Here’s a link from Slate that seems relevant: Why Did John Ashcroft Sing Dixie? (although of course Slate is rather liberal)
A lot of this thread has dealt with Ashcroft’s views on race and the possibles effects, but it seems that most are concerned more with what he won’t do, as opposed to what he will do.
So for those opposed or worried about his nomination what exactly do you fear he will actually do?
Umm, this is Gore-bashing, something you can no longer do, as you lost your bet, remember? And- lost it kinda in a big way, hmmmm?
Personally, altho Bush is going to tank the economy (it has already started), firewood will clearly go up. With Bush & Ashcroft, they will need a LOT of firewood for the witch-burnings…
Agrees with their cause? How so? Ashcroft may be anti-abortion, but there’s no evidence that he supports anti-abortion terrorism.
The same can be said of all the prominent pro-life groups in the USA. They all oppose abortion, but they are also quick and vehement in denouncing abortion-related violence.
In other words, I think it’s a bit petty (no offense) to insinuate that Ashcroft wouldn’t denounce anti-abortion terrorism.
Mandelstam:
It is unreasonable to expect that Bush will not appoint conservatives to his cabinet. He is a republican president. When he said that he was a “uniter” he meant that he’d appoint both moderates and conservatives, not that he wouldn’t appoint conservatives. Get a grip.
If his entire cabinet were hard-right conservatives then you could complain. But having a few conservatives should be expected by everyone except hard-left liberals.
I understand you’d rather have liberals or moderates. And Bush has appointed several moderates. But he’s going to appoint some conservatives too. Um, he’s a republican, remember?
Lemur866, Pardon me for saying so, but your analysis of politics is, well, more fitting for lemurs than attentive people. When Bush said that he was a “uniter,” he was contrasting his alleged abilities to bring Republicans and Democrats together to those of his opponent, Al Gore. Undoubtedly, as a matter of practical politics, he made signals to the hard-right that he would not be hostile to their agenda. But throughout his campaign he was extremely careful to mute those signals and to keep the hard-right quiet so as to convince sleepy, undecided voters that he was their “unifier.” While it would be unrealistic to expect that Bush would not appoint some ultra-conservatives to his cabinet, it is not unreasonable to point out the hypocrisy.
I was also attempting to make a more debatable point: that Bush is in actuality more of a conservative (of the Cheney order) than he likes to paint himself.
I have repeatedly made a distinction between my expectations–which are that Bush will indeed cater to the hard-right, and that he is probably more sympathetic to their agenda than he lets on–and my analysis of his hypocrisy. This has very little to do with my own political preferences which, while they are strong, do not impair my making a straightforward contrast between campaign rhetoric and post-election conduct. Got it?
Hmmm…I must have missed his campaign pledge not to appoint conservatives. This never happened, I don’t think there is a single person out there who voted for Bush under the mistaken impression that he would never appoint conservatives. If you can find one, I’d like to know.
No. I agree that “uniter” was code for “I’m not that conservative”, and “I know how to work with Democrats”. It was not code for “I will never appoint conservatives”.
I don’t understand why you think that because Bush is appointing a few conservatives, that he is more conservative than he appears. Perhaps if you are an extreme liberal Bush appears conservative, and he may be more conservative than Al Gore, but he is not a hard-core conservative, any more than Bush Senior was.
If you think Bush Senior was conservative, then we are arguing semantics here. Bush is not a closet conservative, he is a closet no-beliefer, like Clinton. He didn’t run as a moderate because he had to hide his conservative beliefs, he ran as a moderate because he has no beliefs and that was the way to become president.
Um, maybe you don’t know this, but in republican circles, being pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, pro-religion, pro-small government is MAINSTREAM. Most republicans believe in this. Bush is a mainstream republican. He is not trying to drag the republicans farther right, in fact he is dragging them to the middle. If he was a stealth conservative, don’t you think he’d be trying to drag the republicans to the right? Or perhaps under your definitions anyone who votes republican is a right-wing conservative. I disagree with that. There are lots of people who vote republican that cannot be called right-wing conservatives, just like not everyone who votes democratic is a left-wing liberal (hint: Al Gore is not a left wing liberal).
Missouri v. National Organization for Women (1980): The National Organization for Women organized a convention boycott of Missouri and other states which had not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the State of Missouri, sued NOW under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act/Clayton Act for engaging in a conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade. The U.S. District Court found for NOW, on the grounds that the boycott was clearly a political action protected by the First Amendment; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the court’s decision. I don’t know if the case ever made it to the Supremes. (IANAL)
Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. In this example, the battle would be the Ashcroft nomination, and the war would be Congress in '02, and possibly the presidency in '04.
Two articles lately about how Bush is making his Cabinet much farther right than expected:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/31/politics/31CABI.html
(that one might require registration)
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1961-2000Dec30?language=printer
You liberals need to realize that your personal beliefs are not universal truths handed down from on high. America is full of people who believe in the right to life, AND people who believe in choice. America is full of people who believe in affirmative action, and those who don’t.
Ashcroft’s opinions on these subjects may be distasteful to many of you, but they happen to match the opinions of a large percentage of people in the U.S. And their guy won.
Ashcroft’s belief that abortion is wrong is no less disqualifying than Janet Reno’s belief that it’s right.
It’s always interesting when a two-term party loses the White House, because so many people really have no recollection of other parties holding power, and therefore think that many things which were merely the opinion of the current President are actually universal truths.
Sam’s right as far as that goes, until it goes too far.
First blush would seem to suggest that there is nothing overtly racist than can be pinned to Ashcroft. So far, so good. He is clearly conservative in his orientation, which is to say he is wrong, as a general rule.
But he isn’t a big enough asshole to go to the mattreses about. Microsoft and Big Tobacco will love it, its a drag when good things happen to bad people, but this one isn’t worth wasting ammo.
Two bits says he conducts a reasonably fair and square investigation into the “Jackson” charges, finds things that need to be fixed, but no charges to file, Bush endorses the results.
elucidator:
So he’s wrong, just because of his political beliefs? Sheesh! Now you sound like Stoidela and her Republicans are evil threads.
So much for fighting ignorance.
**
Undoubtedly, but those who believe in choice are in the majority. More importantly, Bush knew that he couldn’t win without women’s support and knew that he couldn’t get women’s support without muting the Republican party’s anti-choice agenda. During the debates Bush’s stance on RU-486 was that he didn’t think there was anything the President could do about it. Again and again he waffled on that and other abortion issues, implictly telling women and other pro-choice voters that the issue was safe with him.
“Ashcroft’s belief that abortion is wrong is no less disqualifying than Janet Reno’s belief that it’s right.”
The problem with that reasoning is that the right to abortion is still the law of the land. Hence, appointing Ashcroft to a position where he’ll have some authority over abortion rights is a bit like appointing an avowed proponent of decriminalizing drugs to run the DEA.
The analogy isn’t perfect, but perhaps it helps you to understand why many people, and not only liberals, feel alarmed by this particular selection.
“It’s always interesting when a two-term party loses the White House, because so many people really have no recollection of other parties holding power, and therefore think that many things which were merely the opinion of the current President are actually universal truths.”
Again, Sam, this isn’t a question of one President’s opinion versus another, or your opinion versus mine. It’s a question of the existing law and the need of that law to be enforced as impartially as possible.
And on that note, a very happy New Year to you!
Milroyj:
Recalibrate irony detection apparatus.
Whhooooosssh!
Yer pal,
Elucidator
Thanks for proving my point Jello that although Bush has not as yet appointed any “flaming” liberals, he has in fact tried to honor his pledge to be inclusive in the current selections he has made (notes the blend of minorities and genders thus far). BTW, I am totally in favor of Mr. Ashcroft’s positions so Bush is honoring my voice and vote in this selection (you are cordially invited to get a grip 
). Given the fact that due to the 50-50 split in the senate, absolutely no senator currently serving from either side can agree to serve in the cabinet without their party losing politically. This has created some degree of difficulty as well.
Now why don’t we set back and SEE what they do before we whine too loudly about what we THINK they may do 
DOH!
Mrs Milroy did say I started celebrating the Millenium a bit early
Carry on!
Phil_15, I think Jello inadvertently posted the wrong NYT article. The one you cited was describing the extent to which Bush looked to be relying on his cabinet more than Clinton did; it’s main point wasn’t to assess the conservativeness of the nominations.
However, this article, entitled “New Picks Firm Up Conservative Cast of Bush’s Cabinet,” is on precisely that topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/30/politics/30BUSH.html?pagewanted=1
Here’s an excerpt: “With today’s selections, Mr. Bush has given his cabinet a more conservative cast, and some choices are likely to meet opposition during the confirmation process.” It then goes on to detail specific objections by various groups to nominees such as Thompson, Ashcroft and Norton.
Bear in mind that the Times makes an effort to be subtle about these things. In another thread in the Pit, I’ve already mentioned this article, entitled “The Right Calls on Bush.” It’s more of a pundit-type analysis.
http://intellectualcapitol.com/issues/issue415/item10613.asp
Here is an archived column dating back to Bush’s choice of Cheney for VP running-mate (which was also viewed as a sign of his more-moderate-than-he-lets on politics.
http://www.americanpartisan.com/cols/hall/080100.htm
The best part of the above is that it starts with the following sublime quotation from Dick Armey:
“[Bush is] as conservative as I am, and you might find that he’s more conservative, but he’s got such a wonderful personal demeanor that liberals and moderates have never felt threatened.”
-House Republican leader Dick Armey"
Okay, everyone, please 'fess up now if you are one of those liberals who was completely charmed by your new President’s wonderful personal demeanor…
Phil again,
"Thanks for proving my point Jello that although Bush has not as yet appointed any “flaming” liberals…
I’m just curious what constitutes a “flaming” liberal.
Would this be a liberal who wears fuchsia suits by Donna Karan? A liberal who is prepared to self-immolate as a protest against Ashcroft? Or just a liberal with a wonderful personal demeanor? 
And now I really must go and don my new Lacroix for the night’s festivities.
That should have said “less moderate than he lets on.”
Heh heh heh heh…oops. I saw the one you posted and then started browsing. That was pretty stupid of me.