guise of vindicating “civil rights.” Nonetheless, the administration wants its narrative, so it will need to keep its base’s passions inflamed.

No, no, they really did.   The Attorney General says "I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally-charged issues that this case has raised."  And one of the most prominent- at one time the most prominent- voices of American conservatism charges Holder with "injecting racism where it has no place."

Here is where the progressive is to say "of course racism played a major role in the failure of the criminal justice system to hold Zimmerman responsible for brazenly, without cause and with malice, shooting to death Trayvon Martin."  But hold on:  Eric Holder did not go even that far.  He did refer to "underlying attitudes, mistaken beliefs and stereotypes" but, oddly, the NRO missed that.  Instead the editors noted the A.G. urged people "to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised" and weirdly termed it an effort "to keep its base's passions inflamed."

The passions of the base are inflamed by charges of "racism" or "racial profiling," as even Rush Limbaugh seems to understand when he remarks "The left has begun to talk about 'profiling' here, not racism."  The base is not inflamed by an exhortation to discussion, such as made by Holder.

The response of the criminal justice system in Florida to the killing of Trayvon Martin was not all about race, and probably not primarily about race.  But it was somewhat about race.  The elephant in the room may be ugly and may even smell, but it is there nonetheless and won't go away when we pretend it's not there.



Share |

Holder In The Crosshairs

Let's put it into context or, as some would say, "consider the source."

Bernie Sanders might have said of Attorney General Eric Holder

Whenever you feel that you have lost your effectiveness or may be losing your effectiveness to the detriment of the job that you do, you have to evaluate that and make a decision. And I think we're at the time now where decisions have to be made.

We would be disappointed in the Vermont Senator who, as an Independent, may be the most genuine Democrat in the upper chamber.  But it was West Virginia Democrat (not the only Democrat there, but close), conservative Joe Manchin, who is expressing concern about the Attorney General, most recently  caught up in revelations about the NSA collecting phone records and Internet data.  Manchin adds
  
I’m wanting to do everything I can to fight the war on terror.  There will not be another day in my life, my children or grandchildren’s life they won’t have to be vigilant against terrorists wanting to do us harm. But do you give up everything as an American?

There are other reasons to wish Holder would take a hike or shuffle off to Buffalo, beginning with the failure of the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against any of the banksters who came close to bringing down the world economy.   On March 6, the AG testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee

I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.   I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.

That brought a rebuke from both a de facto and de jure Democratic Senator, Elizabeth Warren, who noted "Attorney General Holder’s testimony that the biggest banks are too-big-to-jail shows once again that it is past time to end too-big-to-fail."   Following this week's NSA revelation(s), Lauren Brown Jarvis, appearing on Current TV's The Young Turks, remarked "it doesn't matter if he stays or he goes."  Host, attorney, and graduate of the best high school in the United States, Cenk Uygur- noting the GOP's interest in bringing down the President- concurred, stating "well, I don't want Obama to go, but it is Obama, isn't it?"  Holder is, Uygur has suggested, this Administration's Colin Powell, who was perhaps the least supportive in Bush's circle of the Iraq War, but was sent out to make the case for a bad policy.

As Uygur recognizes, Eric Holder is following the path laid out for him by his boss and there is no indication of any space between the President and his Attorney General.   There is little chance that the acquisition of phone and Internet records will do much if any political harm to Barack Obama, with most professional Democrats, protective of the President whom Republicans want to destroy, loathe to question their party leader.  Republicans, for their part, have been aiming to destroy this presidency since it began, but finally have found an Administration program, spying on the American people, they can support.

Eric Holder may come or go, but Barack Obama will still be with us, and so will the policies which dramatically differ from what he supported as a candidate.




Share |

With Gender, Missing The Point


Female Democratic U.S. Representatives recognize that attacks upon Susan Rice over the Benghazi assault have been overwrought and unfair and

Republican senators’ angry criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice over her initial account of the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Libya smacks of sexism and racism, a dozen female members of the House said Friday.

In unusually personal terms, the Democratic women lashed out at Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham who earlier this week called Rice unqualified and untrustworthy and promised to scuttle her nomination if President Barack Obama nominates her to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“All of the things they have disliked about things that have gone on in the administration, they have never called a male unqualified, not bright, not trustworthy,” said Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the next chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. “There is a clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments being made by unfortunately Sen. McCain and others.”

Rice's G.O.P. critics have not complained that she is hysterical, angry, manly, or conniving and have avoided stereotypes of women.  Her supporters appear to have forgotten

The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official.

The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder. This Democratic support came despite a round of behind-the-scenes lobbying by senior White House and Justice officials - as well as pressure from party leaders - to support Holder...

Since the Justice Department would have to seek an indictment of Holder - a department he oversees as attorney general - no criminal charges will be brought against him. Previous administrations, including the Bush administration in 2008, refused to seek criminal charges against White House officials when a Democratic-run House passed a criminal contempt resolution over the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Boehner’s office, though, is expected to submit a criminal referral to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald Machen, in the next few days, according to a Republican official.

Holder, as with Rice, is black, and racial animus may play a role in Repub criticism of both officials.   But Holder is a man and, properly, there was no suggestion when he was under attack by Republicans that males were being targeted- and they were trying to remove an individual from office, not merely (as in Rice's case), prevent a promotion.

Clearly, the primary motive of the U.N. ambassador's critics is that she serves a Democratic president.    But a disaster has taken place and responsibility should be determined.   Evidently, that is not going to be the Republican whose first name is "General," although

Petraeus testified that the CIA draft written in response to the raid referred to militant groups Ansar al-Shariah and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, but that those names were replaced with the word extremist in the final draft, according to a congressional staffer. The staffer said Petraeus testified that, to get the CIA talking points out quickly, he allowed other agencies to alter the draft as they saw fit, without asking for final review.

The congressional officials were not authorized to discuss the hearing publicly and described Petraeus' testimony to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.) said Petraeus explained that the CIA's draft points were sent to other intelligence agencies and to some federal agencies for review. Udall said Petraeus told them the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including Petraeus, and everyone signed off on it.

"The assessment that was publicly shared in unclassified talking points went through a process of editing," Udall said. "The extremist description was put in because, in an unclassified document, you want to be careful who you identify as being involved."

Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) said it remained unclear how the final talking points developed. The edited version was used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack when the White House sent her out for a series of television interviews. Republicans have criticized Rice for saying it appeared that the attack was sparked by a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

According to published reports, everyone- including the esteemed David Petraeus- signed the document whose contents were to be used by an administration representative when responding to the media.   Those comments substituted "extremist" for mention of any terrorist groups. 

King added "The fact is, the reference to al-Qaeda was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community.   We need to find out who did it and why."  

They certainly do.  Presumably, it was not the C.I.A. director who took out the reference, especially because his agency apparently suspected the involvement.   But he agreed with the others that the American public ought to be deceived, a decision which will be disregarded by Democratic, and eagerly so by Republican, members of Congress.

So too, though, ought Ms. Rice's defenders avoid excessive deference to the awesome power represented (and until his resignation, held) by The Man Called Petraeus.    Once they take a break from charging sexism, perhaps Susan Rice's defenders might notice what others refuse to, that the man who failed in Iraq and failed in Afghanistan went on to fail at the Central Intelligence Agency.


Share |

GOP Hokum


On Wednesday, that notoriously left-wing rag and keystone of the liberal media, Fortune magazine, ran an article by Katherine Eban about the ATF's Fast and Furious scandal.     Following a six-month investigation in which she reviewed "2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case,"  Eban observed 

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

Critics of the witchhunt investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of Eric Holder, which has led to House approval of a contempt citation against the Attorney General, might recognize the presence of 853 federally licensed firearms dealers in the Phoenix area, which is replete with billboards advertising volume discounts for multiple purchases.    They might be aware that under Arizona law, there is no waiting period and no permit required, and that the purchaser merely must be at least 18 years of age and submit to a background check.    Further, he or she may resell the weapons and

It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party,  sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize.

None of the ATF agents doubted that the Fast and Furious guns were being purchased to commit crimes in Mexico. But that was nearly impossible to prove to prosecutors' satisfaction. And agents could not seize guns or arrest suspects after being directed not to do so by a prosecutor. (Agents can be sued if they seize a weapon against prosecutors' advice. In this case, the agents had a particularly strong obligation to follow the prosecutors' direction given that Fast and Furious had received a special designation under the Justice Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. That designation meant more resources for the case, but it also provided that prosecutors take the lead role.)

Some leading Republicans have alleged that the gun-walking operation (itself a misleading description) allegedly conducted by Phoenix Group VII was hatched by the Administration to create an argument for federal gun control.      The NRA announced that it would put the Holder contempt vote on its annual scorecard, a move which evidently persuaded quite a few U.S. Representatives, recipients of NRA campaign money, to vote against the Attorney General.

Even a National Review contributor, however, recognizes "there is no direct evidence that anyone involved in the creation of Fast and Furious intended to increase gun crime in Mexico (even though) some Fast and Furious critics have (been) concocting a conspiracy theory: specifically that the Obama administration allowed the guns to go to Mexico deliberately in order to increase gun crime there so it could cite that crime as a reason for more gun control here."    He cited chairman Issa as fueling the theory.

In a May 3, 2012 memo updating committee members on the status of the investigation, chairman Issa wrote

The lead federal prosecutor for Fast and Furious was Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who played an integral role in the day-to-day, tactical management of the case.

Many ATF agents working on Operation Fast and Furious came to believe that some of the most basic law enforcement techniques used to interdict weapons required the explicit approval of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and specifically from Hurley.  On numerous occasions, Hurley and other federal prosecutors withheld this approval, to the mounting frustration of ATF agents.

Because the transfer of firearms in Arizona is legal and it is nearly impossible to bring a case against a straw purchaser, Hurley had suggested a wiretapping operation.     When ATF was notified that a known metamphetamine user had bought three WASR-10 rifles, a wiretap was requested to track the suspicious straw purchase.   But

in Phoenix, days turned into weeks, and Group VII's wiretap application languished with prosecutors in Arizona and Washington, D.C.

No one has yet explained this delay. Voth (head of Phoenix Group VII)  thinks prosecutor Hurley's inexperience in wiretapping cases may have slowed the process. Several other agents speculate that Arizona's gun culture may have led to indifference. Hurley is an avid gun enthusiast, according to two law-enforcement sources who worked with him. One of those sources says he saw Hurley behind the counter at a gun show, helping a friend who is a weapons dealer.

Two of the three weapons were recovered in December, 2010 at the scene of the murder of border agent Brian Terry.     Eleven months earlier, Voth's group could have closed the operation if it had arrested the 20 suspects who apparently had purchased 650 firearms.   But

This was not the view of federal prosecutors. In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime." (Arizona federal prosecutors referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, which declined to make officials available. Hurley noted in an e-mail, "I am not able to comment on what I understand to be an ongoing investigation/prosecution. I am precluded by federal regulation, DOJ policy, the rules of professional conduct, and court order from talking with you about this matter." Cunningham's attorney also declined to comment.)

It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party,  sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize.

Neither Emory Holder, nor the President, Assistant Attorney General (Criminal Division) Lanny Breuer, or the Attorney General in an Administration which has been loathe to expend any political capital to advocate gun control is responsible for the death of a border agent in January, 2010.      Nor is the wealthiest member of Congress, Darrell Issa, responsible for anything beyond hatching a conspiracy theory in order to sow fear and, unable to destroy a President, bring down an Attorney General.   However, the winner in all of this is the California congressman, who appears to have an extensive criminal arrest record and is a faithful supporter of the pro-crime National Rifle Association.    Eban concludes

But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF's three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.

Eric Holder hasn't resigned, as chairman Issa would like.   But the other part of his agenda seems to have been accomplished.




Share |

Ignorance Is Bliss To Liz

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on May 6, Attorney General Eric Holder responded to GOP complaints that the FBI had given recent terrorist suspects Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (airplane on Christmas Day) and Faisal Shahzad (Times Square) the Miranda warning before questioning. Holder stated that the pre-warning questioning of Shahzad was far more lengthy than that of Abdulmutallab and added

“We made extensive use of the public safety exception before the decision was made to give them their Miranda warnings,” he said, adding that “a very substantial amount of information” was obtained through the un-Mirandized questioning.

Once he was given the Miranda warning, Deputy Director of the FBI John S. Pistole pointed out, he "continued to cooperate and provide valuable information."

Although a "federal law enforcement official" suggested to Talking Points Memo there has been no change in policy from that of the Bush Administration, TPM reports

The Obama Administration is applying an old exception to the Miranda rule in a new way in order to interrogate terrorism suspects before reading them their rights, several experts tell TPMmuckraker, finding what one law professor calls a "middle ground" between those who want suspects put through the criminal justice system and those who believe they should be classified as "enemy combatants."

Federal agents questioned both Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of planting a makeshift bomb in Times Square, and Umar Abdulmutallab, the failed Christmas Day bomber, under the so-called public safety exception to the Miranda rule for substantial periods before informing the men of their right to remain silent, and to an attorney.

Information gleaned during questioning under the public safety exception -- in which police "ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety," according to the 1984 Supreme Court case that recognized the exception -- is admissible at trial.

"It looks like to me they're trying to find this middle ground between saying the Constitution applies with full force and the Constitution doesn't apply," says Sam Kamin, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Sturm College of Law in Denver who has written about terrorism interrogations. "It seems to be a deliberate strategy."

The Obama Administration either continues the Bush Administration policy or seeks a creative way to obtain more information from terrorist suspects. The suspect in the most recent apparent act of terrorism gives up significant information both before and after being warned of his right to remain silent. Yet, Liz Cheney, one of the daughters of former President Vice-President Dick Cheney goes on Fox News Sunday yesterday and claims (video below, courtesy of Crooks and Liars)

When the administration captures a terrorist and their first instinct is to inform him that he’s got the right to remain silent, that is exactly the wrong way to win this war. When we capture a terrorist, our first instinct has got to be: How do we understand the networks to which this terrorist is connected? How do we understand where he was trained? How do we understand who the leadership is? The administration is approaching this, and again this morning you had John Brennan saying, “Well, this was one-off because he drove the truck alone.” That doesn’t even make sense, it’s inexplicable. But if you aren’t willing to acknowledge that you’re facing a committed network of terrorists as your enemies, and that it’s radical jihadist Islam, then your response to that is gonna be, by definition, insufficient time and time again.

When the administration captures a terrorist and their first instinct is to inform him that he’s got the right to remain silent. Does Liz Cheney have any clue as to what is going on? Does she care?

And: does it really matter to anyone who is predisposed to believe that Barack Obama and Eric Holder are determined to undermine the security of the nation and leave it vulnerable to attack?

Share|

Loyalty Questioned

It's just another episode in Republican politics.

It seems there currently are, by Justice Department count, nine attorneys in that Department who as defense counsel represented Guantanamo Bay detainees while George W. Bush was president. Ben Smith of Politico reports that Senator Chuck Grassley (R.- Iowa) has demanded to know their names, but that Attorney General Holder had chosen to release the names of only those two whose names previously had been revealed.

So Liz Cheney's euphemistically-named group Keep America Safe released a video ad (below), in which we hear

Eric Holder will only name two. Why the secrecy behind the other seven? Whose values do they share? Tell Eric Holder Americans have a right to know the identity of the Al Qaeda Seven.

Think Progress notes today

in an interview today on the Washington Times’ “America’s Morning News” radio show, Cheney denied that the ad questioned “anybody’s loyalty”:

HOLMES: Liz, good morning. So you released a fairly provocative ad, I have to say. And you ask the question “whose values” [does] Eric Holder share? In your view, whose values does he share?

CHENEY: Well, what the ad does — and actually it doesn’t question anybody’s loyalty. What the ad does is it says that there are nine lawyers in the Justice Department who used to represent al Qaeda terrorists and the Attorney General will only tell us who two of them are and we want the American people to have the right to know who the others are.

The merits- and there are little if any (as indicated here and especially here)- aside, is Cheney's statement is not consistent with objective reality. The ad questions the "values" of lawyers who have defended terrorist suspects, and she says "it doesn't question anybody's loyalty." What values might she be talking about? Would this be: the right-to-life? sexual preference? peace? Or could it be patriotism- someone's loyalty?

This raises an uninteresting question: is Liz Cheney a) deliberately telling a fib; b) so contemptuous of her audience that she thinks it will believe that she can question someone's patriotism without questioning his/her loyalty?;
c) cowardly? Or could it be all three?

Disturbingly, the identity of each of the lawyers has been revealed, thus handing the modern-day McCarthyite organization something of a victory. GOP TV named the individuals, whom the Justice Department has confirmed.

For those of you who may have been wondering (too young at the time, or had forgotten) why leading liberal Senate Democrats eyeing the presidency voted for George W. Bush's Iraq war resolution, forget no more. Though it turned out to be politically disastrous for them, they were understandably afraid of being labeled disloyal or even treasonous. The current escapade may not be over, but it has at least reminded us of one of the enduring tactics of the modern day Republican Party: if possible to question an opponent's patriotism, do not hesitate.

Prompt Response

The Obama Administration has reacted to the murder of Dr. George Tiller, head of one of only three clinics in the U.S.A. to provide late-term abortions. The root.com reported Sunday evening that President Obama issued this statement:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

And on Monday we learned:

Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered increased security for some abortion clinics and doctors in the wake of the slaying of Dr. George Tiller.

Jeff Carter, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, confirmed the decision “to increase security for a number of individuals and facilities” following Tiller’s slaying at a church service Sunday in Wichita, Kan.

The clinic built by Dr. Tiller is nearly a fortress- a moat, metal detectors, no windows, and other safeguards- and Tiller himself employed private security. But he did not expect a hit to take place at church, perhaps especially because so much pro-life enthusiasm emanates from devout elements of the Christian community. No doubt Tiller believed, as probably do most abortion providers, that violence and sabotage are most likely at the clinics, and that otherwise they and their staff are most vulnerable traveling to and from work.

That would be a legitimate impulse, but hopefully the increased security provided by the federal government will consider every contingency. And it is not unreasonable to suggest that intimidation, if not violence, will continue and even escalate. For, as Matthew Yglesias points out

direct action terrorist violence against abortion providers has, I think, proven to be a fairly successful tactic. Every time you murder a doctor, you create a disincentive for other medical professionals to provide these services. What’s more, you create a need for additional security at facilities around the country. In addition, the anti-abortion protestors who frequently gather near clinics are made to seem much more intimidating by the fact that the occurrence of these sorts of acts of violence.

In general, I think people tend to overestimate the efficacy of violence as a political tactic. But in this particular case, I think people tend to understate it.

And so, at least for now, the Obama Administration for its response deserves a thumbs-up.

Of Holder And Obama

Patrick J. Buchanan, practically ubiquitous on MSNBC, appeared on Hardball Thursday in debate with Michael Eric Dyson about Attorney General Eric Holder's remarks Wednesday to Justice Department employees on to mark African American History Month.

Not surprisingly, but accurately nonetheless, the passionately culturally conservative Buchanan argued that referring to Americans as "essentially a nation of cowards" is not conducive to starting a dialogue about race.

Fair enough, but also fair enough to note that Holder's remark as applied to the reticence of Americans to discuss the issue with people of another race is largely valid. The Attorney General deserves credit also for observing "there can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited." Unfortunately, a moment later Holder would refer to officials, "black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced- a somewhat cryptic reference to those who would promote "divisive," AKA conservative, solutions.

But then Holder ventured into the arena of political incorrectness, ripping the security net America has erected by establishment of "black history" apart from American history. Without resort to awkward metaphor, he explains it better:

For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. Until that time, Black History Month must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called "real" American history.

Still, the main thrust of Holder's remarks (and especially as captured by the mainstream media) is the need for honest communication among Americans of all races about race. And it's not going to happen.

For many years, numerous individuals on the left, such as former New Jersey Senator and presidential aspirant Bill Bradley, have argued for the need for racial dialogue in this country. It has not happened, and will not happen until the right is convinced the left is sincere and open to all opinions on the subject- and maybe not even then. Ironically- but predictably- the election of the nation's first black )or African-American, or biracial) President will not facilitate such a discussion, and may even inhibit it. In his generally wrongheaded monologue today regarding Holder's remarks, Rush Limbaugh reminded his audience that

A number of you people called here, and some of you said, "It's an interesting thing, Rush, I mean if we elect Obama, can't we say the country is no longer racist?"

Similarly, on January 2, 2007, Steve Sailer, a columnist for American Conservative magazine, blogged

So, many whites want to be able to say, "I'm not one of them, those bad whites, like that guy on Seinfeld. Hey, I voted for a black guy for President!"

Plus, I suspect there's an even more hidden reason many whites wish Obama is elected President: They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn't the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama—and their problems will be over!

In what is only one example, the day after the presidential election, the Wall Street Journal reported on a conversation between a husband and wife (Democrats who decided, reluctantly and at the last minute, to vote for Obama):

Look at all the power people they have,” Mrs. Kluchar added. “Oprah, Colin Powell, Obama. What’s that woman who works for Bush?”

“Condoleezza Rice,” Mr. Kluchar said.

“Right, Condoleezza Rice. I think it’s proof that there are no excuses anymore. It’s up to the individual,” she said.

The dialogue advocated by Holder is desirable. And the election of Barack Obama over John McCain (and, especially, Sarah Palin) was desirable and necessary. But, alas, the latter is not likely to lead to the former.

The Limbaugh Way: 4

To bloggers on the left (at least myself), Rush Limbaugh is, as the cliche has it, the gift that keeps on giving.

In his remarks on Wednesday to Justice Department employees in honor of African American History Month, Attorney General Eric Holder famously, or infamously, contended

Although this nation has proudly thought of itself as a ethic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

Oh, it's not that Limbaugh was completely wrong in his diatribe today. He is not the first person, only the most influential (as head of the Republican Party) to note "people are scared to death to talk about race in this country, Mr. Attorney General, for fear of what's going to be said about them." And his allegation "in some cases, people were afraid to vote the way they really wanted to vote, because they were afraid if people found out what would be said about them" is intriguing, though (characteristically) completely unsubstantiated.

Yet Holder reminded us also:

As a nation we have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace. We work with one another, lunch together and, when the event is at the workplace during work hours or shortly thereafter, we socialize with one another fairly well, irrespective of race. And yet even this interaction operates within certain limitations. We know, by "American instinct" and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character. And outside the workplace the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us. On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some fifty years ago. This is truly sad. Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.

The integration in the workplace, as the nation's top law enforcement officer therein explained, has not nearly been matched outside the workplace. Over forty years ago, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. observed

we must face the fact that in America, the church is still the most segregated major institution in America. At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation.

And it is still, as in most social situations, true. Not, as Limbaugh claimed today, because of "civil rights leaders," who "want segregated everything these days." Nor did Rush serve accuracy with his standard shotgun style, somehow wrapping Holder's remarks into a package with Mark Rich, Michelle Obama, Barack Obama's "clinging" remarks in Pennsylvania during the primary campaign, "you people on the left," and "the Obamas(?) destroying the foreclosure market."

If Rush had chosen, he might instead have admitted that the A.G. argued that exploring the issue of race "risks at best embarrasment and at worse the questioning of one's character." But if he had, the icon of the right would either have had a)to forego noting "people are scared to death to talk about race" or b)to acknowledge that he agreed with Holder. Rather, Limbaugh was able both to complain about Holder and to make his point about (white) people being intimidated into silence. A classic Limbaugh twofer.

In his fairly lengthy, if rambling, remarks, Limbaugh stated also "there is no difference in '09 from 1959? Maybe you need to get out of Washington and start hanging out with the rest of us, Mr. Attorney General. Maybe you need to try actually living where Americans live and where Americans work..." Unfortunately, Rush neglected to quote Attorney General Holder noting

To attend her state’s taxpayer supported college in 1963 my late sister in law had to be escorted to class by United States Marshals and past the state’s governor, George Wallace. That frightening reality seems almost unthinkable to us now. The civil rights movement made America, if not perfect, better.

His conservative rap undermined, it would have been uncomfortable for Rush to admit that the civil rights movement was responsible for much of the improvement we have seen in American society. Meanwhile, the failure of Limbaugh to examine Holder's remarks in full, or at least in substantial part, points to yet another characteristic of his breezy, commercially successful style. Chalk this one up to: superficiality.