Did Bush's cabinet picks have issues?

[crockspot]

holiday  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Mon Feb-02-09 09:17 AM
Original message
Did Bush's cabinet picks have issues?
   
Advertisements [?]
I'm hearing alot of naysayers talk about Obama's treasury pick and Daschle.

It just has made me think.. there is no way Bush's cabinet picks were wonderful upstanding citizens with no issues. I just know what Bush's cronies are like. Refreshh my memory (I was too young in 2000). Was there issues with any of his picks?

Pretty fresh bonfire, should be interesting to see how they wriggle around this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8159228

[Rebel]

Avalux  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-02-09 09:32 AM

3. Of course they did - they covered it up.
   
Obama is all about disclosure and accountability, so I would expect this sort of thing. Anything that happened w/Bush's people was never disclosed.

 

Silly DUmmies, Trix are for kids.

[dutch508]

slipslidingaway  (1000+ posts)      Mon Feb-02-09 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
5. Of course, but it is different this time...
 if one voices concern they are naysayers, whiners etc.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/08/hayde... /

"...Until five weeks ago, I literally never heard anyone claim -- in either party -- that it was irrelevant who the President appointed to his Cabinet and other high-level positions. I never heard anyone depict people like the Defense Secretary and CIA Director as nothing more than impotent little functionaries -- the equivalent of entry-level clerical workers -- who exert no power and do nothing other than obediently carry out the President's orders.

In fact, I seem to recall pretty vividly all sorts of confirmation fights led by Democrats over the last eight years (John Aschroft, John Bolton, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Hayden, Steven Bradbury) -- to say nothing of the efforts to force the resignation or dismissal of people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Gonzales -- that were based on exactly the opposite premise: namely, that it does matter who is empowered to lead these agencies and departments, and specifically, that their ideology not only matters, but can, by itself, warrant rejection. Nobody ever claimed that Ashcroft, Bolton or Hayden were "unqualified." It was their beliefs and ideology that rendered them unfit for those positions, argued Democrats.

When and why did everyone suddenly decide to change their minds about this and start repeating the mantra of some Obama supporters that high-level appointments are irrelevant because only the President counts? For the people who now make this claim to justify Obama's appointments, were any of them objecting during any of the above-listed confirmation fights that those fights were wasteful and unjustified because presidential appointments are irrelevant?..."

 OOOOOOoooooo...that's gotta hurt.

[delilahmused]

In fact, I seem to recall pretty vividly all sorts of confirmation fights led by Democrats over the last eight years (John Aschroft, John Bolton, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Hayden, Steven Bradbury) -- to say nothing of the efforts to force the resignation or dismissal of people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Gonzales -- that were based on exactly the opposite premise: namely, that it does matter who is empowered to lead these agencies and departments, and specifically, that their ideology not only matters, but can, by itself, warrant rejection.

Well that's a democrat for you, a life philosophy, basically an OPINION, based on a person's values and life experiences is a crime (punishable by death, apparently). But, tax fraud (which I thought really was a crime) is just a silly little mistake. As long as a person spews the right words...heck, they don't even have to BELIEVE what they say...I mean, if they truly believe government is the solution wouldn't these people more than anyone else want to pay their fair share? I'm pretty sure Geithner and Daschle fall into the category of "rich".

Cindie

[Lord Undies]

As purposeful and correct as it would be, there is no need to make fools of ourselves by objecting to Pres. Zero's picks because of their worldviews.  We have their criminal element to focus upon.

The democrats had no such luxury.  They had to go ahead and make ideological asshole out of themselves.

Given their history, does anyone, even a Little Goon, think that if there had been a hint of criminality involved in any Republican pick for any position, the democrats would have gone ahead and objected on the grounds of ideology?

BREAKING NEWS FOR LITTLE GOONS:  Reread the above again.  Then think about it. 

[jukin]

To the DUmbasses, we are a nation of men not laws.

[Texacon]

Not much matters anymore.  'We' did elect a crack dealer to the Presidency did 'we' not?

If I were in Michael Phelps shoes I wouldn't have batted an eye at being caught with a bong ..... I would've said "Hey, the President is a crack head .... this stuff ain't so bad"

Amazing how far this Nation has fallen when we look at the 'Leaders' we now have.

KC

[franksolich]

I recall in January 2001, there was some controversy about John Ashcroft being nominated for attoney general; I disremember the issues, but it mystified me, because John Ashcroft is a nice guy, the salt of the earth, and one would have to be psychiatrically-commitable to dislike him.

I was laying on the couch in the living room, reading a book, and C-Span was covering some sort of press conference by some poverty profiteers opposing the nomination.

Of course, I didn't hear what was being said, but I sort of watched.  Some guy was ranting, and behind him was one of the angriest, ugliest, foulest, sourest, meanest, bitterest, heavy-set woman I'd ever seen.  She didn't say anything; she just stood behind the ranting guy, radiating sullen Hate.

I thought to myself, oh my, that was definite proof John Ashcroft was a decent and civilized person, if such losers Hated him so.

[Rebel]

Only thing I remember somewhat controversial I can remember is him having a sheet placed over Lady Liberty's tatas during a photo-op.

[Vagabond]

I think President Bush's first HHS nomination had problems.  She had a woman who was of either outright illegal or highly questionable immigration status.  Her nomination was withdrawn.

[franksolich]

I think President Bush's first HHS nomination had problems.  She had a woman who was of either outright illegal or highly questionable immigration status.  Her nomination was withdrawn.

She had hired an illegal immigrant woman; the record showed she had done it out of compassion, and everything was squared away, but because of the bitterness and Hate of the anti-George Bush crowd, it was decided it was simpler just to have her withdraw.