... will be confirmed easily because he is a smart, capable and honest man who is significantly more qualified for the top job at the Justice Department than were his three immediate predecessors (John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey).Of course, in addition to being more "qualified," Democrats control the Senate and have the votes to confirm anyone, regardless of their perceived relative qualifications. But Cohen says Republicans do not have "any legitimate ammunition to throw." Yes, Holder has made some "controversial choices" but has never shown a "pattern of misconduct or even, necessarily, poor judgment." Did you catch that? "Necessarily?"
Speaking of poor judgment, here is Cohen's sophisticated analysis of Holder's stumbling, bumbling and inexcusable participation in the Marc Rich pardon:
Marc Rich? Please. It’s 2009. The Twin Towers are gone. And Bernie Madoff (and the guys at Lehman Bros and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) make Marc Rich look like a dime-store candy thief.PardonPower had no idea Madoff and the other "guys" were pardoned! Nor were we informed that they funded Iraq in its effort to kill American troops. But, hey, it is 2009! FALN terrorist bombings, murders and robberies? Hey, it is 2009. Pardons for Weather Underground members? Hey, it is 2009. This "defense" certainly goes far!
Cohen says "the sole mystery" regarding Holder's nomination is whether or not he will be able to avoid scrutiny of his record and judgement and, instead, lecture America on what he see as "the major legal questions of our time" (justice for fugitives and terrorists evidently not being in that category). And he (Cohen) invites Holder to direct the focus away from his own dubious decision making and, instead, get on a "soapbox" and "transform" the hearing into a "clarion call for the incoming administration." That is to say, Cohen would like to see the Holder nomination to become still yet another Bush mud-slinging exercise. There is little doubt that that would be one way to protect the nominee from deserved scrutiny. Although it is not clear to us how critics of the administration's "enhanced interrogation program" would respond to the defense:
Hey, it is 2009." See Andrew Cohen's work here.