I just have my doubts that Mr. Kerry could have made a decision that Mr. Moto could have stood behind. I have difficulty taking at face value threads started by people of one political persuasion offering “advice” for people of the opposite political persuasion.
I didn’t start this thread.
And while I have started others criticizing various aspects of Democratic policy, it pales in comparison with criticism of Republican positions on this board.
Well, I started the thread. Full disclosure: I voted for Kerry, did some volunteer work and donated to his campaign. I was just interested in people’s reaction to the situation, and their views on the ethical bases for a senator’s vote. I offered no advice.
And elsewhere. You do realize your party is in trouble, don’t you? Look at this shit from Phyllis Schlafly:
Perhaps rather than offering advice to the living, the grievously wounded should look towards methods of healing their own injuries. Many of us Dems would be happy to offer advice, if you’d only ask.
Oh, trust me. I offer advice to my fellow conservatives and Republicans all of the time. I just don’t do it here, since there are precious few of us around to have that particular conversation.
Latest development: the nomination was pulled.
Yes. He’s a senator, not a judge; he doesn’t have to recuse himself from voting in a matter in which he has a personal interest/grudge.
Not true. Ethically he is responsible to not vote on matters where he has a personal financial interest.
That’s not the case here, but it is indeed the case that senators have to recuse themselves from certain votes. Usually this is done by recording a vote of “present”.
One might argue that personal financial interest was as a [former] presidential candidate, and not as a [current] Senator.
I have difficulty reading any thread that has to do with politics because it ALWAYS ends up being a “Yeah, well what about them?” thread.
The OP is a fair question which reasonable people can debate. Whether Mr. Moto is a Rush Limbaugh Republican or a yellow dog Democrat doesn’t really matter.
My input: He certainly can vote against a nominee for any reason, but I agree that it doesn’t help his reputation or his own party’s cause. On the other hand, Fox should have considered that there’d be a day when the very people he attacked would be sitting in this very position.
I doubt that is the case, as prior to this past November the mantra of the GOP was “a permanent Republican majority.” Rove and Nordquist et al. truly believed that they had many election cycles of dominance ahead, so the idea that their nominees would have to face Democratic controlled congressional committees was not on the radar. Given that the GOP-controlled Congress had abdicated virtually all oversight for the previous six years, I think that also explains a number of the other questionable things that are turning up, such as the FBI misuse of Patriot Act provisions.
I hope the man lives to regret this.
That’s building a consensus.
Remember how someone had to create a DVD to convince Bush that Katrina was happening? Maybe someone should make one of last November’s election coverage.
This may very well be true, but the question is if Kerry himself should recuse himself or not. Of course he should. If someone else wants to vote against him for that reason, more power to them.
why? Its a political appointment, not some criminal proceeding where a conflict of interest would could tip the scales of justice. Why shouldn’t political considerations be given to a political appointment (even if they’re personal)?
There’s no need for Kerry to recuse himself. The Decider has already recused the entire senate. Do you think that was the right way for Bush to handle the situation, magellan01?
Why continue to beat on a dead horse, when there’s a new, living horse in town today?
The justice system is not the only place that ethics comes into play? (One could argue that ethichs is most wanting there, due to people mistaking what is right legally with what is right ethically. But that’s another discussion) Why do you even raise the issue? The ethical thing to do is for him to recuse himself. Kerry, like any other Senator enjoys a position of immense power. If there is an acknowledged personal dispute between he and another person who he can effect the life of, the honorable thing to do is recuse himself. Even in matters of legal justice, judges often recuse themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety. For instance, when Ninth Circuit Judge Bryer has one of his cases go to the Supreme Court, his brother will sometimes recuse himself. (I assume if the reason for the appeal is some supposed failing on the part of Bryer the Lesser.)
Define need.
Yes, Kerry shouldn’t let personal considerations get in the way of national security matters like the decision of who is Ambassador to Belgium. The appointment is basically a reward for service to the president, so in that sense I guess Kerry is entitled to let it be a personal matter.
Kerry’s got no responsibility to recuse himself, but this thing is petty all the way around. Fox should be ashamed of himself for the “I don’t remember who gave the money” thing, and for his comments about 527s, which were either total dishonesty or stupidity. And Bush is just giving the Senate the finger. [Insert comment about uniting-not-dividing/November remarks on bipartisanship/whatever else he said but obviously didn’t mean here.]