Opinions on Ashcroft?

[Frazod]

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.

[Mark M]

58--
And I respect your beliefs on that one issue—and I'm pretty sure I know what it is ... thanks for not starting [i]that[/i] 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

[58Forever]

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...

[Mark M]

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

[quote]I would hate to believe that any one person would hold himself above the law of the land[/quote]

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.

[Raiderhater]

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.

[KCWolfman]

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.

[Raiderhater]

Excelent point Wolfman.

[administrator]

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.

[KCWolfman]

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.....

[Raiderhater]

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]

[administrator]

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

[Raiderhater]

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.

[administrator]

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

[Raiderhater]

"I am saying keep government out of religion"

Kyle, that is not what you were saying. You said keep [i]religion out of politics[/i]. 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.

[Raiderhater]

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

[administrator]

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.