MI Chief,

"If Ashcroft is a 'good guy', then how in the world did he lose to a posthumous Carnahan?"....

You have to look no farther than Marion Berry to realize that you can't put a lot of faith or respect in the masses decisions...Just cause you can get a majority on your side does not necessarily say anything good about you nor does it necessarily condemn the person who received the minority...For the most part, if the majority of the people agree with my opinion about a topic then I realize it is probably wrong or at the very least not too creative.



JL80 realizes that the average American reads below an 8th grade level...

I think we've been over this before, but as I saw it the election of Mrs. Carnahan [for better or worse] was a state-wide catharsis. Both Ashcroft and Carnahan were/are good men. By and large, people agreed or disagreed, but did not hate either of them. As with most all who pass on, Carnahan was remembered fondly. Aschcroft stopped campaigning. Then the 'the dream lives on' movement, that it felt good to be a part of regardless of ideology, came on and then it was time to vote.

More importantly, I think people need to see the big picture on the Ashcroft dust-up. While it may have began over concerns expressed regarding Ashcroft's fitness for the appointment, that is no longer the reason underlying the hearings. The Dems know that, with solid Republican support, Aschcroft will be appointed. Their aim now is [much like Reagan did by outspending the USSR, leading to its collapse] to force Repubs to expend as much capitol defending Ashcroft as possible.

After the transition period was lopped in half with court action [instigated by both sides and necessitated by the unique nature of the Florida results], Bush nevertheless managed to assemble an impressive cabinet in record time. Realizing that, left to his own devices, Bush may indeed be capable of rational thought and reasoned management, the Dems have honed in with SEAL-like training on every vulnerable appointment.

If Bush is busy making the case for Chavez of Aschcroft, he can't also make the case for IRA accounts, or a tax cut, or investigating the previous AG. As a bonus, the way is paved for Clinton to complete his 'farewell tour' and list everything 'liberal' cause he completely ignored throughout his 8 years [powder/crack sentencing disparities, faith in criminal justice system, AIDS in Africa -vs- pharmaceutical company pricing structures] and leave the Bush presidency with a populace slavering for what he himself couldn't be bothered to provide them.

Mark M, I am incensed about the total misrepresentation of the school district mess in StL as being an issue of race. That is a huge lie (or as Harry Truman said a D*mn lie). It's all about urban flight to the suburbs and the lack of action by the school board (the controlling legal authority). Why do rural schools die on the vine from lack of funding? Because of the disporportionate amount of state funding that goes to schools in KC and StL to support their court ordered plans. Guess what? KC schools lost their accreditation after 20 years of this mandated mess. Every school district should receive the same amount of state funds/child regardless of tax base. What is Mel Carnahan's legacy? Proposition 390 which is what Kennedy touted yesterday! Many rural districts are using 15 year old books because of that abortion! As far as the Senate race, the polls in StL were held open for 3 hours because of a court order involving a bogus request for relief drafted before the election! StL city went 80/20 for the democrats -- more than enough votes for place Holden and Carnahan in office. The Missouri Secretary of State has the vote totals. BTW, the plaintiff(s) named in the request for relief are a person who is dead and a person who is not registered to vote.

Oxford--
You have every right to be pi$$ed-off about the school mess. I am as well. My mother-in-law teaches in KC schools (4th grade at Wheatley) and has outdated books (if any at all) and has to put up with an incredible amount of shit because of the loss of accreditation. What saddens me about the whole issue of deseg. is the fact that the city is segregated, not the district. And for some judge to tell the district what to do, whether or not the intention is a good idea, is what I find so disturbing. Hell, even in Raytown we had science books that were older than I was at the time ... half of the crap in them was outdated.

But Ashcroft's handling of the case is what I find questionable. He delayed action that came directly from a court order. I admire his reasoning: that deseg. was wrongly imposed and the means in which it was imposed was wrong as well. But, again, it was a court order. Right or wrong, it was the law.

MM
~~Believes that the highest official in the Justice Department should follow the law, whether or not he/she agrees with it.

[Edited by Mark M on 01-17-2001 at 11:43 AM]

jl80 & JC-Johnny,

You guys kill me! You're telling me the people of Missouri, a state carried by George W. Bush, voted for Mrs. Carnahan out of sympathy?

If people there are that dumb, i'll sure as hell never move there, or even visit my relatives. The fact that Dubya won Missouri and Ashcroft lost to a deceased opponent tells me all I really need to know about the guy.

God help us all..............

No MI, I'm not saying that at all. First of all, Mrs. Carnahan did not get 100% of the vote. Their race was the same old 'low 50's -vs- high 40's' as everywhere else. The sympathy factor, if it had any effect at all, changed a 51-49 win for Ashcroft into a 49-51 loss.

I am sure that both candidates got their 40ish partisan support, which meant, as everywhere else in America, that the precious undecided middle got to decide everything. I make no claim that the 'arousal-gappers' in Missouri are any smarter or stupider than in any other state.

Amongst those undecided, a portion made a 'reasoned' decision. But when someone dies, there is a period of good will, warm reflections, favorable attributions, etc. [remember Joe Delaney? Though he's not dead, remember St. Gannon?]. Ashcroft could in no wise attack Carnahan's record [don't speak ill of the dead]. Further, IMO a classy move, he stopped ALL campaigning for a repsectable period.

And just so you know where I'm coming from. I probably would have voted for Carnahan had he lived. But I voted for Ashcroft to avoid potential legal wrangling over issues which well could have arisen from a Carnahan victory, had Ashcroft not conceded.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think would have won if Carnahan would have lived?

Hard to tell. It may have been as close as the Florida debacle. Probably, Ashcroft would have been able to ride Bush's coattails to a small extent. Certainly, some of Carnahan's more questionable stances would have received more attention. Ashcroft would have a lot more personal contact with an uninterrupted campaign season.

Also, I not so sure Ashcroft would have let the poll irregularities in heavily Democratic St. Louis go if facing a narrow loss to Mr. Carnahan.

When you factor in the typical ballot box stuffing that the dirty dem's do in virtually all states, there is a good chance that he won anyway...

So even with some of his 'more questionable stances' you would have voted against Ashcroft. Why? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but you seem pretty conservative, it seems strange that you defend Ashcroft if you weren't going to vote for him.

First and foremost, both Carnahan and Ashcroft were/are able statesmen who would have served Missouri well in the Senate. However, from a personality standpoint, Ashcroft and I don't mesh well.

Ashcroft is an 'arms length' guy, a 'meet'n'greet' with him would consist of waiting in line, saying 'hello' shaking his hand and getting a polariod.

A meet'n'greet with Carnahan could be anytime, anywhere, very unpretentious. Maybe at a local supermarket, he'd notice you had a Chiefs hat on and strike up a conversation on that.

JC -- I agree with your statement about Carnahan and Ashcroft being statesmen and fine representatives of the state of Missouri. I have never met either one in person, Ashcroft's philosophy is much more my cup of tea than Mel Carnahan's. I do think that the race would have been in the 50.2 - 49.8 range, a real tossup. I wish the hearing was about policy and facts, not the smear campaign being launched over the last month. As far as the appointed senator Carnahan, she strikes me as classless, vindictive and a real pawn.

Also, if my defense of Ashcroft seems odd, refer back to post #47. This in not about Ashcroft/Carnahan, its about sore losers determined to derail the entire country, or as much as they can manage, to 'demonstrate' that we just can't survive without them calling the shots.

I think G-Dub is entitled to his appointments, and should concomitantly be responsible for them. If Ashcroft is a bad AG, blame G-Dub. But don't deny him his picks then complain that he's ineffective.

Agreed & understood Johnny.