Character Matters-George W. Bush's Cabinet

After the last eight years of the once promised "most ethical administration" holding power in the executive branch of government, the time has come, with the election of George W. Bush, to place adults in cabinet posts once again. As president-elect Bush makes appointments to his cabinet, honest Americans once again can see and realize, as they have intuitively known all along that, despite the remonstrations of George Stephanopolos, et al, character does matter. No person can live life properly without it in good measure and no nation can survive in a working condition when it is abandoned or minimized. A bitter fruit is the cultural harvest awaiting any people and their offspring if the need for character in high political office goes unmet. So it is especially refreshing and rewarding to view the appointments George W. Bush is making as juxtaposed against this characterless administration.

Challenges lie ahead, circumstances of an entirely different nature, scope and complexity will confront America and the world over the next decade. The shifting sands of economic realities will cause Japan, Europe, China, South America and Russia to pursue different approaches to their economic difficulties which will in turn bring forth the potential for military actions of various scale and involvement in varying degrees by said countries. Therefore, the people Mr. Bush appoints will be crucial to America's well being. This is self evident, yet we Americans can become so myopic to these threats that we loose perspective on how much character means as it relates to foreign policy, national security and military preparedness.

So today, with much gratitude, all of America should take heart in the wisdom and forethought shown by president-elect Bush by his selection of  Dr. Condoleezza Rice as national security advisor and Colin Powell as secretary of state. We have confidence in their capacity to work for the cause of liberty as they deal with the enemies of it. This is why character matters and when it is applied, furnishes the United States with strength and not weakness and sends an unambiguous message to the rest of the world that there are things America will defend and protect. Neither one of these people are warmongers nor are they timid in taking action to combat those that seek America's demise.

Some conservatives may find fault with Rice and Powell since they are both pro-choice and advocate affirmative action. While we disagree with them on these matters, we see no inherent difficulty with holding these positions as they serve in their respective posts. Being pro-choice and advocating affirmative are inconsequential, non-integral and irrelevant to these offices. It is not the primary directive to use, as a frame of reference, one's philosophical determinations insofar as being pro-choice and advocating affirmative action as they render their duties of these respective offices. For other cabinet positions and elsewhere in Bush's administration it may matter, but not with these offices. Additionally, it must be remembered that the evenly divided senate will have to approve the appointees and it is sure he has this in mind as this process unfolds.

The appointment of Sen. John Ashcroft as attorney general is one of fundamental importance. There is no affection of political flavor with Sen. Ashcroft inasmuch as he has held firm to his convictions in the face of the storm of self inflicted intolerance from the NAACP. He also stood firm for the rights of the unborn against the pro-abortion forces. "John Ashcroft will perform his duties guided by principles, not by politics," Bush said in Austin, Texas, while standing next to Ashcroft. "He will be faithful to the law, pursuing justice without favor. He will enforce the law, and he will follow the truth." Ashcroft would be less prone to prosecute businesses for antitrust and environmental violations than under outgoing attorney general Janet Reno, while some civil rights cases would have to meet a stricter standard to trigger an investigation.

In all likelihood "caution" will be exercised in handling racial preference cases, this in line with the 1995 Supreme Court ruling that required Congress and federal agencies to use race-based benefits as a last resort to meet "compelling" policy needs. This is an approach that we see as unifying the country since racism is a problem that should NOT be politicized. The race baiting of the left will be louder than ever but their ability to discriminate against their political opponents will be greatly minimized and you just have to love it.

"Civil rights" groups are critical of Ashcroft for his votes in Congress since he didn't vote for racial preferences that suit their narrow political agenda and his opposition to a federal judgeship for Ronnie White, a racially intolerant African-American justice for the Missouri Supreme Court.

Kweisi Mfume, president and chief executive officer of the National Association for the Advancement of (LIBERAL) Colored People, said the NAACP would strongly oppose Ashcroft's nomination because he stood in the way of the reverse racism of affirmative action. "It is outrageous for President-elect Bush to select someone who has consistently opposed civil rights (WRONGS) and affirmative action to be responsible for enforcing the nation's laws," he foamed in a statement.

Mfume said Ashcroft had received a grade of "F" on each of the last three NAACP report cards because of his "anti-progressive of (institutionalizing racism) voting record, having voted to approve only three of 15 legislative issues supported by the NAACP and other civil rights groups." Sounds like good judgment to us.

Mr. Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, called the nomination "deeply troubling." As if civil rights are defined by their insistence of reverse discrimination.

White's nomination to the federal judiciary was stopped in the Senate last year, as Ashcroft denounced the justice's record on the death penalty as too liberal. White was a Clinton judicial appointment. Another of Clinton's "making our streets safe for our children" appointees!

George W. said Ashcroft "had his reasons" for blocking White and explained them to him. "And there's no question in my mind that this is a person who believes in civil rights for all citizens," Bush said. Do you get it-all of us as Americans will be elevated-not SOME at the expense of others. This WILL make us one America-not an America of the racially preferred!!!!! In addition, Ashcroft supporters observe that as governor, he named the first black to the Missouri Court of Appeals. This appointment was of a black conservative

As a public official, Sen. Ashcroft has been one of the strongest supporters of the right to life-only allowing the reasonable exception where the life of the mother is truly in danger. As governor, Ashcroft signed an abortion law that became the basis for the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, this law gave the states new authority to limit the right to abortion. 

Equal protection for all-not preferential treatment for some, either in matters of race or of life itself is what Mr. Ashcroft will bring to the job of Attorney General. No wonder the liberals are afraid of him and are "deeply troubled". He will be a proponent for the standard of allowing "life, (the unborn) liberty (no racial preferences) and the pursuit of happiness (not revenge). We know no honest and thinking American have trouble with that. This is the best approach for affirmative freedom.

The cabinet is now complete and it is both the most diverse in our nation's history and quality laden, qualified, able and talented group that the outgoing administration could only dream of assembling. Clinton's cabinet was for display only; qualifications were an afterthought. Bush's cabinet is able to fill the bill for diversity while being responsible for the job at hand. We only can hope that the wonderfully bi-partisan senate will not be afraid of "strong women in positions of authority" as it termed republicans when we objected to Hillary and her health care shenanigans. Republicans could point out, yet they won't,  that any situations in any Bush appointees past that might be construed as ethically questionable and thereby raise objections, can be explained away as having been, as per what the Bill Clinton apologist allowed, from when he was younger (protesting in front of the U.S. embassy in England-and not in front of the North Vietnamese embassy during the Vietnam "police action"). Or we could say that, in answer to any objections as we might need to, that his appointees never inhaled; or they did everything for the good of the children, etc, etc. But, we know that in the don't ask-don't tell moral wishing well of the situation ethics and moral relativism world of the left that only republicans answer for their sins.

Still, through all of these nauseating double standards, the critics of Mr. Bush will be less apt to have relevancy in the public dialog given his choice of appointees. Watch out for the fires of hysteria and orchestrated fault finding that the shameless left will still employ against anyone who makes the case for limiting big government and it's insatiable liberty devouring appetite.