2004 Presidential Transition
TalkLeft is doing her homework regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. Ms. Merritt writes, "So what does this portend for Alberto Gonzalez? Here's my take. There will be hearings at which he is asked questions about his past record. He will answer that he will be fair to all and not make decisions based upon his ideology. He won't have the abysmal record and ton of baggage that Ashcroft had on civil rights issues and judicial appointees. The Senators on the Judiciary Committee will consider and acknowledge the responses they've received from their constituents. So, yes, it's important to let them know how you feel. A few of the more liberal ones, like Senators Leahy, Durbin and Kennedy, may make remarks to the effect that they are torn. Some may oppose him. But, barring some skeleton coming out of his closet, Gonzales will pass the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then the Senate. He will be our next Attorney General. Remember that Ashcroft became our Attorney General even though 42 Democrats voted against him. Bush is saving his political capital for his first Supreme Court nomination. The Democrats in the Senate are going to save their capital, in the form of filibuster options, for that fight. Keep in mind that Bush wants Gonzales on the Supreme Court. This is a stepping-stone job for Gonzales. And a distraction from two more important questions: Who will Bush name as Chief Justice and who will he appoint to the Supreme Court? Both positions require Senate confirmation."
Andrew Sullivan: "GONZALEZ AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: Their first victory, argues Ryan Lizza. The fundies didn't want him for the Court and AG is a consolation prize. The man who defended torture and the suspension of the Geneva Conventions is therefore now in charge of defending our civil rights. Just remember: in the new Republican party, he's the moderate."
Jamie LaRue argues that we are losing touch with the intent of the founding fathers in an opinion piece in today's Denver Post [November 12, 2004, "Get the church out of the state"]. She writes, "The real story of religion in America has two important threads. First, many of the English people who settled the country (Puritans, mostly) were fleeing religious persecution. But once they got here, they practiced the most extreme forms of persecution themselves. Second, the people who crafted the foundational documents of our country - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - very consciously, very deliberately, distanced the apparatus of government from the institutions, declarations, tithes and tests of religion. Article VI, Clause 3 of our Constitution states, 'No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.' Not 'as long as they are Christians.' The First Amendment says that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' It doesn't say 'any particular Christian denomination.' Many of the founders were, in fact, deists. What is relevant is that the Constitution and its amendments were the work of people who thought long and hard about all kinds of political and philosophical issues. They decided, after extended debate, that 'the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ... .' The United States was, instead, a nation in which people had rights, political rights, that were independent of religious affiliation."
Francis X. Maier seems to be arguing that regardless of the founder's intent many voters are voting a single issue in today's politics in an opinion piece in today's Rocky Mountain News [November 12, 2004, "Speakout: Tumor growing in Democratic Party"]. He writes, "My wife is a Democrat. Always was, always will be - at least in her heart. But she hasn't voted for a major Democratic candidate in more than 25 years. And therein lies a lesson for any Democrat who wants to understand the debris of the 2004 election. I met my wife before I had returned to my childhood faith. One day I made the mistake of poking fun at those neanderthal Catholic views on abortion. What I got for my ignorance was a kindly but memorable tutoring on the sanctity of human life. For my wife and her family, being a Catholic meant being a Democrat, and being a Democrat meant fighting for the little guy - literally. That included the poor, the homeless, racial and ethnic minorities, and the unemployed. It also meant defending the unborn child. For my wife, arguing whether an unborn child was a 'full human person' or a 'developing human being' was irrelevant - or worse, a kind of lying. The dignity of the unborn life involved was exactly the same, whatever one called it. In the years since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand, my wife and I have struggled many times with the choice of voting Democratic. Our youngest son has Down syndrome, and Democratic policies often benefit the disabled in ways Republican policies don't. But it's also true that children like our son are becoming extinct in part because the abortion lobby has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party platform, with all that it implies for legislation and judicial appointments. The easiest response to handicapped children is to kill them before they arrive. That's not a solution. That's homicide."
Coyote Gulch was and still is a big fan of Howard Dean. Here's a story from the Daily Kos about his run for Chair of the Democratic National Committee.
A Curious Stranger likes the idea of a Howard Dean leadership in the DNC.
6:16:16 AM 
|
|
