Wallace claimed Holder, confirmed 75-21, "got into office by the skin of his teeth"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace claimed that Eric Holder "got into office by the skin of his teeth." However, Holder was confirmed by the Senate in a 75-21 vote, and the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-2 in favor of reporting his nomination to the full Senate.
During the February 22 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace claimed that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder "got into office by the skin of his teeth." However, Holder was confirmed by the Senate in a 75-21 vote, and the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-2 in favor of reporting his nomination to the full Senate. FoxNews.com itself reported that Holder was confirmed "after supporters from both parties spoke of his ideal resume and easily overcame some Republican objections."
From the February 22 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Mara -- we've got about a minute left Mara, and I want to ask you about one other aspect of this. I talked to a senior White House official this week who said Holder was not speaking for the president; the speech had not been approved by the White House, which, it seems to me, raises two questions. This is an attorney general who got into office by the skin of his teeth. And speaking about cowards, he was not exactly a profile in courage when he folded like an accordion to the Clinton -- Bill Clinton on the pardon of Marc Rich. Is this really a conversation that Eric Holder wants to hold in his first days in office? And is he the right man --
MARA LIASSON (NPR national political correspondent): Look, I --
WALLACE: -- to lecture America on courage?
Alberto Gonzales was confirmed 60 to 36 with 4 not voting. I'll bet I don't even have to do any research to find out if Wallace characterized that as "by the skin of his teeth." Chris Wallace is as big a partisan hack as everyone else who works at Fox "News".
Of course any republicain is with a mandate and any demicrat is by the skin of their teeth look at what is being put out about Obama winning the presedency with a larger percentage of the populare vote than any President since Regan. Obama does not have a mandate but Bush did in both 2000 and 2004. Bush even lost the popular vote in 2000 and he had a mandate. This is concerviative logic.
Bush won less than 51% of the popular vote in 2004 and it was a "landslide" for him.
and they also called 51% win in 04 a "mandate" to privatize social security.
In 2004 the only republican without a man-date was Dick Cheney's daughter!
buh-dump-bump!
I was listening to Wallace say this via my XM radio and nearly drove into the ditch in disbelief. Wallace has a very warped and distorted view of what "by skin of his teeth" actually means. Chris Wallace will never have even half the credibility his father does....especially if he keeps telling whoppers like this.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the controversy surrounding Jogn Aschcroft's nomination. Final vote: 55-34.
Two questions Prince (love "Little Red Corvette" by the way):
1) Has Media Matters ever said MSNBC is "neck and neck" with Fox?
2) Though I am reasonably sure the answer to question one is no, what does it have to do with Wallace's comments?
To clarify, maybe I should have said that if Fox beat out MSNBC by the skin of their teeth 75-21, that is would be the same as "by skin of his teeth". Wallace has created one falsehood, would he agree with my comparison?
you didn't really need to clarify. i guess some people don't get the obvious.
Sometimes, it is nice to be nice....the next time will be sometime in June.
This idiot did not get it at ALL! Holder, Chris, was talking about our entire country...not just WHITE PEOPLE! You are a MORON! Check out poverty in America...where do minorities rate...think about Prisons in America...% wise, Minorities are there and an alarming number! I listened the other day and Pat Buchanan was blaming black people for their circumstances...Incredible!
Check the history of this country and you'll see that minorities have had to fight and die for every little thing that they earn. Your conservative people fight them every step of the way. If you are poor....in conservative speak....IT IS YOUR FAULT! Hypocrite!
I take it The Onion is more a more reliable news source than FOX News?
Yes, and it's a lot more intentionally funny too.
"This is an attorney general who got into office by the skin of his teeth."
Over 3:1 in favor = "skin of his teeth"?
Hard to tell if this is lying or simply another example of abysmal "journalism".
If you're a Republican--51% is a landslide to FOX "News"
If you're a Democrat--everyone knows that anything less than 80% is a squeeker.
TheRick
I sometimes listen to Mike Gallagher's show on the drive in to work, and he has Wallace on a regular basis, on the phone reviewing the latest talking points. I'm usually flipping around the stations, so I'd never heard Gallagher's intro to his Wallace segment until a few days ago. It's a faux boxing ring-announcer, and it introduces Wallace as the liberal opponent.
I'd heard this segment several times previously, and from what I'd heard, assumed that it was just two right wing spokesknobs pretending to have minor differences about the issues, but apparently, this is another fair & balanced puppet show.
When I first started posting here, I remember mentioning The Beltway Boys one time, a show I watch occasionally, and that I thought was supposed to be a far-right neocon paired with a more reasonable right-winger. One of the con posters here told me that one of them (mort or Fred, sorry, not sure which) was the liberal half of that show.
Explains a lot about why The Fairness Doctrine is so threatening to the right. They've managed to build a fantasy world for their audience that's comparable to Colbert's multiple choice about Bush - (Great President, or Greatest President) - a world where staunch Republicans represent the left if they occasionally question or disagree with any area of neocon dogma.
You're taking it out of context. Even though it was 75 for, it was only 16 republicans. Ergo, unless your majority vote also contains a republican majority vote it is skin of your teeth. from now on all votes require 21 republicans to be considered majority.
How do you get something like this so wrong on accident?
And if it wasn't on accident, but was a purposeful distortion of the truth of how much support Eric Holder had in the nomination process, how do you sleep at night, Chris Wallace?
Your father is surely ashamed of you and what you've become.
It seems that some folks can only discuss his use of the word 'coward', but not the point he was making in his speech.
Oh Pearlene, why look at the big picture and his context when nitpicking and word parsing is so CONvenient and translates into phony talking points? ;-)
The reaction to the word coward is similar to the way some react to the use of the word socialism by some news outlets. They hear the word and do not listen to the discussion that follows.
Yeah, yeah, that's the way I feel after I see your name here.
Well then you make my point for me
So, 3 to 1 is "skin of the teeth"? Thing is, the only problem republicans had with Holder is that he played a part in the pardon of Mark Rich. That's it. That's their only complaint about him. They don't have anything else to complain about. At. All. And really, they can't even complain about that. Why? Because it's a president's choice to pardon whomever the heck he wants to pardon. He gets that power through the Constitution. So, it's not as if Clinton did anything wrong with that, or Holder for that matter, it's just that the republicans didn't like it.
My hope is that Holder is a great AG, and he has it within him to be a great AG. Compared to Gonzo though, we've got nowhere to go but up really.
While you are absolutely correct in saying that a president can pardon whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants, I wonder if you agree with Clinton's selling of his pardon in this instance.
So you had charge of Clinton's bank statement so you know that Clinton got a big sum JUST because he pardoned Rich. BTW, I noticed that Cheney is pretty disgusted with Bush because Bush did not pardon Cheney's friend and staff member. In the end, Republicans are full of double standards and that is why I just had to leave that disgusting party,.
I guess it was just a coincidence that all that money was donated by the Rich family to Clintons causes, dream on. BTW, Bush DID NOT pardon Libby and that does show his integrity, he was not swayed by Cheneys opinion. You may have left that party but I don't think you should leave your objectivity behind.
Wallace must have a huge skin buildup on his teeth.
They've used similar rhetoric to describe passage of the Stimulus Bill. What was it in the Senate... 60-38? Now, in raw numbers, that's a comfortable majority, so the Bill actually passed with a good margin.
What they narrowly avoided was a Rush Limbaugh filibuster.
I imagine Chris's dad is very embarassed by Chris's comments. Poor thing seems math-challeneged. He goes to extraordinary lengths to make a hit on Democrats.