Steve Benen makes a great point about President Obama’s choice of James Comey to be the next Director of the FBI.
But there’s one other angle that’s worth thinking about as the process unfolds: if Obama had any reason to worry about ongoing investigations casting the White House in a negative light, the president would not have chosen a Republican with a history of independence to lead the FBI. On the contrary, if Obama were the least bit concerned about the so-called “scandals,” he’d be eager to do the opposite — choosing a Democratic ally for the FBI.
If James Comey is known for anything, it’s for his willingness to stand up to the Bush administration and defend the rule of law. No one knew who Comey was until the story broke about the Bush administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. It was then that it emerged that Bush chief of staff Andy Card and chief counsel Alberto Gonzales visited Attorney General John Ashcroft in his post-operative hospital bed in an attempt to get him to sign off on more warrantless wiretapping. At the time, James Comey was serving as acting Attorney General, and he got wind of the plot an raced to the hospital in time to protect Ashcroft and put an end to the criminal behavior of the administration.
If Comey was unwilling to look the other way during a Republican administration, there is no reason to believe he would help cover up any crimes committed by a Democratic one.
FBI director Muller had his back in that confrontation and it was widely known that a large swath of Justice & FBI would quit en masse, following Comey, if Alberto & Andy had their way.
Not too much to assume Comey will have high loyalty amongst the ranks. And Holder may just have to up his game.
What’s bold about appointing a Republican to FBI Director? It’s exactly what Carter and Clinton did when they had the opportunity. And what GOP Presidents do as well.
Is there a sign on J Edgar’s desk that says “Democrats need not apply?”
Yes, same thought passed thru my mind last evening while watching Rachel Maddow show the replays of his testimony before Congress in 2007. It’s like our Democratic Presidents have no cojones when it comes to appointing those from their own party. More of that “only conservatives/GOP’ers are tough on crime and defense” thinking.
I’m thinking RM (altho my take could be wrong) was implying that Comey was going to be a tough slog in confirmation hearings. IMO if the Republicans do fight his nomination, they will once again manifest the hypocrisy that characterizes their behavior.
For a glimpse of the great crime fighting of the FBI at the behest of their permanent GOP Directors, check out John Kiriakou’s letter from Loretto. It’s mostly about the “War on Drugs” and targets minorities.
Todashev unarmed when shot and killed by FBI agent. While being interrogated in an apartment and not in a wild and confusing chase/arrest situation. Not good, but sometimes stuff happens. But get this:
Exactly what could be so complicated about the incident to require several months to determine what went down?
On a lighter note and over at the State Department, two US Embassy officials in Caracas apparently got into a brawl outside a strip club and one of them shot the other in the leg.
“Another sign says the club does not allow entry to couples, unaccompanied women or anyone under 30”. Huh? Singles only, I guess.
Explanation of Todashev killing might be difficult if he was shot seven times. That might explain why the FBI has been so closed lipped on this.
I am curious.
What talking point number is this horseshit again?
What’s that you say?
There’ve been so many talking points that they’ve run out of numbers?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Yore freind,
Emily Litella
Cut him a bit of slack — he’s still got those starbursts in eyes from Obama’s latest “awesome” speech. As Norman Pollack pointed out liberals are suckers for high quality rhetoric (conservatives prefer the low-brow, barely articulate version of rhetoric).
What the hell are talking about?
Arthur, lemme give you a hint: when you write a comment that has no visible connection to the post you are attempting to reply to, you are the one dusting off a talking point.
You are being kind.
Q-What is “reading comprehension?”
Joe from Kokomo-“I dunno.”
Yup.
AG
Reading comprehension?
Are you sure you don’t have me confused with Condoleeza Rice?
Believe it or not, Arthur, the problem with “What talking point number is this?” is not its incomprehensibility.
That’s because it is in no way incomprehensible, Joe. This is an entirely political move meant to insulate Obama from the rapidly metastasizing cancers of his administration’s ongoing attempts to control what we laughingly call “the news” for its own purposes. it’sd worked to some degree so far but now that Hillary threatens to claim the POTUS position any number of bad guys are doing everything in their power to bring him as far down as they can in order to protect their own guilty asses.
He’s fighting fire with fire, hype with hype.
Risky business, this, especially when “the truth” is both on pretty much on your side and absolutely lethal to your enemies.
But he’s running the talking points game anyway.
An I privy to the inner working of this part of the fix?
No, but I know the game.
Somebody’s hustling somebody.
Bet on it.
Watch on.
I am.
AG
I dunno.
Are you an African-American, female corporate/academic/political hustler w/seriousPermaGov connections and straightened hair?
If so…yeah, I might confuse you w/Condoleeza Rice.
Only…she’s smarter than you.
So, no. I’m not.
AG
LOL. Arthur, in an argument between you and Joe from Lowell, I just might have to side with you.
It never even gets to the level of “argument” with this gooney bird, blue moon. He’s an albatross tied around his own neck.
AG
P.S. Whadda you mean, “I might just?” Like I don’t make any sense most of the time but I’m funny?
Great.
Thanks.
LOL, Arthur.
His responses come in three forms:
The two latter ones often rolled into one.
How the first one plays out can be pretty funny. For years, the line of defense will be “What do you want Obama to do? The Republicans are obstructing him! A speech would accomplish nothing!” And then, when he finally makes a speech four years into his administration, we read “This is why I’ve said all along that Obama is one of the greatest Presidents ever.”
Obama actually doesn’t deserve how poorly his supporters reflect on him.
There’s also the apparent attempt at bipartisanship — the Democratic president keeps choosing Republicans for prominent posts in his administration, apparently in the hopes this will generate some goodwill among his GOP rivals.
I seriously doubt the most successful professional politician in America actually believes this.
The flip side to appointing the most reasonable, responsible Republicans in Washington to his administration is, in the off chance it doesn’t usher in a new era of bipartisan good feelings, it serves to further marginalize the Republicans.
It leaves the party with only the crazies to lead it.
It highlights their ultra-partisan craziness for the public by giving them more rope.
And it forces the Republicans to move even further from the mainstream by ceding the moderates, and their moderate positions/actions, to the Democrats.
And when does the TradMed call out that craziness? It doesn’t. It flames the Benghazi bullshit. It hypes the IRS bullshit. It ignores the AP stuff, which is the only thing of the three that could even be considered a scandal. It hypes the Kermit Gosnell crap even. So, tell me again how the President’s plan is supposed to work? Just because Bob Dole, Bob Dole and Olympia Snowe whine because they’ve been cut off from the wingnut welfare circuit?
One example would be the December/January fiscal cliff standoff, when the media were quite open about blaming the Republicans.
I guess you managed not to notice that.
Examples: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/whos-to-blame-for-the-fiscal-cliff-impasse/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/david-brooks-fiscal-cliff_n_2384756.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/269279-poll-public-would-blame-gop-more-than-obama-
if-fiscal-cliff-talks-fail
Here are some salty wingnut tears on the subject of the media’s coverage, for your enjoyment: http://www.mrc.org/articles/networks-blame-fiscal-cliff-congress-gop-16-times-more-president
I’m talking about the David Gregory and Brian Williams’ of the world. They’re part of the crew that sets the Versailles CW. When ever a GOPer screams scandal, Williams and Gregory run around like an Orangutan in heat.
So should the party support Lincoln Chafee? If so, why?
Absolutely they should support Lincoln Chafee. If they can’t hold onto any significant support among moderates or people in the northeast, they will back to permanent minority status.
Lincoln’s affiliation doesn’t change the fact that there are better Democrats out there. We can welcome him and not support his candidacy at the same time.
Maybe the best argument is that his party switch means he will be more liberal now, and that he was an early Obama supporter and loyalty to the head of the democrats is important.
support how? Isn’t he less popular than the bubolic plague?
Exactly. So why is Obama getting behind him? He switched party affiliation and that’s cool. But his polling sucks, he has no impact on national legislation, and we can find more liberal people than Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island.
Why?
Fix.
The machinations of a fix on this level are awesomely complex.
Watch.
AG
It’s not a fix. It’s payback. A debt owed is paid. That’s all.
Chafee endorsed Obama. Now Obama pats Chafee on the head.
Chafee’s polling is in the toilet, so there’s no way he can beat a Democrat. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
Fixes run on paybacks, Booman.
Bet on it.
A nasty business no matter on what side your dick hangs.
Bet on it.
AG
a) Lincoln Chafee is no longer a Republican
b) when he was a Republican and in the Senate, he was generally more liberal than half the Democratic Senators
c) he thinks the “war on drugs” is stupid
As of yesterday, Chafee is a Democrat.
Neither was Arlen Specter. At least in that instance, his vote was important. Lincoln’s isn’t.
More liberal than New England?
Fair.
Not sure what you mean. Or how it relates to this thread.
If you’re referring to Chafee’s 2006 election against Whitehouse, there were two reasons to support Whitehouse. First, control of the Senate was in play. Second, Whitehouse could be expected to be a more effective Senator and at least as liberal, if not more liberal, than Chafee.
Forget my other response, now see down-thread what you are referring to. Chafee left the GOP in 2007. If he had supported McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012, I wouldn’t say kind things about him, and while I’d forgotten that he backed Obama in 2008, that didn’t inform my opinion of him.
He’s right in the middle of the pack of NE liberals.
And Greenwald does:
“But for all concerned, Comey not only non partisan in job but
consistently put constitutional equities at center if thinking”
@joshtpm h/t Glenn Greenwold
As Josh’s memory seems to fail him …
Ho hum. Another Republican.
Don’t you see? That’s what he WANTS us to think! He’s up to his sneaky Kenyan Muslim mind tricks again.
Oh.
Them sneaky Kenyan Muslims run on talking point/disinformation fuel too?
I am so disappointed!!!
AG
The Director of the FBI is a post that critical to protection (or lack of protection) of civil liberties in the United States. For almost a hundred years it has been characterized by a right-wing tilt in leadership and in the ranks.
I see no effort to exorcise the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover in this move. On the contrary, profiling and entrapment of “enemies of the state” will continue and folks like Randall Terry, who organize terror attacks on doctors, will continue to go free. Not to mention the “nasty folks” who are so indispenable to CIA operations.
So Comey has his limits when it comes to torture. That is as about as minimal standard as one can have.
The real reason for Comey….political. The President is daring the GOP in the Senate to block another Republican nomination just to show how over the edge they are.
In this case, short-term gain might be long-term loss.
We should feel grateful to Mr. Comey for getting that uppity Martha Stewart locked up.
For some of us that was a more heroic achievement than standing up to Alberto Gonzales.
I’m so tired of being expected to admire this president for his skill at finding republicans who possess such awesome integrity. As long as they can find a woman to punish for their sins, that party will flourish, and our dem pols will help them.