Even the liberal New Yorker magazine thinks that Holder's response to Sen. Rand Paul was horrible, and supports Paul's use of the filibuster. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...d-pauls-filibuster-poses-a-good-question.html
Holder said nothing of interest. He simply rambled. It’s his trademark. In the line of succession of such people as Janet Reno and Alberto Gonzales he demonstrates that in most cases one must be an idiot to be appointed AG. And like them he has the record to prove it. One cannot help but wonder why there is a single good reason to keep Holder in office now that Obama has won reelection. Maybe he is a diversion from Obama’s shenanigans or simply a lighting rod? After all he is a full-fledged tool of Obama.
