As reported by Fox News, the attorney general told a congressman,
You don't want to go there, buddy.Let's look at this first, briefly, in the specific venue it was said, and second, in a more general way.
1) "You don't want to go there." Can this be constructed as anything but either scorn or a veiled threat or both? Let's read the sentences that follow.
Holder went on to say that [Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)] "should not assume that that [the 2012 House vote finding Holder in contempt of Congress] is not a big deal to me."
"I think that it was inappropriate and it was unjust, but never think that was not a big deal to me. Don't ever think that," Holder said, pointing his finger.Get this right, people; get this right, congressmen: How dare you — how dare anybody — ask any member of the Obama White House for justification (documents, emails, etc) for their decisions?!
Eric Holder is part of the team of brilliant reformers sent to radically transform America by telling ordinary men and women (as Ricardo Fernandez calls the latter, "the great unwashed [who] merely swill beer, drive pickup trucks and believe in superstitious nonsense like good and evil, right and wrong, God and the devil" — thanks to Instapundit) to stop thinking they know how to manage their own lives and telling them what to do (mainly, what to do with their money, as in hand it over to the government of reformers and to their ever-growing bureaucracies).
So, for one of those unwashed people — for what else are Republicans anyway, and besides, what business do those clods have being in DC in the first place?! (stupid constitution and thank God the IRS intervened to keep the Tea Partiers in their place, and us reformers in Washington) — to question their decisions and bring up such (non-)scandals as the Mexican gun-walking affair, the failure to go after (Democratic) voting fraud, and the IRS's Tea Party hunt, all of which is highly unfair not to mention highly insulting.
2) More generally, we should all thank Eric Holder for articulating the attitude that has come from the White House (and prior to that, from the Obama campaign) for the past five or six years — as well as from its brilliant reformers (as stated above), from the mainstream media (remember the Journolist?), and all the supporters of the left in the population:
You don't want to go there, buddy.The Benghazi massacre? The Syria red line? The reset with Russia?
You don't want to go there, buddy.The Obamacare vote? The (repeated) "misspeaking" of Obama's promises?
You don't want to go there, buddy.Obama's past? The Reverend Wright's Church? Obama's rise through Chicago's machine politics? Obama's winning one election after another through at least partially dubious means, from the invalidating of the petitions of Democratic party opponents (1996) and the unsealing of divorce papers (2004) to the siccing of the IRS on the Tea Party (2012).
You don't want to go there, buddy. (CNN is a Wright-free zone; ABC, CBS, and NBC haven't mentioned the IRS scandal (scandal?! what scandal?!) in months.)Even something so innocuous as the content of Obama's Harvard papers and his grades?
You don't want to go there, buddy. (Racism, racism, racism.)And having the gall, generally, to question people such as Barack Obama and Eric Holder?
You don't want to go there, buddy. (Racism, racism, racism.)But why should this surprise us?
What this attitude is, basically, is symbolic of the entire Alinsky stance and everything in his radicals book:
You don't want to go there, buddy.