They didn’t give Bush a chance
I’ve not heard the show or even read the full article, but Rush Limbaugh has argued that Democrats “never gave Bush a chance in 2000.”
Limbaugh is correct, of course, but that doesn’t mean that Republicans should follow suit. Case in point, is Hillary Clinton. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was confirmed this week by a vote of 94-2. Only Senators Demint and Vitter opposed their former colleague.
Compare that to a similar confirmation vote eight years ago. Another former senator, as vilified by the left as Hillary is by the right, was put before former colleagues for a vote. Political differences aside, he, just like Hillary, was unquestionably qualified for the assignment. His name: John Ashcroft.
But there was a very different outcome. Democrats opposed John Ahscroft 34-8.
Limbaugh is right that since the very beginning, Democrats never gave Bush a chance. They wanted him to fail, many even to the point that they wanted America to fail with him. But that doesn’t mean that what Democrats did wrong should now be the Republican response. Elections have consequences and one of those consequences is that Presidents get to put in place their own qualified advisors.
For the good of the country, Republicans need to take the high road. But also for the good of the country, they should never stop to remind America how low was the road Democrats drove every day for eight years.
ALSO:
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
John Ashcroft was one of the most controversial Attorney Generals in the history of our country, and his vote on the Senate floor reflected that. Sen. Clinton has worked for and gained the respect of her colleagues, and that is why she was confirmed with only two nay votes, not because Republicans are being deferential to Obama.
Lets see what happens with Eric Holder before we climb up on that high horse.
Ed: Sean, the Ashcroft vote preceded his controversy. It did not reflect it, so don’t try to get away with putting history out of chronological order. By 2001 John Ashcroft had already been an Assistant Missouri AG, two terms as the Missouri AG, a governor, and a senator. He was unquestionably qualified for the job–certainly, at least as much as Hillary is qualified for her job. And there is no way that you can argue that he was any more controversial or disliked by the other party than is Hillary.
I’m glad that the GOP has begun the Obama Administration by showing itself to be the party of grownups. I hope that continues. And if it does, I will continue to point out the marked differences between then and now.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Bob,
Ashcroft was a highly partisan wingnut whose controversial tenure was written on the wall well before he assumed the position. Hell, he was so bad he lost his reelection bid to a dead guy.
Part of the problem with Bush is that he didn’t really take into account Democratic concerns or consult Democratic congressional leaders prior to making appointments. despite his lack of winning the popular vote, the closeness of the electoral college, the controversy surrounding his ascension to power, and the closeness of the Republican majorities in the Congress.
Barack Obama won with the largest margin of any Democrat since LBJ. He has the largest Democratic congressional majority in decades, and yet he still has consulted the Republicans throughout the process.
Obama is working to get the respect and cooperation of the GOP, Bush acted as if it was owed to him, or that it was unnecessary.
Ed- “wingnut” ’nuff said. Thanks for proving my point.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:00 am
What was your point again? That Republicans are respectful of the ideological extremists on the left?
February 25th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Ed, you are dead on. The democrats often claim that “America DID give Bush a chance, they gave him 8 years”. Yeah, we did. But Democrats fought him every way and why and didn’t let him do most of the stuff that could of made his presendcy better.
In the end, it’s the democrats fault for not being able to reach across the aisle and let Bush do some of what he wanted to do. Instead, they, 8 years later, say they gave him a chance.
It is for this of many reasons why people who are Republicans who still value Reagan conservatism MUST stand up against the Dems, and show them that if they want to play that game, they won’t be playing it alone. Reagan didn’t let these pansy wastes stand in his way when he employed the ideas that helped America and created jobs, brought down the Soviet Union, you can never stand in the middle if you are a true conservative. You MUST stand firm on the right. Even with all the idiots in congress and the idiots online constantly making up lies, reverberating nonsense and telling half truths.