It looks like Ashcroft’s successor is going to successfully annoy absolutely everybody.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 11th, 2004 at 13:26 by olly and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Those wombs are GOING DOWN!
Whoops. I wrote that comment above
Hilarious: “Why is Bush betraying the babies?” asks shrill pro-lifer Judie Brown.
Why indeed.
I think that Bush’s nomination of Mr. Gonzalez has more to do with the fight against terrorism than the fight against gestating wombs. Gonzalez’s appointment will rest upon his work as legal counsel, which has had a very real and perhaps long-lasting effect on civil liberties. That will be the crux of the debate. The abortion issue will be ancillary, as many social conservatives will be able to look past the abortion issue, which may end up being decided by the appointment of Supreme Court Justices down the road anyway (though I’m doubtful that Bush would have the moxie to nominate Justices who would clearly overturn Roe v. Wade).
“Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population — preborn babies in the womb.”
Forget the youth vote, we’re looking at the oft-ignored “fetal vote”.
Anyone who pisses-off pro-lifers is ok by me. Regardless of their stance on torture.
Ashcroft just makes me shudder with disgust. Let’s hope he can keep his mouth shut after he leaves, and refrains from writing any White House expose tell-all books. Of course, even if he did, it would probably be “Prayed with the Prez today… cheated on my wife by praying with an intern… then prayed about it.”
Pray Ashcroft, pray.
Social Security reform makes everyone’s head hurt.
But the point Hit & Run made was that, given his perceived association with Abu Ghraib, Gonzalez is in for a hard confirmation fight. Doubt from the moral right won’t make it any easier. Is this fight really worth it to Bush? I’d rather he spent his political capital on social security reform. But it probably makes his head hurt. It sure does mine.
Tim, I was damning you only for posting at the same time as me, thereby obscuring the meaning of my “yep.” No other damning intended.
Anyway, I have decidedly mixed feelings about a guy who argued for the legality of torture, however much he may piss off the pro-lifers. (One could argue that the combination of the two indicates that he has all the moral fiber of a lizard. On the other hand, post-Ashcroft I’m kind of in the mood for a totally amoral AG.)
So now we have an attorney general who wants to torture prisoners and eat babies, all at the same time? Still, I think that may be an improvement over Ashcroft. Maybe.
On an unrelated note, does any one else think that Hit & Run needs to change their logo? It looks like it was done in MS Paint.
I am sorry for being bad and wrong. Is there a reason to think he’ll be Ashcroftian or worse? If the pro-lifers are annoyed as hell, I think that’s a good sign.
Damn you Tim. My yep was in agreement with Olly.
Yep. As one of the guys over at Hit & Run noted, is this really how Bush wants spend his political capital? (Here’s hoping?)
Excellent. This guy sounds like a real good choice, actually.