No bones about it: how could Bush the "uniter, not divider" and "compassionate conservative" have nominated Ashcroft for Atty Gen'l?

If he wanted a severe right-winger to "give something back" to the wing that got him elected, couldn't he have put them in a less-critical cabinet post -- like transportation or energy?

well...it comes on as a Janet Reno tit-for-tat. But speaking as a bisexual polyamorous transsexual wiccan, he's awfully scary.

Speaking as a heterosexual, Orthodox-leaning Jewish male, Ashcroft bothers the heck out me too.

I hear all his heartfelt pronouncements that, whatever his feelings on an issue, he will enforce the laws as written. But I have a hard time seeing him, say, working especially hard to defend abortion clinics, or to go after pro-life groups who threaten said clinics. He is promoted as a man of faith. That's all well and good, and I have no problem with someone who believes in something. But if this belief system could compromise the job he's being selected to do- and no small job, this- then I have a problem with *that.*

Gotta be specific here,
Z

here's the thing... Bush was, at some level, elected President, and one of the spoils that goes to the victor in this case is the opportunity to gather trusted advisors together to form, among other things, the White House Staff and Cabinet. The catch, of course, is that Cabinet level positions require approval from that "other" branch of the federal government.

Chances are pretty good that if you were paying attention eight years ago when a real doofus got into the White House there may have been some choices made by same said doofus that you didn't agree with!

Know what... that's OK! No President has likely ever selected a cabinet that met with complete approval... and if they did one would have to guess that one party controlled both branches. (I leave the judicial branch out of all of this since, at least in theory, they are supposed to be above all that party based political stuff!)

Now before anyone points out some of the more catastrophic blunders in selecting Cabinet Secretaries... the system is not perfect.

The thing to remember is that we, as voters and citizens, don't know the whole story!!! Unless we are fortunate we only know what the media tells us. Now I would never trade a free press, but let's be honest, the media has been hanging on the left side of the line for a very long time now, and with competition for eyeballs getting downright nasty, that little thing called profit motive rears it's ugly head too.

So, if we take a balanced look at things I think that many would agree that most of the selected positions have been filled by people that have great reputations, and seem, at least as far as we can tell, to be reasonably balanced, rational folks.

This leaves the press and the Democrats with little to complain about, so when it turns out that a selectee maybe harbored an illegal alien... boom... she's outa here.

And when a selectee has opinions that mjust might be frightening to a (hopefuly) large majority... it's time for a field day.

But let's look at this from another point of view. Is it possible that, regardless of his views, Ashcroft does indeed love and respect the law enough to enforce it? It is possible, because I, for one, can see no reason why a President-Elect would name someone who couldn't possibly pass the test... it weakens the administration before it starts... which doesn't make a lot of sense.

Remember too that all of these senior positions are filled for two reasons... the first is the named office of course, but the second is as advisors to the office of the President. In this case we have a nominee who has strong personal beliefs, and someone who isn't afraid to acknowledge them (which, in today's climate, impresses me - not that he had much of a chance of weaseling out of it!)

President-Elect Bush did not win with a landslide (excuse the understatement) and certainly does not have any kind of mandate from the people. This is going to be difficult enough as it is, I can't imagine he would purposely put problems in his path... and I'm certain that the party leadership, who really run the show, wouldn't let him.

One final thought... if you think Ashcroft is bad, imagine the next guy on the list... mr. Single-Bullet-Theory hisself!

Frontline last night had a two-hour summary of the Clinton era and it was fascinating. Lest we forget, that "left-wing press" had a TON of things to get riled about in the early days of the Clinton-elect era, and did. Including a longer and harder wail about a cabinet appointee who harbored an illegal alien. Remember Zoe Baird?

The attention paid to Ashcroft has been heightened because it's been slow news days. All of the "news" is about whether he'll be confirmed (of course he will) and none about what a major-league asshole he really is. I think the press is being lenient here!

I can respect that the system isn't perfect. But the system is really poor right now -- typical political wiggling is happening. He wouldn't take Specter because Specter is really aging poorly, AND they don't want to do anything that might have the result of putting the Senate in the D's hands again. They have that 50-50 split with the VP breaking the tie right now, and keeping that in place is dead critical.

I go for Salon's nomination, US Gov. Gary Johnson, for Drug Czar. Now THAT would be a helluva pick... gutsy, honest, correct... that we will never see in a zillion years.

<p>
You know, wst, the phrase "damning by faint praise" comes to mind...:-) Somehow, I'm not reassured. This bozo worries me big-time--the idea of Pat Robertson's buddy running the FBI doesn't thrill me one bit.<p>When they start passing out the Nightwatch armbands, put me down for an "I-told-ya-so"

I wasn't necesarilly out to reassure anyone... Ashcroft has some "interesting" views, and I think that everyone needs to be aware of them.

What I was trying to point out was that damming Bush based on one selection amongst his senior advisors didn't make a lot of sense.

I don't know whether or not Ashcroft will make a good AG anymore than anyone knew if Janet Reno would have made a good one when she was nominated.

I have my suspicions that he might turn out alright because I can't imagine the next administration or the party taking such a risk otherwise. No altruism there, I trust that the party leadership would not let a nominee in who couldn't get approved for reasons that are generally known.

It's one thing to get sandbagged by the old "illegal alien domestic help" trick... though you'd think they would check a little more carefully for that these days... but it is an entirely different thing to get shot down for your beliefs if they are already known.

FWIW, I don't particularly care for the views espoused (reportedly espoused??) by Ashcroft. I would not want to put him in a position to make the law because he and I differ on a couple of points.

But I have no problem with him enforcing the law if he can separate the two. He says he can, and the President Elect believes him... seems to me it is really up to his opponents to prove otherwise.

And I still don't see where the folks selected and nominated to make up the next administration do any disservice to the next President.

Well..

Ashcroft did well on his "grilling" by the committee, at least what I saw of it.

I'd bet he will not turn out as bad as many fear. I don't remember any AG that really made real policy that was different that the administration.

Anyhow, I'm personally really glad that Clinton's nearly gone. I don't think he exactly "elevated" the presidency.

Ashcroft
 

IMO, it did. There were plenty of nominees to choose from. Picking a hardliner like Ashcroft for such a key position does not fit with the statements about "uniting America". It was a strange choice for a man in Bush's position.

I can imagine them doing just that. Bush's core is not the moderates but the extreme right. The moderates are just as liable to vote for a good Democrat. Bush needs to convince the right that he's their man while at the same time appearing to be middle-of-the-road. Ashcroft was a calculated risk. GWB wants to be able to stress Aschroft's real credentials (and he has them), saying the man's views will not affect his enforcement of an laws and policies more liberal than he is (which is most of them). At the same time, the Republican National Committee will be meeting with the far right and saying "see what we got for you". Of course, GWB would label this thinking just a part of the cynicsim caused by the Clinton presidency.

Not if your beliefs affect the job. Having an illegal alien in your house is a particular problem for a Secretary of Labor. Was she being noble or exploitative? I will say that the attack on this was bi-partisan. Everyone realized that she had messed up.


A person enforcing the law has almost as much of an impact as those writing it. Many laws are open to interpretation. A district attorney, for example, has discretion as to when to try someone and what penalty to seek.

Also, the people under that person can assume a "hidden mandate". In much the same way as having conservative President can result in an increase in hate crimes, or a perception that a leader "really wants this done but of course can't say it out loud". There are a lot of situations which come down to "this is what I thought the boss wanted".

These nominations might be additionally important in that Bush might be depending on them more than Clinton did. If GWB is really "hands-on", then his own judgement is most important. My belief is that he will be more likely to delegate and not get involved in many functions unless there is serious boilover.

I personally have no sympathy as far as Republican nominees getting skewered. This process became the way it is because of Republicans and Democrats, and I personally remember Republicans driving out the Surgeon General.

I consider myself a moderate. I don't want the people hired to protect and support me and my property to be too far left or right. They may be GWB's appointees, but as a citizen they oversee my protection and my property (public lands). They work for me and I have as much a right to be involved in their selection as anyone else.

Sure is nice seeing Bush being stymied so soon -- the gridlock-loving libertarian in me is breathing a cautious sigh of relief. I'd have rather kept Chavez and lost Ashcroft, but oh well... I find it hard to believe there could be an AG worse than Reno (is there any part of the Bill of Rights she could accept?)

Re: Ashcroft
 

Sobering words that most of the populace has entirely forgotten.

Re: Bush the doof
 

What makes the Ashcroft hearings so interesting is that he, like his nemisis Jesse Helms, pioneered much of this "lets get the other guy because of his politics" attitude that he now suffers from.

The promotion of Judge White is a classic example. Ashcroft so corrupted the hearings for Judge White that every - read that as "every" - Republican member of the committe apologized for what Ashcroft did.

What goes around comes around. Let him fry in the same fat he created.

Will he be a good Attorney General? Hard to say. Little evidence, such as previous eqivalent histories is available. What were Nixon's AGs like before he 1968? There is your benchmark for AG corruption.

Bush the Dufus
 

Well as unlikely as it may be, we do have the option to vote him out.

As much as I hate it we seem to be stuck with him for 4 years.
ALso this country has made it with worse so I guess we will make it this time as well.

HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL

Re: Re: Ashcroft
 

Yes, all of our elected officials answer to the citizens whether or not we voted for a specific official. I suppose that we could extend that to include the people they select as part of their team.

Here's the thing though... everyone complains, but few do anything other than complain.

Remember the whole "oust the incumbants" campaign? I know no one who will admit to voting for an incumbant that election, but almost all of them kept their seats!!!

I'm as guilty as most... I participated at the local level years ago, but found that the time I invested didn't provide much of a payoff, most people base their choices on things I can't even guess.

I think it is time to give the next administration an opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.

Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft
 

"On their own"? How do you mean that? Without the "advise and consent" of Congress? Or without comment from the citzenry? <p>

Dubya, on what he think's Ashcroft's job will be:

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."

On how he checks out Cabinet appointees:

"I do remain confident in Linda. She'll make a fine labor secretary. From what I've read in the press accounts, she's perfectly qualified."

I think the idea of "Bush on his own" is something that keeps his handlers awake at night...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft
 

Neither... no administration works in a vacuum, there are check and balances that were put into place way back when which include both "advice and consent" and judicial interpretation, and there is the possibility for the citzenry to be involved... heaven knows the media tries to give us information.

What I meant (poorly expressed) is that each administration, and each legistlature, has its proponents and detractors. I've not been silent in my disapproval of the last administration, and many have been just as loud in their approval.

And I know that there was a lot of noise 4 and 8 years ago, and I was part of it, to a point. I think there comes a time when you have to accept that "your guy" didn't win, so you watch what the other guy actually does. No one could have predicted that President Clinton would do some of the dumb things that he did 8 years ago... even his supporters<G>!

I think it is time to let the new administration take their places and see what they really do.

Wow... I missed that one! Too bad someone didn't cover the responsibilities of the three branches before that press conference.

Of course we could also be witnessing someone very cynical about the whole system... the judiciary has been saddled with making laws because the legislature discovered that if they sat there and did nothing the trial lawyers would bring the questions to light in court.

And to a lesser degreee the executive branch has been tasked with interpreting laws because jurists don't really want to do that either.

The whole system is slightly out of kilter.

I take the optomistic view that no one administration or legislature can do that much harm... hmmm... is that an optomistic view???

And I for one consider that a good thing... much like gridlock in DC... there are upsides to these things!

hmmm... yup, can't help but grin at the thought of a bunch of good old boys in a smokey back room sweating out what their candidate is up to.

On a serions note though, I think that Mr. Bush has put together a pretty good team. It isn't the team I would have necesarilly spec'd out, but there are some bright, forward thinking folks on there, and a few wackos to provide some balance, and I think that this administration has a very good opportunity to do some good.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft
 

I can't claim that Gore was "my guy". He just seemed less dangerous to me personally than Dubya and his pals. And I'm <em>accepting</em> that Bush won. He just still scares me. I'm still not convinced he can really read. Especially when I hear him speak. Ronnie we knew could read--if teh Teleprompter quit he'd have been as aphasic as he is today--but I don't know if any processing ever went on between input and output. <a href="http://slate.msn.com/Features/bushisms/bushisms.asp"> Bushisims </a>are clearly internally generated. <p>
How about "before he became Governor of Texas"?<p>
Uh...what? I could have sworn that the right wing was up in arms becuase they thought judges were making law by interpreting it. Where do you get the idea that jurists don't want to interpret law?

It seems to me that the three branches, at all levels, seem to be trying to do things other than that which they are tasked for.

The legislature is content to let the judicial and executive branches interpret the laws instead of creating new ones.

It is easier for the judicial to pull this off since historically they have interpreted the law... but the executive branch can approximate this through selective enforcement.

Lately, at least in my neck of the woods selective enforcement seems to be more popular, and there hue and cry is coming from the citizens, not the judicial branch.

Fortunately for us citizens, it is somewhat difficult to go to far with selective enforcement, at least at the local level. It's always been the case... if you are the town constable and you pull out in front of someone, well, lets just say that no one wants to drag this guy into court so an amicable arrangement is arrived at.

Same thing happens at all levels!

As far as people complaining about the judicial branch taking too much latitude in interpreting the laws, that too seems to be gaining attention (rightfully so) - I just want to know why once again it is the citizens complaining and not our legislators?

Being from Missouri, I must say that this is NOT the same Ashcroft I knew as Attorney General or Governor. He has certainly become more conservative over the past 6 years...in fact, I don't remember him becoming such a hard-ass until he ran for Senate in 1994.

And believe me, nothing made me feel better than to see him defeated by a dead man...served him right for trying to mudsling against Carnahan.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft
 

Yep...one big turd in the toilet bowl of the United States. I don't imagine that Bush will travel beyond Capitol Hill much...it might scare him.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft
 

Well, to be fair to GWB, and this is on the order of saying "if you squint just right and look at it in this light...", he might have meant that it is the job of the executive branch to administer the laws by interpreting them, since no law can be written to cover every situation.

With the comments on Chavez, what he might mean is that even with the information available to the public, she still appears qualified.

Of course, this does not bode well for his press secretary. The poor guy had better hire a special "interpreter" to explain to the press "What the President really meant by that is...."

I really think we should give the new administration a chance before we :

a) lay awake at night in a cold sweat

b) move to Afghanistan (unless you're Barbara Streisand or a Baldwin, in which case go immediately!)

c) dissect every statement, move, gesture etc. hoping to confirm a preconceived bias

Surely, we know Bush isn't the most articulate president ever! Highlighting every Bushism gets us nowhere.

I'm not a Republican (or Democrat for that matter). But some good can be had by changing party affiliations of our chief executive every few years. Let's remain hopeful.

Some good to be had from changing parties?
 

Let's count the ways that the switch helps.

1) Pollution levels rise, cutting down on dangerous overpopulation.

2) Murder rate in Texas drops as serial killer is moved to Washington, DC.

3) Developmentally challenged persons everywhere can now realistically aspire to the highest office in the land.

4) Children of priviledge have fresh hope that they can overcome their birthright handicap and achieve positions of prominence.

5) Creative types have an oppressive government to rebel against, a time-honored aid to self-expression.

Any others?

DMt / Omi / Etc.

See above for exactly the type of over reaction I was commenting upon. IMHO, of course!

Now, seriously, how really different are the Republicans and Democrats? Sorta like Coke and Pepsi, eh? Both desperately want you to think that they are so different and unique and each really depends on the other (largely) to define themselves and gain (very temporary) political advantage.

As a "fer example", we won't see repeal of Roe v. Wade. It'd be too politically unpopular and the Repubs know it. This despite all the noise and FUD on both sides of the issue.

Sure, I'm overreacting.
 

Look, I've never been more disgusted with a vote than when I pulled the lever for Gore this last November. Voting for an ignominous centrist with a wife who was the voice of American censorship: mmm, yummy.

And you are correct in that there is precious little difference between the two business parties in this country. Roe v. Wade probably won't be overturned.

However, there is this little matter of turning the contraception spigot off to other countries. And appointing people to positions where they are actively against most of what the job is, well, designed to do. And the overwhelming fact that if this walking smirk of a man did not have his last name, he'd have probably done jail time for drug abuse and DUI, let alone knuckle-dragged his way to a position of influence where he gets to kill people. Lots of them, too.

If it had been Gore v. Dole, I'd have voted for Bob. If it had been Gore v. McCain, I'd have probably voted for Sen. Deer Hunter. But to think for a minute that we're going to see something good out of this, you're inhaling. Glue.

Don't blame me; I voted with the majority...

Re: Sure, I'm overreacting.
 

I'd be hard pressed to call our small amount of aid to overseas concerns a "spigot". I'd heard it was a small amount. This move seems to be more symbolic (throwing the right a "bone") than truly meaningful.

And surely, GW wouldn't be even close to the presidency without the B. But then again, Roger C. and Marc Rich wouldn't have received pardons if they didn't know who they knew. And indeed, Bush's record in Texas as gov. isn't bad. Read these two articles for more:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,96942,00.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2001Jan26.html

See above! And yes, I DO see some potential good...even without your libation of choice - Glue.

I'll not touch this one.

You will not see Roe Vs Wade recinded - just made impossible by little degrees. Remember RU-486 that was banned because the extremist right wing fears any population planning by the little people. We cannot be trusted to determine how many children we will raise. RU-486 exposes the ultimate objects of these extremists as they stifle all future fetal tissue work.

We have a mindless ex-President who banned the medical research that could have avoided his mental condition. Yes - they fear anything that would involve little people controlling the quality and objectives of their families. This program will be restarted.

As for Roe vs Wade, don't be so certain. If you watch how the Supreme Court works - how Scalia effectively redirect the court with his puppy dog - what is his name - the black juror --- they only need one more Scalia type and Roe vs Wade is history.

It was a real suprise that Miranda was not overturned. Roe v Wade will not have the same protections from this court. It is endangered. I believe Scalia has more influence in the current court than even Cheif Justice Reinquest AND Scalia would quite likely be recommended by Bush Jr as the next Cheif Justice.

Keep in mind what drives extremists. They don't compromise because they believe they have to protect everyone else from immoral concepts - using their religious definitions of morality. These are dangerous people because this extremist mindset means no dissent in their ranks.

Who CAN be certain about the future, either way?

But I really feel that the Repubs won't seriously alter Roe V. Wade rights. It'd be sowing the seeds to their defeat and they'd be foolish not to heed that. We WILL definately see small, "symbolic" moves toward limiting abortion to appease the rightist factions in their party.

I'm not a fan of any moves here, but I wouldn't sell the farm.

Quote:

Keep in mind what drives extremists. They don't compromise because they believe they have to protect everyone else from immoral concepts - using their religious definitions of morality. These are dangerous people because this extremist mindset means no dissent in their ranks.

We aren't dealing with many extremists, and the few here won't be in positions that they will act alone. In reality, the Dems could be characterized as extremists in part also, but where would that lead us?

Let's not propagate more FUD!!