There is little doubt that Mr. Holder has the experience to handle the job of reforming the broken Justice Department. Out of law school, Holder served for twelve years in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Later, as the US Attorney for DC he led the prosecution of Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski on corruption charges. He was also the Deputy AG under Janet Reno for most of President Clinton's second term. On a more interesting note, he recently represented the NFL in private practice during its efforts to punish Michael Vick for leading a dogfighting ring.
The point of all this is, it seems like Holder's approach to the law is from the perspective of a prosecutor and jurist rather than that of a criminal defense lawyer or politician. His record would portend respect for the rule of law at a time when we desperately need an Attorney General devoted to restoring the integrity of the Justice Department.
So why would Republicans oppose him? Again, I am approaching this question from an objective policy analyst perspective, thus putting aside any cynical tendencies to say Republicans are deathly afraid that Holder will lead an effort to investigate the legality of certain actions (especially torture) ordered by the outgoing Bush Administration and defended by its congressional allies. So with that explanation ruled out, they must see him as lacking the integrity or demeanor to restore the reputation of the Justice Department. That would explain why Senator Specter and friends are concerned about Holder's alleged involvement in the Marc Rich pardon. But as the Washington Post article linked above says:
...more moderate Republicans say that the pardon issue alone will not be enough to jeopardize Holder's confirmation.Indeed. Sure it looks slimy, but is that enough to try and block the guy? So what else are Holder's detractors concerned about? And seriously, after getting strongly behind the embarrassments Alberto (Abu Ghraib) Gonzales and Michael Mukasey (not to mention Justices Roberts and Alito) and claiming Democrats should give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on appointments because elections have consequences?! This just seems a little hypocritical and shortsighted to me.
Instead, Senate Republicans would be better served to look at the qualifications of the nominee for Treasury, Timothy Geithner. Mr. Geithner has been President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank for the past five years, and in that role has had an enormously important role in overseeing the regulation (or lack thereof) of Wall Street and more recently helping manage the $700 billion bailout. He is a protege of leading Clinton economists Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, two fervent Wall Street supporters and advocates of financial deregulation. In light of recent financial market crisis and the unpopular bailout package, perhaps it is worth asking a few questions about Geithner's handling of the $700 billion and how he would have done things differently from Secretary Paulson and the Bush Administration. While they're at it, it would be useful to find out if he has any ideas why our financial markets have crashed so dramatically and what he thinks can be done to prevent this mess from happening again in the future.
Not to say Geithner is necessarily going to continue the trend towards financial market deregulation and allow the kind of extraordinary speculative bubbles we have seen in recent years to persist. But the public deserves to know exactly how he feels about these issues of enormous import. And Senate Republicans as the loyal opposition are in a natural position to launch such an inquiry.
