Perhaps a silver lining on a bleak outlook?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/31/ashcroft.tm/
Oh yeah.
Damn Bushco.
I wouldn’t classify this a rant, it’s a celebration!
Well, until I hear more about whoever replaces Ashcroft… I suppose it’s possible it might be somebody I like even less, but that would be difficult.
Wait, I thought “Bushco” was the enemy. Now you’ll accept Ashcroft’s resignation as acceptable? Man, you guys are getting so close to accepting that we’ll have another 2-term President. Join us. 
Don’t get me wrong duffer, I’d still rather have Kerry. But Bush-Ashcroft is still preferable to Bush+Ashcroft.
I hope. As I said before, I cannot rule out that Bush replaces him with someone I dislike even more. But that hardly seems possible…
Meh. This is an administration that has gone out of its way to avoid showing internal disagreements - though they’ve been unsuccessful at that lately. Getting rid of the A.G. would sure go against that, I think… also the radical right would probably flip out.
Obviously you must feel the same of Ashcroft as I did about Reno. Just keep in mind even with him in that position, the country is strong enough to survive it. Whether he’s right or wrong in the long term. Just please keep in mind that he’s doing a job that has never been done before. Mistakes made? Yup, and there will be more no matter whom wins in November.
But I’ll stand side by side with you in keeping them honest.
What’s he doing that hasn’t been done before? Stripping away civil liberties in the name of security? Detaining citizens for years without trial?
You forgot “stripping away the flimsy, hole-filled shower curtain between church and state.”
If Ashcroft is doing a job that’s never been done before, we’d better fucking make sure nobody ever does it again.
We can only hope, Reeder. We can only hope.
Please forgive me if I’m remembering wrong, but you support Bush for re-election, don’t you? If you recognize how really scary Ashcroft is, how can you support the man who put him in his current position?
I have many reasons for disliking W, but Ashcroft alone would have sealed his fate as far as my vote is concerned, and certainly tops my list of the many reasons why I not only dislike, but fear the Bush administration.
Again, please forgive me if I am remembering your political stance incorrectly, silenus.
Nope. You remember correctly, AvhHines. But just because I support the reelection of Bush (as opposed to…) does not mean I think the man hasn’t made grave mistakes, or that certain people he has appointed aren’t the AntiChrist. But then, I haven’t approved of an Attorney-General since…well, forever. I hated Reno with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns. The only thing positive Ashcroft has done is to state that the position of the US Govt. is that the Second Amendment is a personal right.
Not too fond of Dubya, but dislike/disagree with the alternative even more.
So how would you handle the threat? No, seriously. If you know a better way to keep another attack from happening (as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft and Rice have done) I’m sure you’d be appreciated in Washington. Or are you lashing out at Bush?
think I’ve been whooshed on that
Ashcroft is a sideshow. Keeping him or dumping him won’t do much good either way. Iraq and the economy are the hinges on which this election will swing.
I would not put much credence in this “dump Ashcroft” thing.
We have all been pretty much agreed that Ashcroft was nominated as a party favor for the Christian Right. If there is indeed a plan to get rid of him in the event of Bush’s reelection, even a so-called secret plan, the word will get out. In fact if the AG’s performance so far is any indication the Ag will put out the word himself – as with his latest uncoordinated pronouncement that we should all pull the covers over our heads and tremble in the darkness. If Ashcroft is going he will not go quietly. Bush and the boys can not afford that. The dumping of Ashcroft will certainly not drive people who would otherwise vote for Bush into the Kerry camp but is might well result in those people not voting at all. In the “battleground states” the non-participation of the Ashcroft supporters could make a big difference in the Electoral College.
As much as Ashcroft might annoy the White House, as much as he may be a lose cannon, as bad a team player as he might be, the White House doesn’t even dare think about getting rid of him. Bush needs the Christian Right, the Cold-Dead-Hands types, the death penalty aficionados, the throw-'em-in-a-place-where-they-can’t-hear-the-dogs-bark advocates, the Immigration Restrictors and the one issue anti-abortion voters to get reelected. Ashcroft is their boy. By extension Bush needs Ashcroft to get reelected. A contingency plan to drop him cannot be allowed even to be whispered about in the dark recesses of Carl Rove’s bunker or the Vice-President’s undisclosed location (in the penthouse suite at the Green Briar).
See Reeder’s OP: *Said one: “Ashcroft will not be the A.G. by Christmas if Bush wins.” *
Election’s over when Ashcroft gets dumped.
What’s that quote about those who would exchange liberty for security? And that another attack hasn’t happened on US soil doesn’t mean that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft and Rice have “prevented” one.
“Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither.” – Benjamin Franklin
Ah, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Right. Just like it won’t be their fault if an attack does happen, right?
:rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan