October 17, 2021

What’s the real reason behind Eric Holder resigning?

President Obama's likely choice to replace Eric Holder as AG, California's AG Kamala Harris

When I first heard the announcement that the contemptible Attorney General Eric Holder was resigning, I momentarily joined most conservatives, libertarians, and even some moderate Democrats, in joyous celebration.

However, the cynical side of me quickly began wondering what the real story is behind the sudden announcement. Nothing this administration ever does is without some sort of an attempt at a benefit or gain, whether actual, perceived, or otherwise (read financial).

My first instincts told me that this is a purely political move. There is a chance that some new scandal is about to break, one that we don’t already know about. Or perhaps new information has come to light about an old scandal. But with as many different various scandals as Holder has already weathered, I’m not certain a new one would bring him down, no matter how big or bad it is. He is apparently made of Teflon, politically speaking.

No, this is merely a political gambit to try and retain control of the Senate in the midterm elections. President Obama will announce Holder’s replacement soon, and it will most likely be someone just as politically partisan as Holder is, if not more.

In the politically stalemated climate of our current Congress, it will be difficult to get confirmation of a hyper-partisan candidate, even with Harry Reid’s rule change that only requires 51 votes for a confirmation. When/If Republicans take control of the Senate, Obama will have absolutely no chance to get confirmation on another activist AG.

My gut tells me that California Attorney General Kamala Harris is Obama’s top choice. Some of you may remember the brief “scandal” last year surrounding Obama and Harris. While appearing at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama referred to Harris as the “the best looking Attorney General in the country”. Even the liberal media was aghast, but after Harris accepted Obama’s “apology”, all was set right and forgotten, and the media moved on.

Kamala Harris is young and ambitious, and has risen to the highest law enforcement office in one of the biggest states. She is a rising star in the Democrat Party, and has been mentioned as a potential future candidate for Senator or Governor of California.

She is also extremely progressive and liberal, and would follow in Holder’s footsteps of using the AG office to address and perpetuate perceived civil rights issues, while pushing a partisan liberal agenda, instead of upholding law and order in a blind and apolitical manner.

Then of course there is the fact that she is a black woman. Kamala Harris’ nomination will be used as a rally point for the Democrats leading up to the midterms. The media will most certainly portray her in the best light possible, and the general, ill-informed population will love her, as they don’t know anything about her.

Any opposition or criticism of Harris from the center and right will be swiftly cast aside and denigrated as simple racism and sexism, and she will be portrayed as the victim of such. The cries of racism and sexism will be repeated ad nauseam by the administration, and parroted by partisan hacks in the media, all in an effort to drive the Democrat base of women and black voters to the polls, where they will vote for their Democratic Senate candidate, hopefully retaining control of the Senate. She will simultaneously be used as a wedge to annoy the opposition and rally the base, while also inheriting the untouchable Teflon coating that both Obama and Eric Holder have attained.

Call me cynical, but I’ve witnessed the Obama administration play those two particular cards on so many occasions, that I feel pretty confident in assuming that a combination of “racist/sexist” would be their top, go-to move in the playbook. The question is, will it work?

By the way, I hope I am wrong.