The "First Hispanic" Attorney General

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I heard Alberto Gonzales described as the first hispanic to hold the post of Attorney General.. (Assuming he will in fact be appointed.)

Are we not yet past that kind of labeling? Not that there is currently proportional representation really .. but certainly non white-males have been appointed to enough positions by now that we don't still need to point it out each individual time an appointment is made .. or do we?

It would make sense to point out that a certain segment of the population is underrepresented (if that is the case) when analyzing the big picture.. but pointing out ethnicity of an individual as if it's some great acheivement only makes the appointment look like (partially) an act of charity/guilt/tokenism.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:32 (twenty years ago)

Considering his lack of regard for the Geneva Convention, he's probably going to make Ashcroft look like a fluffy cuddly bunny in comparison to him.

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:41 (twenty years ago)

yeah I don't see a Gonzales nomination getting a full Senate vote, which may of course be why he was nominated.

As for the labeling, I don't think it's bad at all, though it's not so much a case of representation in a technical sense (seeing as the AG is an executive office). And seeing that (I think) Ken Salazar is the first Hispanic Senator-Elect, I don't see why it's a bad thing to describe as such. The US could use more "minority" representation.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:47 (twenty years ago)

hey, look he is "hispanic" !

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 18:01 (twenty years ago)

republicans always like to get the jump on democrats by appointing minorities, but make sure they get the least representative, anti-affirmative action, conservative person of that race they can find. Then they can say "Look, we're a diverse party!"

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 18:05 (twenty years ago)

and then label democrats who oppose these nutjobs as 'racists'

― still bevens (bscrubbins), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:52 (twenty years ago)

but certainly non white-males have been appointed to enough positions by now that we don't still need to point it out each individual time an appointment is made .. or do we?

I don't think so.

― Miss Misery (thatgirl), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:57 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, surely we think the first black president would be worthy of comment. So is the problem that Attorney General isn't important enough, or that it's the Republicans doing this? I suspect the latter, and I agree - it's fairly horrible to see a party so aligned against hispanic and african americans be able to boast about something like this, but it is notable that they have, and I suppose the Democrats should have done it earlier. But I don't think there is anything wrong with this sort of 'labelling', and I think the word 'tokenism' should be avoided by those who are not, in fact, republican racists, homophobes or sexists. (etc)

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:10 (twenty years ago)

If it wasn't remarkable, people wouldn't remark on it. It's as simple as that.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:24 (twenty years ago)

"The first Attorney General born in a house with two bathrooms"

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:25 (twenty years ago)

For the record, it was a democrat/liberal who pointed out the ethnicity of the appointee.

And to me, it's the former .. ie the office of AG isn't important enough.. Or rather, the appointee's ethnicity seems to be completely irrelevant to the position. While it should ideally be irrelevant in any case, President would be relevant/remarkable because it's the highest office and becuase it's never been held by anyone but white males. But supposing we elect two black presidents, a woman president, a jewish president and a hispanic president. And then someone of Asian descent is elected. By that time, is it still worth pointing out? And before you go off listing how few minorities have held the AG spot (I don't even know how many) I'm equating the AG position to all cabinet positions and court positions combined.

Also, for the record, I'm not accusing anyone of any bad intentions - just thinking that we should be past this kind of thing by now...

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 11 November 2004 00:50 (twenty years ago)

Maybe, but I think we should announce it every time! And have street parties! Really. What harm can it do. Sometimes race is important.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 11 November 2004 00:53 (twenty years ago)

Barak Obama was the first African-American elected to the Senate since reconstruction (1860s) - I don't think we're past this kind of thing.

― supercub, Thursday, 11 November 2004 01:04 (twenty years ago)

Carol Moseley-Braun wasn't elected? Edward Brooke would also be surprised to hear that. Nevertheless, point taken.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 11 November 2004 01:12 (twenty years ago)

I understand your point dave but I'm saying, it's still not there yet. Cabinet positions are big enough for those who don't see themselves in the executive branch to deserve announcements. Hell county sheriff being taken by someone other than white males is still big news in some parts of the country.

― Miss Misery (thatgirl), Thursday, 11 November 2004 01:31 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, you're right. Why did I keep hearing that line thrown around last week? I must have screwed it up.

― supercub, Thursday, 11 November 2004 01:32 (twenty years ago)

xpost

― supercub, Thursday, 11 November 2004 01:32 (twenty years ago)

The first two thoughts that popped into my head when I saw Bush announce this were 'token gesture' and 'fall guy'.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:07 (twenty years ago)

my first thought was 'rove you magnificent bastard'

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:09 (twenty years ago)

Alberto Gonzales sold out his people to the man!
I hope he enjoys his big fancy limos, fat paycheque and office-head from white intern bitches!

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:10 (twenty years ago)

i did have a weird thought yesterday that he was going to appoint a hispanic, withouth knowing that Gonzalez was a candidate. i'd remembered the part in the Daily Show book about appointing random minority folks to your cabinet just for the sake of them, and then all the news stories about GWB "rewarding" his supporters and the increased amount of latino folks that voted for the guy.

consider this the one political insight i've gotten correct all year.

― kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:55 (twenty years ago)

well that plus this = rove's fingerprints hardcore. (note: i'm actually in favor of "this" in principle, although the 'let em come to our country, let corporations ignore labor laws in hiring them and then when they're done exploiting them ship em' vision dubya laid out during the debates would make me skeptical enough even if it wasn't the worst president of my lifetime's plan).

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 11 November 2004 04:02 (twenty years ago)

he was a top counsel in the last administration so it's not really "random".

He's the guy who called the Geneva Convention "quaint". Today's not neccessarily a banner day as far as this Hispanic's concerned.

― Miss Misery (thatgirl), Thursday, 11 November 2004 04:06 (twenty years ago)

well i don't know any black people that rally round clarence thomas (the next chief justice supposedly), so point taken.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 11 November 2004 04:09 (twenty years ago)

Gonzales pro-choice? INFIDEL!

― Din Daa Daa Din Do Do Din Daa Daa Dun Do (donut), Friday, 12 November 2004 00:27 (twenty years ago)

In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote, "While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."

― kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 12 November 2004 00:30 (twenty years ago)

obama was the third. and gonzalez sure is cuter than ashcroft.

― Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Friday, 12 November 2004 02:24 (twenty years ago)

eight months pass...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050727/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_ap_interview

so! who cares about precedent and all that? we'll get whoever we want in there, then flip that shit quick, yo!

WASHINGTON - The legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts, but the Supreme Court "is not obliged to follow" the
Roe v. Wadeprecedent, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday as the Senate prepared to consider John Roberts' appointment that would put a new vote on the high court...

But yeah, if you wanna hear the Talking Points they'll be using in the months up to the next two Supreme Court confirmation hearings, you can probably get a clue from here.

oh yeah, and:

In other areas Tuesday, Gonzales said:

• The Guantanamo facility keeps terrorist suspects from resuming their fight and affords them humane treatment. "I take issue with folks who say people are being mistreated in Guantanamo," he said, adding, "I don't know what I say to Mom and Dad if their son or daughter is killed by someone we once held at Guantanamo."

[...from earlier in the interview:]

• Defended indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as "absolutely the right decision" in the war against terrorism.

...or killed by someone wrongly held at Gitmo for so long he done lost his mind. that would suck, too. man, it'd be rough to have think up the language for that telegram.

― kingfish (Kingfish), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 06:30 (twenty years ago)

I fucking hate these people with every cell in my body.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 06:56 (twenty years ago)

it's funny that these folks went to law school etc. and are, presumably, smart. because ""I don't know what I say to Mom and Dad if their son or daughter is killed by someone we once held at Guantanamo" is not an argument with any legal weight. and he knows it.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 07:10 (twenty years ago)

i mean, it implies that he doesn't understand due process, and the purpose thereof. which he does. presumably. i'm confused.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 07:11 (twenty years ago)

Bbbbbut they're unlawful combatants!

― Tumililingan (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 07:15 (twenty years ago)

You just look back at any repressive government in history, the first thing they do is start detaining their suspected enemies without charges, it is always a bad move both practically speaking (because it undermines presumptions of good faith amongst people who might otherwise be behind your program and because it just inflames your actual enemies further) and legacy-wise, the people who perpetrate this shit are always written as the bad guys. They are ruining innocent peoples' lives, occasionally killing them, and if not killing them often actually driving them insane through the hours and days and weeks and months and now years of psychological and physical infliction of pain, driving their families insane with grief and they know it, they know a certain percentage are innocent of any terrorist plot but they don't fucking care, because they have managed to categorize these people as non-people, unworthy of any of the protections guaranteed in the documents that they hypocritically swear their pious fucking fealty to. I know this is just preaching to the choir but my God, sometimes it's easy to forget that every day, every sweaty, miserable, dusty hour of every day, there are hundreds of these political prisoners rotting, dying and being driven slowly mad in jail cells that Americans pay for.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 07:41 (twenty years ago)

No need to "kill all the lawyers" if you can just rewrite the law

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 07:43 (twenty years ago)

bump

― kingfish (Kingfish), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 15:13 (twenty years ago)

two years pass...

Considering his lack of regard for the Geneva Convention, he's probably going to make Ashcroft look like a fluffy cuddly bunny in comparison to him.
-- Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:41 AM (2 years ago)

you are correct

― gershy, Saturday, 25 August 2007 20:03 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.