oppose nomination of John Ashcroft

[Reese]

At 11:56 AM 1/18/01 -0600, Jim Burnes wrote:
 >On Thursday 18 January 2001 10:15, Declan McCullagh wrote:
 >> Quite right. Ashcroft is objectionable, as is any candidate George W.
 >> would propose, but he is arguably less objectionable than Reno.
 >>
 >> Here's what he said yesterday about Microsoft:
 >> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41264,00.html
 >>
 >
 >To all the people who find Ashcroft objectionable, let me concur
 >with Declan that there is no one they will not find objectionable.
 >In my opinion, anyone that doesn't burn little children in their
 >churches is at least an order of magnitude better than Janet
 >Reno.

Reno burned little kids in their church, because of the FIREARMS held
or believed to be held somewhere on or around the compound.

You might want to reappraise.

 >I'd also like to point out that anything he says in the confirmation
 >hearings is likely to be whatever he thinks the questioner wants to
 >hear.

Agree, but -

 >He will whisper sweet nothings into Dianne Feinstein's ear about his
 >new plans for the fascist state if he thinks it will turn Feinswein's
 >vote.
 >
 >Do you really think Feinswein will vote for him?

- asskrack is on record about firearms, elsewhere.  If firearms are as
large an issue to her as they are to others, probably.

Reese