Vince,
I'm sorry to hear about your father and send all my best thoughts for a
successful surgery. My own father (age 88) has been failing over the past
several months and it has been very difficult, especially for my mother.
There is no "instruction manual" to really prepare us for these events with
our parents, only faith and sometimes a lot of courage. I've felt more a
"grown-up" in these past few months than ever before in my life. Please
give us an update when you can.
As for the political content:
> Linda Chavez has always been IMHO a most intellectually dishonest
columnist.
> There was never any consistent philosophy but always just a vitriolic anti
> Clinton and anti Democratic screed. I was shocked that she was nominated
for
> a cabinet position -- but I was not surprised that she was so dishonest
with
> the FBI and the Bush people in the pre-nomination interviews. I note that
I
> have never seen a president or president-elect dump a nominee so quickly,
far,
> far faster than Clinton ever distanced himself from someone - which had I
> thought was unusally fast in some cases. That would suggest that Bush can
be a
> colder, steelier person than we imagined, or at least has a colder or
steelier
> side, than we have seen. (That is neither good nor bad by the way; it is
just
> an observation that we haven't seen that side of W Bush yet until now.)
I actually do appreciate hearing the "other sides" in these discussions if
there is solid evidence to back them up. I don't want to be misled by any
party, even if it is my own, and I want to learn the big picture if
possible. News reports indicate that Bush indeed dropped her a bit
abruptly. My first inclination was to be taken aback at this coldness. On
the other hand, it is being reported that he was very unhappy that she might
have deceived him. So he may be cold or maybe (I would like to believe) he
wants upfront people with integrity attached to his administration. That
wouldn't be such a bad thing, if true.
> As far as Ashcroft goes: he made his entire Senate career based on
opposing
> various Clinton nominees on the basis of ideology. That was his right.
He was
> not concerned with competence but with ideology. Thus, Ashcroft cannot
> complain if he is opposed on the basis of ideology. As Ashcroft used
> Senatorial priviledge to block Clinton nominess on ideological grounds, so
> shall he be opposed. To argue for or against Ashcroft on any other
grounds is
> hypocritical based on his own just completed Senatorial record. I suspect
he
> may just possibly not be confirmed... and I don't know if Bush would be
that
> unhappy if Ashcroft did so down, because he will have cemented his ties
with
> the religious right of the GOP for having nominated Ashcroft anyway. So
Bush
> wins with that wing of the GOP no matter how confirmation goes.
I would have no problem with a block of Ashcroft based on proof that he only
acts in lock-step with one narrow idealogy. What I had a problem with is
trying to oppose him simply because of his personal religion or an as yet
unproven speculation that he will somehow overturn abortion rights. That
seems too simplistic to me - let's hear about his record instead and then
decide. But I do appreciate the input from you, Mary, Lori and others and
think it's good and productive to "talk it over", you know?
> All it takes is a 5-4 vote. If O'Connor retires as planned - or Ginzburg,
who
> has battled cancer, or Souter, or Breyer, who are both mortal, or Stevens,
who
> will retire because of age - any one of those is the 5th vote on any
number of
> issues, including Roe v Wade - or the presidential election. Because Roe
v
> Wade is not a law, but a court decision, as are so many other things we
take
> for granted... well, that is why we all fought so damned hard to win the
last
> election, because 1 vote in the right place will be that 5th vote to
confirm or
> over-rule many things. Anyone who lived through the Warren Court -
whether one
> agrees with what they did or not - knows how quickly "long-standing"
things
> (Plessay vs Ferguson [spelling error there], pre-Miranda times, pre
> "one-person one vote" rulings) can be changed by the Supreme Court.
But it's been a Supreme Court decision that has been in place for almost 30
years. It is well-established case law. Even with a conservative majority
on the Supreme Court, I still cannot see them messing with this, if for no
other reason than it would be highly controversial, provoke riots, provoke
calls for their impeachment, threats to their well-being and so on. You may
not think some conservatives are very enlightened but they are not that
stupid, especially at the Supreme Court level.
> And the irony of a "handful of people" comment is not lost on any of us
who saw a 5-4
> decision elect Bush and not Gore. That is why both sides fought so hard.
Now Vince ;-) The initial vote on the unconstitionality of the Florida
decision was a unanimous 9-0. The second vote on the unconstitionality of
the decision was 7-2. Only the vote on recounting the entire state for the
third and fourth time was 5-4. Also no one ever mentions that in all except
one of the many lower court decisions regarding the election, Democrat
judges ruled against Gore's side. No one mentions that but rather diverts
attention over to Katharine Harris, who truly was just doing her job, i.e.,
she did and does not have much actual authority in her official position for
changing the rules mid-course, despite the wishes of some.
> But I love you, Kakki. Too many people rave about your consummate
graciousness
> which we have all experienced in the JMDL for anyone not to love you!
Thank you very much for the generous compliment. Love and strength to you,
Vince.
Kakki
