November 26, 2004

BORDER GUARDS:

Liberals vow to fight Gonzales nomination (Jerry Seper, 11/26/04, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

A coalition of liberal groups is vowing to challenge the nomination of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales as U.S. attorney general over his role in policies governing the treatment of detainees in Iraq and in the war on terrorism.

Led by the People for the American Way, which helped organize more than 200 groups to oppose the 2000 nomination of Attorney General John Ashcroft, the coalition is expected to push Senate Judiciary Committee members to question Mr. Gonzales on the development of policies that led to abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the rights and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


It would make tactical political sense for Democrats to seem reticent about the Gonzales nomination, just to get conservatives to rally to the side of the most moderate person the President might appoint to the Court. But they've shown few signs in recent years that they think far enough ahead to be capable of sandbagging. Instead, challenging a Latino who's no ideologue will do nothing more than help cement the idea that the future of Hispanic politics lies in the GOP.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 26, 2004 5:09 PM
Comments

You'd think; however, sure didn't happen with Clarence Thomas; blacks remain religiously Democratic

Posted by: JimGooding at November 26, 2004 5:38 PM

The growing inability on the left to distigush Bush from Hitler or bin Laden means anything or anyone he supports causes a reflexive negative reaction, maninly because it makes them feel good just to oppose Bush, even to their own long-term strategic disadvantage.

Posted by: John at November 26, 2004 5:38 PM

John:

The interesting question is whether the Left is capable of strategic thought or is driven exclusively to tactical manuevering by emotion.

Posted by: oj at November 26, 2004 6:00 PM

Jim:

But Hispanics are in play.

Posted by: oj at November 26, 2004 6:01 PM

Oh no, they're going to oppose Gonzales as vehemently as they opposed Ashcroft (who seemed to be so scary to the left because he is an evangelical Christian, which in retrospect perhaps was about as politically smart as opposing an immensely qualified Hispanic). Bush is in trouble now. Wait a sec, Ashcroft was confirmed. Wake me up when PAW matters...

Posted by: brian at November 26, 2004 6:26 PM

Why would conservatives want this guy on the Court? He's liberal. Pro-abortion. Member of La Reza. (ok I grant you he's strong in the torture and abuse of prisoners angle, but conservatives can't have fun all the time)

If your going to play race politics, then go with a conservative Pinochet..ah excuse me Miguel Estrada.

Posted by: h-man at November 26, 2004 6:35 PM

liberal and pro-abortion?

Posted by: oj at November 26, 2004 6:43 PM

"The man picked by President Bush to be the next attorney general believes the Constitution is a living document and that only the nine black-robed brethren have sufficient understanding of the document to explain to the people what it means"

"Gonzales cast the tie-breaking vote in the Texas Supreme Court against a parental-consent requirement before a minor could obtain an abortion in the state"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41398

"White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, got the backing of a group that promotes driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, no immigration law enforcement by local and state police and amnesty programs broader than the administration’s proposal"

"We are very encouraged by the Gonzales nomination,” said the glowing endorsement by La Raza"

Posted by: h-man at November 26, 2004 7:01 PM

"La Raza supports legislation such as the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which would roll back policies adopted after Sept. 11 designed to protect national security. It supports the “DREAM Act,” which would mandate states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens—thus providing them with benefits not available to U.S. citizens from other states"

Posted by: h-man at November 26, 2004 7:07 PM

h:

Yes, note that he's not part of La Raza.

Posted by: oj at November 26, 2004 7:47 PM

The reason to oppose Gonzales is because he wrote an insane paper rationalizing the use of torture. In other words, he is partially responsible for Abu Grahib.

Posted by: miguel at November 27, 2004 1:45 AM

Torture at Abu Grahib? I'll give you humiliation, but torture?

Posted by: AllenS at November 27, 2004 2:30 AM

Nothing of any importance happened in Abu Gharib. If the Democrats insist on attacking Gonzalez for the overzealousness of a few prison guards, it will rebound to their detriment. First, it will reinforce the notion that the Democrats care more about the rights of those who would kill Americans than they do about protecting Americans, which probably more than anything else led to Ketchup Boy's loss. Second, it will focus Hispanic anger on the Democrats. There are lots of folks involved in Iraq, in which Gonzalez played but a minor role at most. If they are so bent out of shape about shenanigans at Abu Gharib, then why aren't they pressing for Rumsfeld's impeachment or the relief of any of a dozen generals, as is their right? Instead, they are picking on a Hispanic. If I can turn it around, don't you think Karl Rove can?

There's nothing wrong with torturing the enemy so long as you get results. Just ask the KGB.

Also, nobody cares about La Raza, it's just a few social science majors with too much time on their hands. Does anyone seriously believe that any percentage of the Hispanic population, outside of a few academics too dopey to teach anything more rigorous than 'Chicano Studies', wants any part of the US to become like Mexico? If Mexico were run so well, they'd have stayed. The weather's better, the women are attractive, people speak Spanish, etc.

BTW, what does one study in 'Chicano Studies'? Lettuce Picking 101? Intro to Low Riding? Applied Landscaping? There are hundreds of thousands of Latinos trying to better themselves and who want to study serious things, and our idiot government and venal politicians create fields like Chicano Studies and allow pseudo-academic ideologues to dragoon the unsuspecting into them.

Posted by: Bart at November 27, 2004 3:14 AM

Why shouldn't we torture terrorists to discover their plans?

Posted by: oj at November 27, 2004 6:50 AM

Why shouldn't we torture OJ, to see if he is a terrorist, and then torture him some more, to find out his plans?

What will you say to stop the pain, OJ?

Posted by: Josh Narins at November 27, 2004 10:16 AM

JOsh,

I guess the concept of probable cause or reasonable suspicion just eludes you then? Or is it that you like strip-searching 90 year old, wheelchair-bound, Christian or Jewish grandmothers, all in the name of avoiding racial profiling.

Frankly, introducing some of those animals in Gitmo and their enablers in America like Ibrahim Hooper, the Zogbys, Lynne Stewart and Ron Kuby, to the pleasures of being questioned through the aid of a belt sander and a ball peen hammer would do a lot more to fight terrorism than a million random searches at airports.

Posted by: Bart at November 27, 2004 10:51 AM

And Josh, in case you think Bart exaggerates, I flew my 75 year old mother home after she broke a hip during a driving vacation. Because I had purchased (first class) one-way tickets, we were both heavily screened and searched. Nothing like dragging a wheelchair bound senior citizen to her feet one week after a hip replacement so you can wand her. By the way, we were to only ones subjected to this on the whole full flight.

Also, two of my clients fly on business together. One a blond woman and the other of Asian Indian descent who truly does look like the terrorists you see on TV if he doesn't shave for a few days. Guess who has been searched more over the last two years?

Posted by: Rick T. at November 27, 2004 1:23 PM

"Torture at Abu Grahib? I'll give you humiliation, but torture?"

Have you seen ALL the pictures that have been released? Check 'em out, http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

- Why is the naked guy in the 2nd picture bleeding (notice that the blood is fresh)?
- Look at the fear in the face of the guy in the 5th picture
- The guard is punching one of the tied-up guys in the 8th picture.

Do you call that just "humiliation"?

Oh, and Gonzales is even more responsible for the torture in Guantanamo. And yes, there has been documented systematic torture of INNOCENT people in Guantanamo. And if you haven't heard of it, maybe you should stop getting all your news from Newsmax.

Posted by: miguel at November 28, 2004 2:22 AM

There are no innocents interned at Gitmo. The animals that are there should be giving thanks every day to their bloodthirsty moon-god, Allah, that we didn't let Gen. Dostum and the Uzbeks deal with them instead.

Posted by: Bart at November 28, 2004 6:17 AM

If captured extremists aren't scared you've done something wrong.

Posted by: oj at November 28, 2004 10:30 AM

Some prisoners released from Gitmo have already been implicated in new terrorist activities in Pakistan. Apparently new and more stringent interrogation methods will have to be devised. Or we can just keep all of them there in perpetuity.

Regarding Alberto Gonzales, if the lefties want a confirmation hearing, let's have one. Then let's have some hearings for appelate judges, and SC judges. Let us have hearings 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, every week, as long as there are vacancies to fill.

Bush's job is to nominate. The Senate's job is to advise and consent -- that means, to confirm or reject. Filibustering til 2009 is not an option.

Posted by: J Baustian at November 29, 2004 1:37 AM
« AND THE CHILEANS WONDER WHY HE NEEDS REAL SECURITY?: | Main | FEEL OR THINK? (via Tom Corcoran): »