John wrote:
> At 01:14 PM 1/1/01 -0800, Doug wrote:
> >They are conservative appointments where they can do the most "damage".
If he
> >had appointed a conservative Secretary of State, few people would object.
He
> >appointed moderates to positions where their moderation is of little
> >consequence.
>
> I am glad that you consider the Environmental Protection Agency, the State
> Dept., and Treasury Dept.
> to be of little consequence. Remind me not to vote for you.......
Just a nit to pick - Doug didn't refer to the departments as being of
"little consequence", he was rather stating that those are positions in
which being a moderate (and I'm assuming he meant a social moderate) is less
likely to impact public policy. Let's try to avoid straw men for a while,
OK?
As far as the rest of it goes, I'm not terribly surprised by any of Shrub's
choices, but I'm not exactly pleased by Ashcroft's nomination, either.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
"I don't want actors reasoning with me about
'motivation' and all that bull. All I want 'em to
do is learn the goddamn lines and don't bump
into each other.' " - Jason Robards
