Doesn’t anyone here have anything to say about this appointment? Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with this particular man being our Attorney General? Is Bush thumbing his nose at the other half of the country on this one? This guy is no moderate. I hope President elect Bush doesn’t actually think this nomination is funny. I don’t find it amusing at all, nor do I find it to be an attempt at “bipartisanship”. Looks like a blatant “kiss my ass” to me.
Needs2know
Looks like a blatant “kiss my ass” to me too.
I’m sure his ideas about the law will be every bit as nonpartisan as the U.S. supreme courts.
-It’s been a while since I went to a good which burning festival !
You’re right that Ashcroft is no moderate, but get used to him. Despite statements by Wellstone and Leahy promising tough hearings, there is no chance the Senate will fail to nominate one who was so recently one of them.
I for one am less concerned with what he will do as AG as what he will not do.
I am likewise scared by this guy as well.
However, this guy could easily send the White House to the Democrats on the next election. How?
Many minorities feel they weren’t fairly counted in the last election. In this case the truth of that assertion doesn’t matter. If they feel that way they are likely to show in larger numbers next election to flex their muscle.
Ashcroft pleasantly ignores civil rights issues and other issues near and dear to minorities.
Add points 1 & 2 together and you could see one big, pissed off ‘minority’ population rush to the polls in 2004. Guess which party is likely to lose if minorities vote in huge numbers? (Hint: Not Republicans). Also, as long as they’re at the polls minorities are likely to vote out a raft of other Republican politicians quite possibly turning the House and/or the Senate to the Democrats as well.
All in all I’m not sure Dubya made such a good choice on this one.
There is a great deal of opposition to Ashcroft in the Senate. Many moderate constituencies, which are generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal, are looking to their senators to vote down Ashcroft based on his appalling civil rights record. Many civil rights groups are mobilizing as we speak to urge their members to put pressure on their senators. After all, it took Clinton three tries to raise an Attorney General.
The LA Times quoted Ashcroft as saying the following:
So what if he lost his senate race to a dead man? Bush isn’t going to get a free pass on this one.
A moderate and a dead skunk.
I’ve been wondering about this one as well. I cringe every time I hear someone claim Confederates were patriots. We’ve been rehasing that point since April 1865, and it’s time for it to die.
About the only thing I can think of, is that maybe this is a case of being attacked for something else. If I recall the MSNBC article right, he turned down an appointee for the Court on his record. Being that the appointee was black, people siezed on that and got out the big, broad brush and some hot tar.
In this age of hypersensitivity to any percieved racial slight, you cannot be too careful. I’m not sure about Missouri, but in Mississippi it’s not hard to find a black republican or democrat, one who opposes or approves of the death penalty, abortion, or whatever.
I think Bush could have found a better canadiate, tho.
What’s interesting is that all this shouting is simply over the fact that he is a conservative. No one has anything else bad to say about him. Sounds great to me.
What, specifically, about Mr. Ashcroft’s record indicates an unfitness to serve as Attorney General?
This is shaping up to be very interesting.
Some Democrats seem to be drawing a line in the sand over Ashcroft. But Republicans seem to be doing the same thing over him.
They have been very disappointed with Janet Reno’s leadership of Justice. One of the goals of getting back in the White House was to shape up and toughen up the Justice Department.
Some much farther right than me are grumbling just a little about Bush’s nomination of some less-than-fully-Conservatives such as Powell and Whitman. (I think it’s great, personally.)
As already mentioned, if Democratic Senators are going to go on the attack with Ashcroft, it will be a very ugly thing for many. The Senate prides itself on being the most genteel and collegial branch of government. They will be going after “one of their own.”
Also, unlike the Tower and Bork nomination hearings of the past, I don’t believe anyone is accusing Ashcroft of having any skeletons in his closet. He is pretty widely known as an honorable man, as far as I can tell. His decision not to seek recounts after losing in November, despite obvious questionable practices in the election that favored his dead opponent, was indicative of that.
So the vehement opposition that we hear might be coming is all based on his viewpoints.
Don’t know about the Dems, but I don’t see the Republicans backing down on Ashcroft one iota.
There’s also a larger philosophical argument at play here (yet again) between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats seem to see the closeness of the election as almost mandating a centrist Cabinet from Bush. While embracing that to at least some extent, on Ashcroft the Bush camp seems to be saying, “Hey, we won, like it or not. We get to nominate who we want, regardless of whether you particularly like him or her. And, unless there is some real problem with our appointee, it’s incumbent upon you to confirm that nomination.”
This will sort of be the first beating back by the Bush presidency of the notion that this is going to be some kind of coalition executive branch.
As I said, it should be interesting.
Ashcroft’s record on civil rights is abysmal. More than twenty years ago, as Missouri’s Attorney General, Ashcroft brought suit on behalf of the State of Missouri against the National Organization for Women because NOW called for a convention boycott against states who refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The courts rejected this attempt to suppress NOW’s political activities. More recently, as a United States Senator, Ashcroft led a deceptive and reprehensible campaign that ultimately led to the Senate’s rejection of federal judicial nominee Judge Ronnie White. Judge White was the first African American to sit on the Missouri State Supreme Court and was highly qualified for appointment to the U.S. District Court.
Ashcroft’s voting record in Congress is equally troubling. He voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, but voted for vouchers and voted to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. Ashcroft has vehemently opposed all choice laws, and opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Ashcroft has close ties with Religious Right leaders, and
has received 100% ratings from the Christian Coalition and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum. Conversely, the National Organization for Women, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the Human Rights Campaign and the League of Conservation Voters have all given Ashcroft 0% ratings. The Leadership Council on Civil Rights gave Ashcroft a 10% rating.
You may argue that his positions on these issues are irrelevant to his fitness to hold the office of the Attorney General. However, I believe that to do so would be politically naive in the extreme.
Most of the pundits I have heard are referring to this noise over Ashcroft as mere saber-rattling, an almost compulsory noting of objections before the foregone conclusion that is Ashcroft’s confirmation. “We can’t stop you, but we’ll be watching closely.”
I do argue that his positions on those issues do not impinge on his fitness to hold office - and I fail to see how that is “politically naive.”
Now, I don’t contend they won’t be issues - but let’s not take the disingenuous path of asserting that opposing his nomination on political grounds is the same thing as opposing it on the basis of unfitness for office. The man clearly opposes abortion, in any way, shape, and form. That may mean you - and certain Senators - oppose his holding the job of Attorney General. But there’s nothing inherent in his opposition to abortion that creates an inference of unfitness for the post.
Right?
I disagree with this in the extreme. He has spun his withdrawal as “honorable,” but this is little more than a facade. Consider it this way. The election was extremely close, and there were allegations of voter fraud in St. Louis. One would think that an honorable man, who truly respected and served his constituents, would have gone to bat for them and opposed the election, even though this opposition may have entailed some sacrifice. Instead he abandoned half of the state of MO supposedly in the state’s best interests: he sold out his constituency in order to salvage his political career. This is not consonant with his concession speech, wherein he claimed that he was merely serving the state to the best of his abilities.
Furthermore, considering that Carnahan was ahead in the polls weeks before the election, I would not be surprised if Ashcroft had been offered a provisional place on the Cabinet before the election.
On an unrelated note, state Republicans decided not to pursue the allegations of Democratic voter fraud because they did not believe that enough votes were tampered with to change the results of the election.
Maeglin -
Where, exactly, did you cut and paste that from? Sounds like a fair, balanced and impartial review of Ashcroft’s career to me. :rolleyes:
Unless we know why he opposed this judge’s nomination, saying that he was “highly qualified” and African-American doesn’t cut it as an Ashcroft misdeed. Ditto his action against NOW (why, specifically, was it taken?)
This is the oldest political trick in the book. Introduce legislation that contains components that you know others will feel are overreaching and can’t support, and give it a real good name like the Employment Non-Descrimination Act. Then, when they vote against it, you can cry with outrage, “He voted against the Employment Non-Descrimination Act!”
Well, why did he vote against those two measures? Maybe there was a very good reason. Maybe not. We certainly don’t know from what you’ve presented.
**
Last I checked, vouchers had some level of bi-partisan support. I, personally, haven’t figured out where I stand on them.
And as for the National Endowment for the Arts - gasp! Do you think Ashcroft stands out on an island unto himself on that opinion?
Some don’t like taxpayer dollars funding upside-down crucifixes in jars of urine. Others don’t like the idea of government-funded art, period. So what?
Nice to see fair, impartial groups with no agenda of their own giving their unbiased analysis.
What did he get in the swimsuit competition?
I would argue that they may or may not be relevant, but we don’t have enough information to decide from the things you’ve listed.
Of course not. As nebulous a term as fitness may be, political views of the candidate ought not be criteria.
However, I do believe that they are legitimate criteria for opposition. So far I do not know what has been dug up about Ashcroft other than his views, but those are enough for me.
Very well. You oppose his nomination to the office of Attorney General based on your opposition to his apparent political views.
In light of the fact that George W. Bush will be the President for the next four years, and that the Republicans will control both House and Senate for the next two, I suspect a fair number of appointments, executive orders, and laws may also garner your opposition.
However, while Bush can, and does, represent all Americans - or will on January 20th, in any event - only a person afflicted with multiple-personality disorder could even attempt to simultaneously represent the views of all Americans. Bush is himself pro-life; it is neither surprising nor inappropriate that his Attorney General be likewise.
You may certainly oppose him. But don’t hold your breath on that opposition being successful.
I don’t understand why everyone is so upset with him. Its not like he’ll surround the NOW offices with ATF agents and then burn it down with everyone inside. Or perhaps you think a woman from Cuba will wash up on shore seeking an abortion and he’ll send her back. Let’s get serious.
I think Ashcroft will be an incredible AG. After 8 yrs of Janet Reno he will be a welcome return to the idea that laws are meant to be enforced. I’m especially hopeful in regards to gun control and legislation. Republicans have always said that the key to gun control was not more legislation, but diligent enforcement of current laws. I hope that he proves us right. And the same for drug laws.
And for those of you alarmed about about “diversity” here’s a look at your boys current cabinet:
Agriculture: White Male
Commerce: Asian Male
Defense: White Male
Education: White Male
Energy: White Male
HHS: White Female (I think)
HUD: White Male
Interior: White Male
DOJ: White Female (Again, I’m not sure)
State: White Female
Trans: Black Male
Treasury: White Male
Vet Affairs: White Male
Wow, just look at all that inclusion!! If GW proposed a cabinet with the same profile he’d be hung. But, unlike our current Pres., I doubt anyone other than Mrs Bush will ever know.
I am not really interested in presenting a fair and balanced appraisal of his career, Milo. Why should I? I am interested in bringing to light the reasons that I oppose his nomination to the position of Attorney General.
He opposed Ronnie White’s nomination largely due to his stance on capital punishment. US. Rep Kenny Hulshof does so much as admits it.
If that is not enough for you, let’s proceed.
Ronnie White was painted as “pro-criminal, notorious among law enforcement officers in his home state of Missouri for his decisions favoring murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and other heinous criminals.” You may find the cite for this quotation at the senate.gov site here.
However, this kind of character assassination was quicky exposed when the facts were consulted. White voted for the death penalty in 70% of the cases that came before him (voting in favor of it in 41 cases and against in 17) and
voted with the majority of the court on death penalty cases 90% of the time. You may find this on record in the October 21, 1999 letter from Thomas Mayer, President, Missouri State Fraternal Order of Police to Sheriff McKelvey, President, National Sheriff’s Association, reprinted at 145 Cong. Rec. S13009.
The plot sickens. Republican senators who backed him in commitee turned around and voted him down later. Hatch, Thurmond, Specter, Kyl, Grassey, and DeWine.
The Washington Post, October 8, 1999 has the following to say:
The most striking reversal, of course, was that of MO Senator Bond. Bond endorsed White’s nomination, saying the following in 1998:
In August of 1999, he dropped his support. His office claimed that he “did not have a chance to review White’s record before.”
I am not Maxine Waters. I am not interested claiming that race had anything to do with White’s rejection. But here are the facts, Milo. Make of them as you will.
Puh-leeze, you know better than that. There happens to be a Republican majority in both houses, and quite obviously they control the committees. If the proposed legislation were so “overreaching” don’t you think it would have tanked at least in committee? If you would like to show me where I am wrong or how the Employment Non-Discrimination act is misnamed, go right ahead. The burden of proof, in this case, rests squarely on your shoulders. You must do better than to cast a shadow of a doubt on the nomenclature of these bills.
The bottom line, of course, is the vote. He had other priorities which influenced him to vote this sucker down. Unless the bill contained a provision to exterminate the state of Missouri, his particular reasons do not mitigate his vote.
Be that as it may, vouchers have been resounding defeated in the courts as well as in every state referendum. Take from that what you will.
So what? So what?
Do I have to say this one more time? I don’t agree with this!
Evidently you do not know how these ratings work. They are not the subjective analyses of individuals. Each of these organizations picks a number of key legislative measures that it considers representative of its issues. Every legislator is rated based on the number of times he voted in accordance with their issues. So when Schlafly awards Ashcroft a 100%, it is not merely because he is a vocal conservative, but because he voted with them on every single key issue.
I am not at all surprised that he has voted contrary to NOW or to any pro-choice organization. But 10% on key civil rights issues is troubling for me.
Bricker, GW Bush is in office and I certainly opposed him. I am still breathing. And I am not particularly violent. I will do what I believe to be right and live with the consequences.
JamesCarroll, I don’t really care what the various shapes, colors, and sexual preferences are of the president’s Cabinet members. At least I am honest enough to admit that I care more about their political agendas. Diversity, in my opinion, can take a back seat.