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...