I just watched a piece on the news about the coming battle over Ashcroft's nomination as AG. The Demonrats are breaking out the torches and pitchforks over this one.

Outside of the basics (anti-affirmative action, anti-abortion, etc.), I don't know much about him - I haven't lived in Missouri since '84. The liberal press paints him as a monster, but I'm curious to hear other opinions.

I am not a big Ashcroft fan...but from what I do know of him he is NOT that bad. He certainly doesn't deserve being crucified in the name of partisan politics.


--Kyle

Ashcroft is not a bad guy. It all started when Mr. Affirmative Action (Jesse "Forget the Facts" Jackson) stated that Ashcroft is a bigot because he refused to promote a Black Judge. What Jesse forgot to mention is that the judge was also involved in a payoff scam years earlier.

I like John Ashcroft, although I disagree with his stance on some issues, because of his total belief in moral conviction.

Funny how half of this country is anti-abortion, but you cannot make up your staff of even one anti-abortionist without being considered an extremist.

I've never been an Ashcroft fan, but I'm sure a lot of this stuff is made to sound worse than it is...

I grew up in missouri, and played soccer with his son. Lets' just say the guy made an effort to "persuade" our coach his son should play more. Back then, in grade school, our team was B-A-double d, BAD.

We beat the traveling team. Beat the local high scholl freshman team, and we were just a YMCA team. So the coach declined his offer, but put his son in for a few minutes when the game was already decided...

I don't care for the guy, he's a career politician(strike one), he's totally corrupt(strike 2), and I'M EVEN ON MOST VOTES REPUBLICAN(strike 3) and I still don't like the guy...

While I agree that the press has gone out of its way to go after him, my complaint about his appointment as Att. General is this: The position requires a person to look at the facts and the law without bringing in religious and racial biases. I'm not calling him a right-wing freak or a bigot, and I know that a person's convictions almost always play a part in any decision they make. But his views are too much to the right for this particular position, IMHO. I would also be against the Democrats appointing someone like, say, Jesse Jackson for the same reasons—he's too far left.

I still don't think that he'll lose the nomination, however. Unless his breaking of the law during his campaign does him in (he used staffers paid by the state to help run his campaign, and that's a no-no).

I'm interested to see where this goes.

MM
~~Believes that someone more centrist should be in this position.

MM: it's too bad that there wasnt this type of discussion about the current AG. She is the poster child for activist AG's that ignore the law for politics.

I can honestly say I have no doubts that Ashcroft would enforce the law regardless of his personal opinions and uphold all statutory requirements of the position. Something this country has not had in 8 years.

Titus--
I agree with your view on Reno, but, unfortunately, don't see Ashcroft doing much better. I didn't see him playing non-partisan politics while in office previously, so why do you think that he will now? Not a rip, just a question. :)

BTW, did you get my e-mail? Did her name ring a bell?

MM
~~Believes that when you compare apples to apples, you get, well, apples.

MM: Do you mean as MO AG or as a Gov/Senator. The first is supposed to be a non-political office the latter are political offices. I'm sure that Ashcroft can handle the position and enforce the laws of the land w/o playing politics. I know it's not the precedent given today's AG, but Ashcroft will be a breath of fresh air.

Sorry, I avoided computers this weekend, it was really nice here in VA, so I spent much time outdoors.

Checking it now.

Titus--
I was thinking as all three. I'm a little busy at work right now, so I can't back up my statements with any facts (although there are a few things I have in mind). I'll try to check at lunch. Can anyone else back me up here, or am I on crack?

Also, if you want to e-mail me, click on the e-mail icon on the bottom of my posts. My AOL account has been closed. And good to know someone had nice weather this weekend!

MM
~~Actually has work to do today.

I would like to see Ashcroft appointed...the few very conservative views I have would be well served with Ashcroft as AG....

Something we have to realize is that no matter what Dubya does or who he appoints, it's going to be fought and challenged until nothing gets done...the next four years may as well not happen as far as the presidency is concerned...

58--
Your post is exactly what I'm afraid of ... Ashcroft will put his conservative bias in front of the facts and the law. Reno has done the same thing from the liberal side. IMHO, the Att. General should be a centrist, not putting religious, political or philisophical ideology in front of issues that should be viewed with an open mind.

And you are correct. Bush will have to fight tooth and nail to get even the most basic and intelligent (although, if it's intelligent, it probably won't come from him—just look at my signature) ideas and policies passed throught the legislature. We will see how bad partisan politics can be. Of course, what comes around goes around ...

MM
~~Not a liberal, just seeing both sides.

He's a right-wing Nazi and one of those "Christian fundamentalists" who make me sometimes embarrassed to be of the same faith. I don't believe Jesus came and was crucified so his followers could then use his teachings to vilify everyone who thinks slightly differently that they do. Mr Ashcroft strikes me as such.

Mark, I have one issue I feel very strongly about...It is the only reason I cared who won or lost the presidency...Ashcroft shares my views on that one issue...as far as the rest of his philosphies and beliefs, I have some problems...but, I have to support his appointment...

I love your Bush quote...the media is the only winner the next four years...they will have a lot of fun with GWB quotes, mis-quotes and just regular speak....

Frazod,

If the liberals hate him then I will absolutely love him...

58--
And I respect your beliefs on that one issue—and I'm pretty sure I know what it is ... thanks for not starting that argument! :) I just hope Mr. Ashcroft respects everyone else's right to believe differently, including the Supreme Court's.

As far as the media jumping all over Dubya's mis-spoken statements: Hey, when there is an easy target, you go after it! I'm very impressed with most of Dubya's appointments ... he's surrounded himself with very capable people. This one bugs me, although I won't go as far as to call the guy a Nazi. Cheney, yes, but Ashcroft ...? ;)

Does anyone know when the final vote on his appointment is going to be?

MM
~~Showing that he can agree to disagree. :D

I've learned the hard way never to mention certain subjects by name...

:bigsmirk:

I would hate to believe that any one person would hold himself above the law of the land...I feel Ashcroft will uphold the law, and abide by the decisions of the SC while not interfering too much...

58--
LOL!! So have I, my Chiefs brother, so have I.

Isn't that what we've put up with the last 8 years? :D Since Ashcroft probably will be confirmed, I just hope he does a better job than Jack Reno has. Hopefully nothing will get "unintentionally" burned to the ground. :rolleyes:

MM
~~Showing that he can understand both sides.

Ashcroft is a stand up guy who will enforce the law rather or not he agrees with it. His record as a state AG shows nothing else. As for his religion entering his decisions, well duh, of course it will. The reason he takes a lot of the stands he does take is because of his religious beliefs. This is the problem you run into when you try to keep religion out of politics (wich is not what the Constitution does, it keeps government out of church), before to long no one who is religious can run for, let alone hold, office.

Funny how religion in your decision making process was not a concern of the liberals with Lieberman....

I have yet to see one decision made by John Ashcroft that was contrary to the people who elected him in the state of Missouri. If there is an instance, please bring it forward.

Excelent point Wolfman.

I have severe problems with bringing religion into politics, but not with religious people being in politics. EVERY person has their own belief system whether it is based on religion or not. Politicians are elected (or should be) with this in mind. Therefore, if Ashcroft was as extreme as the press is saying... I doubt that he would have been able to hold public office for as long as he did. It would be a different matter if he was out to force his beliefs on others...

Though I don't care for him myself, the fact remains that Bush won the election and barring any MAJOR misconduct on Ashcroft's part, it is Bush's right to pick him.

--Kyle

~I love the USA but will be glad to be in Spain during the next four years of partisan politics.

Actually Hader, I find it very biased and discriminatory that anyone would have the nerve to state that merely because of John Ashcroft's beliefs, he will make the wrong decisions.

I wonder how quickly lawsuits would be raised if I said that Jesse Jackson would be a horrible ambassador as his black background and upbringing would slant his viewpoints and he would not represent the consensus of the people.....

Wolfman, again another excellent point. And if you said that about brotha Jesse litigation would probaly be the least of your worries.

Kyle, you may have a problem with religion in politics, but that is to bad because it is totaly legal. And again, how do you keep religion out of politics? By keeping religious people out of politics. Of course if you do that, then you have to eliminate those people to whom abortion (just to name one belief) is a religion.

[Edited by raiderhader on 01-16-2001 at 07:44 PM]

raiderhader,

That isn't what I'm saying... I'm talking about making <b>formal</b> political decrees, laws, actions that are wholly religious in nature. i.e. establishing (or for that matter prohibiting) prayer. (which by the way IS completely illegal) As I said before EVERYONE whether they call it religion or not has a belief system and this should be taken into account when they are elected. If Ashcroft had a truly "extreme" belief system I doubt that he would have made it as far in politics as he has. I don't like him but unless something extreme from his past pops up out of nowhere... I will completely defend his confirmation.


--Kyle

Kyle, I guess we should allow murder since the Bible says it is wrong. Do you see the hole in your argument? As for prayer, you are right that it is not legal to establish prayer. But it is illegal to prohibit it. If students want to pray on school grounds that is their choice, and therefore it is not sanctioned by the government. It is when government gets involved that things become illegal.

raiderhader,

I think we have a BIG misunderstanding here... I am saying keep government out of religion (either pro or con) not away from morality. Murder is wrong... but it isn't just wrong because the Bible says so. I am talking about <b>formal</b> religion and government. I don't want the government telling me I can't work on Sunday or that I can't eat meat on Friday. These are extreme examples but it can be a very slippery slope.


--Kyle

"I am saying keep government out of religion"

Kyle, that is not what you were saying. You said keep religion out of politics. There is a big difference. As for those kinda fanatic things, if any one tried it they would be laughed out of town. Although, there is a faction of the liberal party who wants to nationaly control our diets. So I guess you do need to worry after all, about the libs.

Kyle, didn't you and I have this same disscussion not to long ago?

raiderhader,

I'm saying both keep religion out of government and government out of religion. The key here is that I am talking about the formal aspects of religion not the morality. Everyone has their own view of morality whether it comes from religion or not... and I agree that you can't and shouldn't keep morality out of politics. (Although I think too many politicians on both side of the fence do!)

I agree with your views on liberals and controling peoples' lives. I am quite capable of living my life without protection from myself. The arrogance involved with the idea that someone else knows whats better for me AND plans to enforce it is staggering.


--Kyle

BTW I think people forget that we aren't ELECTING Ashcroft for Attorney General. He was appointed. The Senate doesn't have the right to deny him office just because some people don't like or agree with him.

Kyle,

I am completely with you on this...Religion has no place in politics whatsoever...In doing so that should completely remove religious stupidity as a legally acceptable excuse for any wrong doing...i.e. allowing a child to suffer because it is against your religious stupidity to receive medical treatment...Or one local example here in Indy is some church is rioting because the IRS confiscated their building cause the lousy SOB's had been cheating the government out of millions on taxes..."That is God's Money"...Whatever, pay your taxes you deadbeats...

Kyle, I agree with the last part, but disagree with you somewhat on the first. The Constitution says nothing about keeping religion out of government. It does however state the opposite. I agree that really extreme things, such as the examples you gave, have no right coming into our government. Just out of curiosity, do you label Pro Choice as an extreme religious issue that the government has no right getting involved in? I have no idea how this issue is taken on this board (I can only imagine), and I am not trying to start a discussion (fight) on it. I am merely asking to make a point.

[Edited by raiderhader on 01-16-2001 at 08:52 PM]

hader,

abortion is just like going to fight for your country...some people might have opinions that are influenced or driven because of religious beliefs but those are issues that exist with or without religion that have to be dealt with.

JL, that is true, but we pro choicers are often refered to as religious zealots. Wich is why I asked the question.

Kyle, you say that you shouldn't keep morality out of politics, but you should religion. George Washington belived the two to be inseperable.


"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
From Washington's Farewell Address

I happen to agree. How do you seperate the two?

So you don't want the government to "control" people's lives, but you do want them to legislate "morality".

That's a contradiction.



[Edited by Cannibal on 01-16-2001 at 09:14 PM]

Cannibal, would not murder be a moral issue? You have to make laws to make it illegal. Government has a role, just not the big one that libs support.

For anyone who cares, Nightline is doing a piece on Ashcroft right now.

delete please

[Edited by 47mack on 01-18-2001 at 11:26 AM]

Does anyone what Mrs. Carnahan's stand on this is? I would think it would be pretty shameful on her part to oppose him after the classy way he handled himself after her husband's death.

I think that alktj s;ltkasj;l.

Sorry, I just heard Ted Kennedy ask a question about ethics....

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

To me, that speaks volumes about the guy. Of course, that's all I know about him.

47--
I never said that I played soccer with his son. Out of curiosity, where did you get that idea? :confused:

For those that are interested in some of his decisions, check this site out. This gives his general record: http://www.opposeashcroft.com/facts/all.phtml.

Here is one on his civil rights record: http://www.opposeashcroft.com/facts/civil.phtml

And here is his 1st ammendment and religious record: http://www.opposeashcroft.com/facts/first.phtml

I know this is a leftist site, but it does state the facts.

I'm still not sure about the guy. I watched some footage of his hearing and he seemed like he would do a good job, even saying he would look at the law (my main point). But I ask this: If he is so strong in his religious beliefs, how can he just throw them aside and say he'll support such things as Roe v. Wade? Either he's full of it, or his convictions aren't that strong.

MM
~~Hoping that, if elected, Ashcroft doesn't start speaking in tongues.


[Edited by Mark M on 01-17-2001 at 07:24 AM]

Or perhaps he takes his oath of office seriously…

xoxo~
gaz
just tossing out another possibility.

(Mark M) Facts according to who? I watched "killer Ted" Kennedy get up on his sanctimonious high horse about the school district mess in StL and StL County. What a distortion of the "facts". Why is it that someone who will stand by his principles is vilified and someone who lies and does the exact opposite is hailed as enlightened? Excuse me, I must go to the bathroom and make another Ted Kennedy. At least I'll be able to flush this one down the commode

Gaz--
I see your point. I just find it hard to believe that someone can just ignore the strong convictions he's held for so long. The guy is a career politician and knows that he needs to say the right things (no pun intended) in order to get accepted for the position. I think he will be accepted, and, if so, I hope you are right (again, no pun intended). I'm just not so sure myself. Of course, I'm not a senator so what I think really doesn't amount to much.

Oxford--
They are the facts according to his voting record and what he did as MO Att. Gen. And I am in 100% agreement with you on Kennedy. The guy has no damn business bringing up anyone's ethics. The guy is a freaking murderer for god's sake. If Clinton would've asked for his advice during the Lewinsky scandal, Ted probably would've told him this:
The guy is a total piece of shit. Make sure you flush well! :D


Everyone must remember that the Republicans did the same thing to Clinton's appointees: They found everything they saw as wrong with their beliefs and convictions and made those the central issues. What comes around goes around.

MM
~~Not a liberal ... just thinks that the record speaks for itself.

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.

I know this doesn't directly relate to this topic, and I'm certainly not a big fan of David Letterman, but this was his "Top Ten List" last night. I thought some of these were really funny.


Top Ten Ways George W. Bush Is Preparing For The Presidency

10.Drafting legisltion to make 2001 "Take Your Father To Work Year"

9.To familiarize himself with military protocol, watching "F-Troop"

8.Planning to return to Texas to guest-host executions

7.Getting Linda Chavez to round up some illegal aliens to do a few chores around the White House

6.He's been nailing interns because dammit -- that's what presidents do!

5.Convincing Secret Service to change his code name from "Dumbass"

4.Practicing getting sick on world leaders just like dad

3.Making sure inaugural festivities don't include a
breathalyzer test

2.Like every other American, is on his hands and knees saying, "Please lord, don't let Bush screw up"

1.Rehearsing his two-word inaugural speech: "Yee-haw!"

LOL @ # 60. Those were hilarious!

Numbers 5 and 6 are my favorites. I darn near busted a gut last night, when he read them.

JC--
I also have to agree with your take that Democrats are doing this just to "get even" as it were. I posted the links to back up my argument why I didn't want him to be appointed (following up from my post, #9). I did not, however, sign the petition that was also on the site. Let the guy get elected and, if I'm wrong, great. At least we'll have someone in there with integrity of beliefs. If, on the other hand, he pushes forth a right-wing agenda, I'll be the first to rail on him and say "I told you so." I hope I'm wrong.

#60 is classic stuff!!

MM
~~As he's said before, doesn't mind eating crow if its for the greater good.

I had to crack up at #2. I can see George Sr. & Barbara doing this in church.

Some of you have trouble beliving that Ashcroft will be able to set his beliefs aside and follow thew law. Why? Have you had these same concerns with other ADs? Ashcroft has a proven record of upholding the law, even when he didn't agree with them, as Mizzou state AD. Let me explain something to you as a Born Again Beliver. The Bible teaches that we are to obey authorities even if we don't belive them to be right. We belive that government is ordained by God, and therefore we should submit to it. Granted, there are Christians out there that ignore that commandment, but they are wrong. How can Ashcroft put aside his beliefs and do his job? Be cause he is an honorable man who does what is right (I know this is a difficult concept after the past 8 years). If he doesn't follow the law, than he is not following his religious beliefs that he claims to have. You see people think his religious beliefs will interfere with his job, but actually they help him do it correctly.


p.s. were are you guys getting
all these different smilies
that are not listed?

raiderhader--
Very good points. I heard something to the same effect on NPR yesterday. I guess I'm just one who believes that if you hold a conviction, you always do. You don't change it to suit whatever job you have or to please those in power.

The smilies link is on the Anderson/Broncos disagree thread. There are some classics!! Click the links on the left side of the page ... I've wasted too much of my time looking at them today, so I'll check you guys later. As much as I would like them to, they don't pay me to play on the net all day!
http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/cwm/errrr.gif

MM
~~Will check later.

Mark M - But Ashcroft has set aside personal beliefs in the past to uphold laws he disagrees with on a daily basis....

My question is where was all the concern from the dems for Joe Lieberman and the possibility of his religious background influencing his decisions?

Where was the concern for Bill Clinton doing the same thing? After all, he announced he sought guidance and counselling from his pastor when he was caught committing adultery.

Why is it that the dems are only concerned with the Republicans religious convictions?

What about him losing to a dead guy, Russ? ;)

Did you get the e-mails?

Joe - I did, my George Bush monkey faces from the first post are on my wall at work.

Bill on camera was great.

"Very good points. I heard something to the same effect on NPR yesterday. I guess I'm just one who believes that if you hold a conviction, you always do. You don't change it to suit whatever job you have or to please those in power."


Mark,
It is because he holds a conviction that he will uphold the law. As I stated the Bible teaches us Christians to be submissive to government. So when he upholds a law that he doesn't agree with, it is because he acting off of conviction. And thanks for the link to the smilies.


MCF, what about him losing to a dead guy? What is your point? Lets look at some facts. First you a canadite who dies, and then the Governor tells in advance of the election that he is going to appoint the deceased's widow (if that isn't partisan politics I don't know what is). Secondly you have to look at all the fraud that took place in Mizzou, especially in St. Loui with Little Trick Dick Gehphardt's former chief of staff turned judge. Now I ask you why you think Ashcroft lost to a dead guy?

Wolfman--
Not being a democrat, I don't know why they do that. Lieberman was a reason I didn't vote for Gore. I like to be consistent in my doubt of overly-religious people taking public office! :D

raiderhader--
I am glad that you (as well as many others on this board) are true Christians. Unfortunately, from my persoanl experience, you all are in the minority.

MM
~~May be going to hell in a bucket, but at least he's enjoying the ride.

[Edited by Mark M on 01-17-2001 at 06:02 PM]

Mark,
I don't know as though I would question someone else's faith. There are plenty of true Christians that are misguided on some issues. They can be shown that they are wrong. And just because someone doesn't come around right away doesn't mean that they are not true Christians. It just takes some people some time to deal with their pride and other issues. As for you going to hell, well from the way I read my Bible the fun you have now will not be worth it. But that is your choice to make. I am not trying to "convert" you so don't lay in on me about preaching to you, I am just giving you some food for thought.

Hmmm, many interesting points of view.

Now, my opinions on Ashcroft, based on what I've read and seen:

1. He seems like an honorable man (for a politician, anyway). My opinion of his loss to Carnahan was based primarily on two factors: the fact that he stopped campaigning completely after the Governor's death, and Broncoesque cheating on the part of the Demonrats by keeping the polls open in St. Louis. I admire the man for his actions in respecting his deceased opponent and not whining about questionable election results, unlike a certain soon-to-be-ex-Vice President.

2. I agree with most of his beliefs, like opposition to UNequal opportunity hiring, pro-gun, and especially a hard line on crime. I have no doubt that the judge he labeled as "pro-criminal" was just that. In fact, my idea of what should be done to the hordes of maggots who devote their lives to raping, robbing and murdering the rest of us would probably make Ashcroft seem liberal by comparison. Go get 'em, John.

3. I don't see eye-to-eye with him on his hardline anti-abortion stand, but I don't think in the end it will make much difference. As AG, he won't make policy, but rather enforce it. He'll do what's he's told, whether he likes it or not.

4. GW has went out of his way to hire people acceptable to the left. Is it too much to ask for him to attempt to satisfy the wishes of people in his own party, you know, the ones who actually VOTED FOR HIM? Remember, HE WON. GW has created the most ethnically-diverse cabinet in history. The Demonrats are whining for whining's sake, and I'm sick of hearing it.

So Ashcroft works for me, and I believe he will, in the end, get the job. Liberals, DEAL WITH IT.

raiderhader--
I would never do that to you, dude! :D Besides, I've been given enough food from you (as well as others on this board and elsewhere) to feed me for a lifetime (and being well fed is never a bad thing)! I realize that I am in the minority on my religous views. To be honest, I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist mainly because I have yet to find one religion that satisfies both my soul and my mind. Perhaps someday I will.

And I hope no one here thinks I'm some devil worshipping heathen. And I also hope you all realize that I'm not totally against Ashcroft. I have my doubts and hope that I'm proven wrong ... for the good of all of us, Christian or not.

MM
~~He may disagree with someones religious views, but he'd never insult anyone because of them.

Fraz,
your conclusions, IMNSHO, are right on the money. Glad to see you come down on the right side of this.:D

Mark,
Of course I don't think your some devil worshiper. And as for not finding a religion that your at peace with, perhaps some time you would allow me to talk to you about my God. I am sure you have probaly had this before, but you can't blame for trying.:)

Thanks for the vote of support, RH.

I think Ashcroft will do just fine, although I doubt if he's half the man Reno is... :D

LMAO! That is a good one Fraz.

rh--
I will have to respectfully decline your offer. And no, I can't blame you for trying ... I actually respect you all the more for it. Unfortuantely, there isn't one thing that you or anyone else can say to me that will change the history, inconsistencies or hyprocrisy I've learned or have seen in Christianity. It is great for some people ... just not for me. But thanks anyway! :D

fraz--
ROTFLMAO!! That was too damn funny!

MM
~~Hoping for the best out of Ashcroft.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post.