Chavez Withdraws From Consideration for Labor Post.
January 9, 2001 1:14 PM Subscribe
Did Chavez (and other nominees who are still waiting to hear the shoe drop) deserve to be Borked? I don't think so.
Will this be a serious setback? I don't think so either. The only way this hurts Bush is that it frees up liberal resources to Bork other nominees, at least until he picks his next nominee for Labor.
posted by mikewas at 1:30 PM on January 9, 2001
The message here is: get better at vetting people. No one's going to give you a free ride.
Plus - this frees up the Dems to really hammer Ashcroft. I bet the Republicans will be quietly going around saying "OK OK we had Chavez fall on her sword, now let's play nice with Ashcroft." And I bet it won't happen.
posted by mikel at 1:33 PM on January 9, 2001
AP is reporting that Bush asked her to withdraw her nomination.
I just watched the smarmy "you won't have Linda Chavez to kick around anymore" press conference. Calling herself a victim of the "politics of personal destruction" after participating in the attack on Zoe Baird for similar behavior is rich hypocrisy. Bush's Cabinet is better off without her.
posted by rcade at 1:34 PM on January 9, 2001
What bothers me more, though, is that Bush. like other politicians, again from both parties, must first come out and take a strong stand for the candidate and then back off once it is clear that the repercussions are big ones.
Can't they simply make a statement that they are waiting for all the facts to come in?
I must say I am delighted that Ms Chavez is going. She is hardly a good person to represent labor when in fact she seems totally opposed to laborers. Unless they work for her.
posted by Postroad at 1:53 PM on January 9, 2001
posted by Mr. skullhead at 2:15 PM on January 9, 2001
Given the righteous-indignation-without-moral-foundation of so many high-profile Republicans, why is anyone surprised that events like this whole Chavez thing happen so regularly?
And why do Republicans (okay, both parties do this, but the GOP seems to have elevated it to a weekly occurrence) have the annoying and counterproductive habit of throwing stones from their own glass houses?
Okay, that's two questions.
posted by chicobangs at 2:31 PM on January 9, 2001
posted by norm at 2:36 PM on January 9, 2001
That's been my question. I don't even know anyone who has domestic help. I guess if you're a big enough and bad enough political thinker, you need all your time to consider policy issues, even before you get nominated.
Or maybe they're all just overwealthy scum.
posted by daveadams at 2:49 PM on January 9, 2001
posted by owillis at 2:56 PM on January 9, 2001
So domestic help, to keep the place up while serving the nation, shouldn't be completely unheard of.
Plus the standard Congressperson's salary has to be reasonably decent, in the what, $80k/year range or so? Most were also probably corporate lawyers before running for office (y'know, going from the teat of one Source of Evil to another :-) and therefore (because all lawyers are bad and rich, or am I being redundant again? :-) likely have nicely padded bank accounts.
Oh, I almost forgot,
obRepublicanDig: Especially the Republican Congresspeople!
posted by cCranium at 3:01 PM on January 9, 2001
Whoever gets confirmed will implement whatever policies President Bush wishes to have implemented.
Whoever gets confirmed will doubtless have committed a variety of infractions of sundry sorts in the course of living life -- the only question is whether or not they are brought to light.
I have more to say on this general theme in the Ashcroft thread.
posted by MattD at 3:13 PM on January 9, 2001
posted by holgate at 3:45 PM on January 9, 2001
I don't hold our Congress in very high regard, but the fact is that they do work their tails off. It's a shame the results don't ever seem justified by the effort level.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 3:52 PM on January 9, 2001
Well, 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
This woman helped an illegal immigrant by giving her a job. She did not smuggle the woman under the border. She didn't buy her off a truck when she got her. She gave a job to a woman from a country which the INS does not consider worthy of immigration. WTF is wrong with that? Were all of your ancestors considered 'legal' immigrants?
But, the only reason I like Chavez is caught she got caught breaking the law. I like politicians that do that.
posted by Neb at 6:22 PM on January 9, 2001
posted by Mr. skullhead at 7:18 PM on January 9, 2001
posted by dhartung at 8:14 PM on January 9, 2001
posted by aaron at 9:44 PM on January 9, 2001
posted by allaboutgeorge at 11:15 PM on January 9, 2001
I thought the government was supposed to be a neutral arbiter between employers and employees, or was that repealed by the AFL-CIO?
posted by mikewas at 11:10 AM on January 11, 2001
« Older | 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