Don wrote:
> Ashcroft's nomination, in other words, is really not
> much more than a straw man offered as sacrfice to more
> liberal Democrats. Sure they can shoot Ashcroft down,
> but how much *better* in comparison, will Bush's
> nomination for ... Supreme Court Justice ... look by
> comparison? And therein lies the play at the plate.
I really don't know much about him and I'm sure you know a lot more being
from his state. But all the hand-wringing over Bush's picks may be much ado
about nothing in the end. My dark and cynical prediction is that most all
of the Bush picks will be hounded out by his political enemies, and the
ones, if any, that remain standing will be nicked and smeared on a constant
basis for the next four years. This will probably make the opposition happy
and give them something to chew on as they await the 2004 election. In the
meantime, though, do people really think all the wrangling and dirty
politics is productive for the country? The negativism, uncertainty and
distraction that will no doubt result from all the mud-slinging is not going
to be beneficial for the overall running of the country. The economy will
probably flatten out badly as a result and then Bush will be blamed for
that, too. If only he had done the bidding of the opposing party and picked
all their idealogical choices like a good puppet, eh? I think we all should
have a say and, of course, hold our public servants accountable for their
actions regardless of party affiliation but why not wait just a bit to see
how these people are going to serve before ranting and scorching the
political earth on a daily basis?
Kakki
