Talk:Eric Holder: Difference between revisions
imported>Michel van der Hoek (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Michel van der Hoek No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
==Holder confirmation== | |||
I have found no evidence that any Democrat was willing to entertain the issues raised by Republicans. The closest one could come to such a statement is: (1) if you include Charles Schumer's condemnation of Holder's actions back in 2001, or (2) if you count Arlen Specter as a Democrat ''avant la lettre''. But Chuck did not repeat his criticism of 2001 when Holder was nominated and instead called him an outstanding pick. What prominent Democrats made a big deal out of it? I have not yet found any name of Democrats who complained but I've only searched around for less than an hour. | |||
An additional problem with the phrase "some senators" is that it excludes Representatives in the House and all other Republicans who raised the issue. Since a good many Republicans did not object to Holder's appointment (including Orrin Hatch, for instance) "some Republicans" is perhaps the better way to phrase this. I do not disagree that the issue was a legitimate one to raise but it became, unfortunately, a partisan issue. Smoothing over that aspect in CZ just because one has a distaste for partisanship is not doing anyone a favor. [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:36, 12 August 2009
|
Metadata here |
Holder confirmation
I have found no evidence that any Democrat was willing to entertain the issues raised by Republicans. The closest one could come to such a statement is: (1) if you include Charles Schumer's condemnation of Holder's actions back in 2001, or (2) if you count Arlen Specter as a Democrat avant la lettre. But Chuck did not repeat his criticism of 2001 when Holder was nominated and instead called him an outstanding pick. What prominent Democrats made a big deal out of it? I have not yet found any name of Democrats who complained but I've only searched around for less than an hour.
An additional problem with the phrase "some senators" is that it excludes Representatives in the House and all other Republicans who raised the issue. Since a good many Republicans did not object to Holder's appointment (including Orrin Hatch, for instance) "some Republicans" is perhaps the better way to phrase this. I do not disagree that the issue was a legitimate one to raise but it became, unfortunately, a partisan issue. Smoothing over that aspect in CZ just because one has a distaste for partisanship is not doing anyone a favor. Michel van der Hoek 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Law Category Check
- Politics Category Check
- Stub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Law Stub Articles
- Law Internal Articles
- Politics Stub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- Need def
- Law need def
- Politics need def
- Need rel
- Law need rel
- Politics need rel
- Need bib
- Law need bib
- Politics need bib
- Need ext
- Law need ext
- Politics need ext
- American politics since 1945 tag