[richlevy]

Originally posted by wst3
....

[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.[/b]

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 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.[/b]

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.

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..[/b]

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.

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. [/b]

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.