Kakki wrote regarding former Secretary of Labor Nominee Linda Chavez, in
response to Yael's questions:
"Yeah, one succesfully hounded out and more to go. Ashcroft, step right up,
you're next!
She took in a poor Guatamalan woman who had come from a battered woman's
shelter and let her and her sons live with the family until the woman could
get back up on her feet. She helped the woman go to school and get her US
citizenship. But see, she was breaking the law for "harboring an illegal
alien." It also came out that she had "harbored" two other Hispanic illegal
alien women who were in desperate straits and helped them financially and
otherwise.
Yes indeed, where is the "bipartisanship?"
Well, that's one spin on what happened. Another is that, according to her
own friends, Chavez was aware that the woman was an illegal alien three
months into having her live at her home for a year, although she later
stated publicly that she didn't know until after she left. There's also
speculation that the immigrant was, indeed, an employee, and regarded by
such by those who knew Chavez at the time.
Chavez certainly would have been asked many questions about it at a
confirmation hearing for the cabinet-level position for which she was
nominated. For whatever reason, she chose to withdraw her nomination, or
was nudged into doing so, so I suppose we will never know what actually
occurred. And I can't say that I don't feel some sympathy for Chavez if
events transpired even partly as you've related them, Kakki.
However, on the basis of the imperfect record that exists, I would have had
serious, serious reservations about this nomination. First, even if Chavez
was at some level performing a charitable act, if she paid the woman under
certain circumstances, she may have broken the law. Where is the vaunted
Republican concern with the primacy of the "rule of law" in this
instance--or does that only apply to Democrats thought to be the wrongdoers?
Second, the laws she may have violated concerned, yes, immigration, but also
*labor and employment*, the same laws she would have been sworn to uphold as
Secretary of Labor! How credible a cabinet member could she possibly have
been?
Third, her truthfulness has been called into question. Contemporaneous
witnesses clearly recall her knowing about the woman's immigration status
and telling others about it, but she has gone on record as denying her
knowledge. Where is the great concern with honesty that was so evident in
some circles throughout the entire Lewinsky scandal? And again, how
effective could she have been in her job under these circumstances?
Fourth, Chavez is on record as having made some especially biting comments
about the eventually-torpedoed nomination of Zoe Baird to be Attorney
General under the Clinton administration in 1993. Baird, I believe, had
failed to pay taxes and/or withholding for a nanny who worked in her employ.
I think it's only fair to hold Chavez up to the same stringent standards
that she has set for others in the opposition party with similar
difficulties. That's "bipartisanship," if you ask me.
Finally, about bipartisanship and "negativity." The first doesn't involve
the Democrats lying down and playing dead, and the second hasn't all been
generated by one side. Politics is, by definition, a volatile and sometimes
nasty business. Cabinet confirmation hearings are often contentious, and
the party not in control of the White House can be expected to voice
opposition to some picks as a matter of course. That said, many of us still
harbor hopes for bipartisan efforts during the next four years, beginning
with these hearings and extending into various legislative initiatives. But
bipartisanship involves give and take by BOTH sides, not just one. The
jury's still out on the new House and Senate, but, judging by his actions
until this point, I do not see George W. Bush as having learned this so far.
Mary P.
