CONTEMPT IT IS

Attorney General Eric Holder made history yesterday.  He is the first Cabinet member to be held in criminal and civil contempt of Congress.  This vote could have been avoided, if only he had turned over the requested documents.  His refusal puts the entire blame for this exercise on his shoulders, and his alone. Holder brought the contempt charges on himself when he chose to ignore the US Congress' legitimate demands for information to which they had every right. His contempt for the US Congress and the American people in this and other matters has now officially been reciprocated. One hundred democrats refused to vote, choosing instead to walk out. Seventeen democrats not only stayed to vote, but crossed the aisle and voted to hold Holder in criminal contempt.  Twenty-one democrats voted to hold him in civil contempt.

CONTEMPT AND PRIVILEGE

In the latest twist on the eighteen-month-long endeavor to discover what exactly happened in regards to Operation Fast and Furious, the House Oversight Committee voted to cite Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.   It passed the committee 23-17 - on party lines - and is now headed to the floor of the House for a vote that is expected to take place some time next week (where is is expected to pass - again on a party line vote).  For those not familiar with OF&F, go here and here for background.

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT: PROPAGANDA EDITION

Dana Milbank isn't someone I agree with often, but his article in the Washington Post today was a real eye opener for me.  Mr. Milbank is (somewhat surprisingly) not very supportive of President Obama's proposed "Buffett Rule", which is supposed to reach the Senate floor for a vote next week.  It's not expected to pass.

In fact, the president himself called the whole thing a "gimmick".  Isn't it great that the Senate is spending its valuable time on this purely political attempt to re-elect one man instead of doing its constitutional duty and passing the first budget in more than three years?   Good to know they have their priorities in line.

VOTER ID AND REALITY

The Department of Justice has been busily blocking various and sundry state voter ID laws recently, arguing that requiring people to show a state-approved photo ID in order to cast a vote will disenfranchise many voters - particularly in urban areas, where many citizens don't drive.  The NAACP have gone so far as to argue before the UN that voter ID laws are human rights violations, even though many poor and minority voters seem to want their votes protected by ID requirements.  DoJ chief Eric Holder maintains that voter ID laws suppress voter turnout.  Eh, not so much.

ON CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS AND POND SCUM

At a recent fundraiser, President Obama called his republican competitors "flat earthers" in regards to his "all of the above" energy policy (via USA Today):

"If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail," he said, "they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society -- they would not have believed that the world was round."

Yeah, yeah, we get it, conservatives are anti-science.  Well, except when they're not, of course.

ON NEWT, REAGAN, MUD AND MITT

Today's the big day here in Florida.  While I am not a registered republican and cannot vote in the closed primary, I'm happy today is primary day because that means that hopefully tomorrow the attack ads will stop.  The Romney campaign has decided to run a scorched earth campaign against Newt Gingrich, and it ain't pretty.  For every Gingrich ad there are three Romney attack ads.  I have to say, I'm liking candidate Romney less and less as the campaign drags on.  I have no problem with attack ads, but I do require that they at least be truthful.  Romney's are not. 

PROJECTION AND REVERSISM Updated

In yet another glaringly obvious case of projection, our esteemed President said a mouthful while attacking the republican agenda at yet another fundraiser last night (via the Weekly Standard):

"The very core of what this country stands for is on the line"

Now, of course he was referring to the eeeeevil republican candidates destroying America as we know it.  In reality, what he is trying to do is about as far from the core of what this country stands for as possible.  Isn't that, in fact, what his claims to "fundamentally change" America were all about?  Ostensibly, his point was that republicans won't make you your neighbor's keeper, but when was that ever the core of what this country stands for?  It doesn't really jibe with our signature rugged individualism, but then, we all know how he feels about that little foible.