Obama Gets Holder Off The Hook_Implications?

I just read that Obama has exerted executive privilege and the documents about “Fast And Furious” will not be made public.
My question: will this come back to haunt him?

Considering his statement of transparency of his previous election, I can see the Republicans using this strategically.

Where did you read this?

This is not good for the Obama admin. Their best strategy politically would be to throw Holder under the bus.

Even if Holder was privy to some potentially damaging information?

It worked well for Nixon. Um…

It’s troubling. Things seem like they are starting to implode.

Ditto. They should have done this a year ago. Find him a nice safe landing spot, and it all would have gone away. Now Romney gets to beat Obama over the head with it all the way to November.

Stop and think about what you’re proposing here. The attorney general would’ve been fired and it would have “gone away” despite the fanatically partisan Republicans in Congress? How was that going to happen? Holder should probably be out, but under no circumstances could this have been quiet (to the point that I wonder if Obama decided at some point that as bad as this is, the furor over Holder’s exit would be worse).

It worked better for all the other presidents who invoked executive privilege after Nixon. :wink:

Yes, there will be a bit of a shit storm when Holder takes his invitable exit, but timing is important. Is it better for Obama to get this out of the way sooner rather than later? The idea that he will be able to retain Holder and drag this out all the way through the election is just not realistic.

The whole Fast and Furious debacle has until now been a back burner item simmering with little main stream news interest. Not any longer.

It will be decision time for Obama soon. Drag this out up to and through the election? Or throw your old friend under the bus and be on your way?

Even Holder has to begin to realize very soon that his self life is reaching it’s “best if used by” date.

When the story broke it was front page news all around the country. And well it should have been since it was an enormous clusterfuck.

And yet I still feel that I could ask 50 people about it and get 40 blank stares. The other ten would be made of partisan voters who will bitch about/defend it endlessly but never change their vote on account of it.

IMO the people that really care about Fast and Furious are the single issue second amendment voters that were never going to vote for Obama even if he promised to legalize machine guns. It may well be that the administration is giving this “gift” to Romney so that he will waste money and other resources trying to beat life into this dead horse of an issue.

The usual way people fall on their swords in Washington: the underling admits no guilt, but says that the accusations against him are undermining the administration, and so he steps down. Behind the scenes, Obama keeps him loyal by giving him a few board memberships or whatever he wants. Publically, Obama thanks him for his service (though “sources” confirm that Holder fucked up and O was pissed). The pubs get to dance in glee for a few weeks, but the issue is eventually dead, because there’s no connection to Obama and Holder took the fall. Come November 2012, it would have been ancient history.

Obama was unwilling to hand them Holder’s scalp, and now it’s still a live and growing issue a year later, and now there IS a connection to Obama via the invocation of privelige. The longer they wait to kick him to the curb, the worse it gets. It’s still off the radar for people who don’t watch the news closely; it won’t be after Romney bring it up in the debates.

Asked mods if this would benefit from being in the Elections forum, since this thread seems to be asking about the political implications for 2012.

Romney and his PACs will definitely make hay about this. The questions are: who (voter demographically speaking) will care enough for this to affect his or her vote, and is this issue simple enough to sum up in a brief sound bite?

Obama has just “effectively” admitted that he and the Whitehouse has some direct involvement in the Fast and Furious debacle.

Executive Privilage doesn’t extend to department heads or actions that do not directly involve the Presidency. Holder and his actions are not entitled to EP if the President isn’t involved.

Will the voters re-elect a President who is obviously involved in a cover up?

Even Democrats are finding it impossible to defend this.

I’m no fan of the Democrats, but I believe Obama has the right to unfettered advice from his subordinates. They have to feel free to give unvarnished opinions and debate without the worry that the information will become public later.

In my opinion, the President’s claims of executive privilege must be given great deference. If Obama says its privileged, then it’s privileged. Period.

I agree with this. I think that the whole thing is a bit too complicated to distill to a sound bite that will resonate with voters.