SubscribeWell, I don't know if "deserve" is the right word. It appears Chavez simply chose not to tell them about this woman, knowing that if she had she probably wouldn't have been nominated in the first place. Bush and Cheney place a very high value on having their people be upfront with them; Chavez wasn't, and Cheney told her to get lost. It's not even so much about whether Democrats ought to have used this against her, but about whether she can be trusted by the Adminstration in the first place. They simply weren't willing to waste precious political capital on a confirmation fight for someone they no longer had faith in themselves.
Anyway, in the end this will probably be a positive for Bush. There are basically three special-interest groups fighting against his cabinet nominees: abortion rights activists, liberal black political organizations, and the unions. The first two groups will never be satisfied: They hate Bush and hate Republicans, period, and would never shut up unless Bush appointed liberal Democrats to all important Cabinet positions, so they can pretty much be ignored. (No reason to try to appease those that are simply out to get you.) Unions, though, are willing to bargain; you give them a little something, they'll give a little back. And they're most concerned about the Labor Department, obviously. So Bush can make a deal with them: He'll nominate someone more moderate than Chavez, on the condition that Big Labor eases up on the other cabinet nominees. So in sail Ashcroft and Norton, after some contentious hearings (mostly for show).
posted by aaron at 4:49 PM on January 9, 2001
Some digging is fine; you don't want to nominate someone who turns out to be a child molester. But the current system is nuts.
posted by aaron at 4:55 PM on January 9, 2001
« Older “The group's communique to Rosebraugh said it hope... | Surfing in style... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tiaka at 1:20 PM on January 9, 2001