Kakki wrote:
"If only he had done the bidding of the opposing party and picked
all their idealogical choices like a good puppet, eh?"
Me now: of course not. But bipartisanship, which Mr. Bush claims to
embrace, involves taking some care not to totally alienate the opposition
and even throwing it a few bones every once in a while. Reasonable minds
may disagree on whether that's been done so far, but I think it hasn't.
Kakki also wrote:
"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."
Well, OK.
What might the incoming Bush administration do to lessen the negativity it
has generated? (tongue only half-firmly in cheek).
Finally, Don Rowe wrote:
"It's not *that* call the manager's really interested
in ... it's the next one. The one that might count.
The play at the plate.
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?"
That's an excellent point Don, but I have a slightly different view. I
think the nomination for the Attorney General of the United States, and the
head of the Department of Justice, *is* a play at the plate---or at least, a
play at third base. If anyone doubts just how powerful Justice is in
enforcing our laws, just take a look at the mischief to civil rights,
affirmative action, and employment law that was done almost entirely, if
memory serves, by two high-ranking Justice Department officials under the
Reagan administration, (and maybe some of the G.H.W. Bush administration):
one William Bradford Reynolds and a then-little-known attorney named Kenneth
Starr.
Mary P.
