Meet the Devil You Don't Know
Ashcroft's replacement has been named. The good news is that it isn't a fundamentalist crackpot. The bad news is that it's that other breed of Bushie-- the robber baron.
"(AP) WASHINGTON - President Bush nominated White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who helped shape the administration's controversial legal strategy in the war on terror, to be attorney general Wednesday. He would be the first Hispanic ever to serve as the nation's top law enforcement officer. "
I'm sorry to say that I predicted this one, just like I called Ashcroft. The controversial legal strategy? Making sure that the White House wouldn't face any problems over Abu Ghraib. Other experience includes detaining suspects for years without charging them and serving as general counsel for Enron. Ahhhh, moral values.
Did I mention that he's Hispanic? What a vote-getter that'll be!
UPDATE (11/12): I concur with the view of my favorite bloggers-- the Dems should let this one slide. If they get "obstructionist" with this appointment, they will have lost a lot of press time* when the Supreme Court nominations roll around. What they need to do is not wuss out during the confirmations-- ask tough questions about his role in the infamous 'torture memos,' his actions in presenting then-governor Bush with misleading accounts of death-row prisoners (I don't have a handy link, but you need to check it out), and his role with Enron. It's all we have, but at least it'll be on the record. All appointments are going to be evil, and Ashcroft only hurt people of one skin tone (if that doesn't sound too cruelly pragmatic). Sadly, the non-fundamentalist in the mix has now been nominated. That means Ashcroft clones are going to be up for Supreme Court appointments. That's what the Dems have to fight. And they have to fight hard. Get ready to write nasty letters to media outlets that try to be "fair and balanced" about the fundies that we're certain to face. I can already see the articles: Acknowledged as a judge who is strict in a region where strictness is the norm, xxxxx State Supreme Court judge xxxxx has proven himself to be a staunch defender of state's rights when it comes to displaying the Confederate flag, but shows that he is more than willing to accept the rule of federal government in issues like the detention of suspects under the Patriot Act. As such, his bipartisanship can be expected to draw much controversy from both sides of the aisle." Expect lots of that nonsense.
*Sheesh. I don't even have the energy to collect links on the number of judicial appointments that were blocked by the GOP house during the Clinton years. Yet, when the Dems under Bush opposed just a handful, it became a tale of bloody murder (one parroted by the press, natch). Oy. Don't get me started. The facts are out there. Do your own research. It'll only take a few seconds.
UPDATE 2: Slate has an article that reminds me of another bit of Gonzales sleaze. http://slate.msn.com/id/2109623/ This involves protecting W's DWI conviction from becoming public when he was running for governor.
"(AP) WASHINGTON - President Bush nominated White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who helped shape the administration's controversial legal strategy in the war on terror, to be attorney general Wednesday. He would be the first Hispanic ever to serve as the nation's top law enforcement officer. "
I'm sorry to say that I predicted this one, just like I called Ashcroft. The controversial legal strategy? Making sure that the White House wouldn't face any problems over Abu Ghraib. Other experience includes detaining suspects for years without charging them and serving as general counsel for Enron. Ahhhh, moral values.
Did I mention that he's Hispanic? What a vote-getter that'll be!
UPDATE (11/12): I concur with the view of my favorite bloggers-- the Dems should let this one slide. If they get "obstructionist" with this appointment, they will have lost a lot of press time* when the Supreme Court nominations roll around. What they need to do is not wuss out during the confirmations-- ask tough questions about his role in the infamous 'torture memos,' his actions in presenting then-governor Bush with misleading accounts of death-row prisoners (I don't have a handy link, but you need to check it out), and his role with Enron. It's all we have, but at least it'll be on the record. All appointments are going to be evil, and Ashcroft only hurt people of one skin tone (if that doesn't sound too cruelly pragmatic). Sadly, the non-fundamentalist in the mix has now been nominated. That means Ashcroft clones are going to be up for Supreme Court appointments. That's what the Dems have to fight. And they have to fight hard. Get ready to write nasty letters to media outlets that try to be "fair and balanced" about the fundies that we're certain to face. I can already see the articles: Acknowledged as a judge who is strict in a region where strictness is the norm, xxxxx State Supreme Court judge xxxxx has proven himself to be a staunch defender of state's rights when it comes to displaying the Confederate flag, but shows that he is more than willing to accept the rule of federal government in issues like the detention of suspects under the Patriot Act. As such, his bipartisanship can be expected to draw much controversy from both sides of the aisle." Expect lots of that nonsense.
*Sheesh. I don't even have the energy to collect links on the number of judicial appointments that were blocked by the GOP house during the Clinton years. Yet, when the Dems under Bush opposed just a handful, it became a tale of bloody murder (one parroted by the press, natch). Oy. Don't get me started. The facts are out there. Do your own research. It'll only take a few seconds.
UPDATE 2: Slate has an article that reminds me of another bit of Gonzales sleaze. http://slate.msn.com/id/2109623/ This involves protecting W's DWI conviction from becoming public when he was running for governor.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 6:17 PM
<< Home