I really do want to know why she is a bad choice. Her history with the organization looks clean. I can't find any infidelites or murders in her past. Please enlighten me why she is so bad,
She had a record as a member of the Commission, and that record opposed a number of popuar measures regarding the safety of children's items (yes, I'm being vague - I don't have kids) that were said to have killed thousands of kids. Her preference, undoubedly welcome to libertarians, was to blame the parents and consumers for misusing the items in question. The Dems found her a very unsuitable candidate to chair a commission charged with investigating, ordering and policing product recalls, much as the GOP would find me an unsuitable judge in cases involving the death penalty, as I oppose it (and I'd be thrown off juries in such cases).
Plus she's obviously a warning scalp as the Dems set up their battle lines against Bush's appointments. Her failure serves to put Bush on notice that his appointments can't be the "finger in the eye" type. That's why he's appointing so many Senators' sons and committee staffers at the moment. It's harder to sink 'em.
Yes, Todd, she had a clean moral record. But I'm with my boring Senator Schumer on this question: Just because someone has a "moral" background, that doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't oppose them on policy grounds. I think Clarence Thomas should have been sunk for his negligible judicial record (he still can't write an opinion) and for his known prior views, not for a debatable hair on a coke can. And I think Nixon should have been impeached for illegally invading Cambodia and bombing Laos, not just for his financial shenanigans and the tapes.
Ok that makes sense about the kids thing, but how come there was no struggle by the Democrats when Bill Clinton nominated her last time?
Thank you for explaining, I did read about her opposition to a few child measured, I have read the CNN statistics of "1000's" of deaths but when I checked into things with consumer products info sites and sites of that sort and the cound ecame less than 1000 thats not saying that its s good thing lives lost are lives lost never to be lived.
She does seem to have a good record on the voting for safety standards though.
Its just seems somehow not very "bi-partisan"
Yes you are right the Moral lifestyle shouldn't mean anything, but for me family morality is a gad of public morality. To me if you can lie to your spouse then how much easier id it to lie to the people you are supposed to be working for? I know its cheap question, but things like that matter to me. By morality I wasn't thinking religion because although the two go hand-in-hand most of the time they do also stand seperately.
Clinton appointed her a member, not chairperson of the commish. It's not that uncommon for people to be deemed suitable to vote as one of a pool, but not to be approved to lead and set a commission's agenda. I don't really know about the stats on injuries or deaths - the more I learn about stats, the less I believe any of them.
Few in DEC believe in bipartisanism at this time; McCain seems truly to enjoy it, though in the past he was hidebound.
I truly don't care much about politicians' personal morality, though if I were in Condit's zone, I'd condemn him for failing to 'fess up and assist the investigation. Plenty of pols treat their spouses well, and take bribes, just as plenty are honest public figures, but cheat....
