Kakki wrote, of Ashcroft and the current political situation...
>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.
But Kakki, that is exactly the same thing that happened to Clinton,
exactly! No honeymoon period, and his nominees faced grueling grilling and
nit-picking, and he and his people were nicked and smeared for most of 8
years. Not to support Clinton, who I don't particularly like (though he has
said some things that I admire, at least in the spirit of them)... but to
point out that the game has been around for a while, and it is not fair to
look askance at the Dems for it.
I know you were decrying the practice in general, and not just the Dems,
but I definitely sensed a disgust with Democrats on this issue, and really
so far the Republicans have been very active at it - Kimba Wood as nominee,
and others, Whitewater (which went on forever) and the Lewinsky thing,
which, wrongful behavior as it was, certainly went on much longer than
necessary, politically speaking. (Since when have we hounded presidents for
their extramarital affairs? Not that it is right, but, really. Those people
should get the damn beams out of their own eyes first).
But on the other hand, don't forget that in some of these cases, there may
be actual good reasons why they will be pushed out, such as a history of
making statements that throw into question the person's ability to perform
their role. For example, will Ashcroft, as attorney general, be committed
to upholding the law that keeps people from bombing and hounding abortion
clinics? Whether or not one is pro-choice or anti-choice, it is important
to uphold the law... Just as an example.
-Yael
