November 16, 2004
Commentary:
Letting Bush Govern
By Jack GrantPresident Bush's new attorney general-designate is a man who once called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" as he argued for a new paradigm in the war on terror -- a paradigm that, apparently, includes stress and duress of prisoners taken in this new war. His apparent secretary of state-designate, some liberals allege, once failed to adequately warn the president that Osama bin Laden was planning something big in the latter months of 2001.
Should these people be allowed to take office? Yes.
For a couple reasons, actually. First, the analyses I cited above are incredibly partisan analyses that focus on only a small segment of the work these individuals have conducted during their tenure in President Bush's White House. While those are important, memorable issues, they nonetheless constitute partisan, subjective analyses. Ask your average conservative blogger about the designates for these two posts, and that blogger will sing their praises. So what's the truth? Are these two candidates incompetent, or are they the next great hopes?
The truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes.
But there's another, more important reason for democrats to allow these two candidates to take the Cabinet Posts to which they are appointed: Both are appointed by President Bush.
In the election just past, more than 59 million peopel signaled that, for whatever reason, they want President Bush to keep doing what he's been doing. For better or for worse, that is the choice of the American people, expressed through the ballot box, to be confirmed in the electoral college. And if the American people choose a government, then that government must be allowed to function as its leader desires.
Yes, it may fail spectacularly. If it does, the American people will let the president know of their dissatisfaction with his performance via the midterm elections in 2006. But until then, Democrats should tread lightly in the confirmation battles and realize that Bush's actions, for better or for worse, are sanctioned by the American electorate.
Posted by Jack Grant at 06:16 on 16 November 2004The US government was founded on a belief of checks and balances. The president is neither an elected King and nor an absolute ruler. More to the point, every member of congress was elected and has his or her own mandate from his or her own constituency. It is the duty of every Senator and member of Congress to review the facts and vote accordingly.
I agree Democrats should not stop these nominees. The Dems have very little power now and need to choose their targets carefully. However, they do need to play the loyal opposition, ask all the hard questions during the confirmation hearings and, if appropriate, vote 'no' to confirm.
Posted by: Mark at November 16, 2004 08:09 PMMy Grandmother is over eighty and still doesn't need glasses. Drinks right out of the bottle. Henny Youngman (1906 - 1998)
Posted by: countrywide home loan customer service at November 23, 2004 02:05 AM
