Yael asked:
> 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 don't think it is a comparable comparison at all. But to get into why
would take up way too much bandwidth here.
> 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,
I thought it was the Dems who went after Kimba Wood.
>Whitewater (which went on forever)
Where many associates of Bill and Hillary were indicted and imprisoned.
Real crimes tried and proven.
> 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).
This is one that I tire of arguing. All I can say is that to myself and
many others it was not about having an extra martial affair, but that is how
it has continued to be portrayed. If it is not apparent what it was about
there is no point in trying to explain it.
> 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.
I've been reading both sides of the slant on Ashcroft and there is much that
is compelling on both sides of the argument. Like I said, I know next to
nothing about him. However, I simply don't buy all the ruckus that because
someone is personally against abortion, that they will somehow have some
unilateral power to suddenly outlaw it. To suggest that someone who is
personally anti-abortion would enable abortion clinic bombers in some way is
just beyond comprehension to me. I also don't buy the ruckus that because
someone is a religious fundamentalist, that they will have some unilateral
power to force the whole country to adhere to their beliefs. I also find it
ironic that no one ever mentions that the church-going Bill Clinton, Al Gore
and Jesse Jackson all belong to the Southern Baptist demonmination - one of
the oldest and largest fundamentalist religions in the U.S. So why isn't
everyone afraid of how their religious affiliation will effect how they
govern or use their influence in the U.S.? There are just too many
contradictions and glaringly hypocritical postures in these arguments to
persuade me. It also bothers me that some Democrats pride themselves as
being the only party to champion the rights of minorities and women, that
is, unless those minorities and women are members of the Republican party,
and then they don't count, like Chavez and Powell. The same is true in
Hollywood show biz - which prides itself as enlightened and liberal. But
just try to get or keep a job in that industry if you don't, at least
outwardly, follow a completely liberal agenda - you will go nowhere unless
you already have the money or clout to survive. It's the same kind of
blacklisting that occurred in the 50s but the shoe has been on the other
foot for a much longer time. I just learned that Van Morrison is going to
perform at Bush's inaguration and my first thought was not "how great" but
rather, "oh no, now they are going to take down Van, too, gee, he sure has
some guts."
Just as a side note, I'm in no way either a religious fundmentalist or a
real conservative, but I get very distrustful and wary of groups that
continually promulgate notions that are illogical or false for the sake of
gaining political advantage or power. I just think that at some point,
people need to start looking at fellow Americans as just that, and not try
to portray a good 50% of them as some horrifically evil menace that must be
brought down or eliminated at any cost.
Kakki
