I can't imagine there is anyone who hasn't yet seen or heard the exchange between Representative Poe and A.G. Holder which took place on May 14, 2010 during a Department of Justice oversight hearing of the House Judiciary Committee in regard to whether or not Holder had read the Arizona law. But, can this really be looked at too much, too often or from too many different perspectives?
Representative Poe asks, "Have you read the Arizona law?"
Holder responds, "I have not had a chance to, I've glanced at it. I have not read it."
Until that moment, silly me, it really hadn't occurred to me that he hadn't read the law. I thought he just disagreed with it and in thinking that, I must have simply assumed he knew what it said. Who wouldn't assume that; he allowed us to think that. Click the picture below to see video from May 9, 2010 on Meet The Press (once you get to the page, scroll down a bit to see the video window).
See how serious and thoughtful he looks?
Q: Arizona. What is specifically wrong with the anti-immigration law that has been passed there, and are you close to filing a legal challenge to it?
A: One of the things I think we have to acknowledge is that our immigration system is broken in many ways. I think it requires a national solution. The concern I have is trying to do it state by state. I understand the frustration of people of Arizona but the concern I have about the law that they have passed is that I think it has the possibility of leading to racial profiling and putting a wedge between law enforcement and the community that would in fact be profiled. Uh, people in that commnity are less likely then to cooperate with people in law enforcement, less likely to share information, less likely to be witnesses in case that law enforcement is trying to solve.
Q: So, you're close to filing a legal challenge to it?
A: We are considering all of our options and one of the things we are thinking about is the possibility of filing a lawsuit but we're considering all of our options at this point. Whether or not it is something that we can file a lawsuit based on federal reemption grounds, whether we think that the law as enacted could violate federal civil rights statutes ...
Yes he looks really serious and thoughtful
He acts like he knows what he's talking about.
He seems to have grasped the content of the law.
He sounds so sure of himself.
And confidant of his facts.
Well, looks can be decieving and now it seems he was acting, only seemed to grasp the content of the law, probably practiced sounding sure of himself, and must have deluded himself into being confident that he really had enough facts to begin bad mouthing the Arizona law.
Once again I, like many others apparently, allowed myself to be pulled into a politician's delusion of himself -- but really -- who would have thought anyone on Capital Hill would still be running on this mindset? The mindset that it's okay to make snap judgements even though one does not have all the facts, even though one has not read the bill?
I have since seen and heard much coverage of this, and read several web pages like this one, and one or two Gather accounts as well of Holder's recent silliness; however, my own eyes were opened to it on the day I happened to be watching the coverage of the hearing.
When I saw and heard the answer A.G. Eric Holder gave Representative Ted Poe, I have to admit I was shocked, even though I guess I shouldn't be all that shocked that some of em continue to go off half-cocked without all the facts. +shrug+
Seems like it's becoming a tradition.
Senator Obama was gonna close Gitmo. Now, President Obama is finding that action harder to do than he thought (guess Bush's job seemed easier, before Obama had all the facts).
Someone in this administration thought it would be a good idea to 'buzz' the Statue of Liberty in pursuit of a new photo shoot of an Airforce One lookalike, without notifying the people of New York they were going to do it; and possibly without even giving the mayor himself all the pertinent facts: like how low the plane would actually be flying. Somebody shoulda read a newspaper or somethin' ... New York ... 9/11 ... duuuh.
People in this admin got all offended, hot and bothered, stamped their feet and "summoned some of the nation’s top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses..." - - - - And then ... someone read the law and the hearings were quietly cancelled. tsk tsk tsk
On a similar note, before Obamacare was passed, this administration gagged Humana because Humana did have all the facts; and were sharing them with their clients.
And who could forget this little gem?: 'I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played, but I think it's fair to say, ... the Cambridge police acted stupidly . . .'
Many in Congress hadn't read Obamacare before passing it. The Prez seems to have finally read it right before the rush vote to pass it ... however, sadly, reading it didn't keep him from passing it anyway ... even with all the "sneaky cats and dogs" still in it.
Hmmm ... go figure. Whether they have all the facts or they don't have all the facts, whether they read it or don't read it; looks like we still get the shaft.
No comments:
Post a Comment