Today's Hot Topic: Attacking Bush Nominees

Spakovsky and Holsinger: The NYT criticizes the White House for nominating Hans von Spakovsky to a powerful position on the Federal Election Commission. The editors note that as "a voting-rights appointee in the Justice Department, [Spakovsky] promoted Republican initiatives to crimp the ballot power of minorities and the poor who typically favor Democrats" ... the WaPo questions whether President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger, wrote a paper in 1991 arguing that gay men are "promiscuous beings who are riddled with disease because of various sex acts," and wonders if Holsinger would be able to offer "unbiased information grounded in sound science and tailored to the common good."

By Rob Anderson |  June 14, 2007; 9:25 AM ET
Previous: Today's Columns: Al-Qaeda in France | Next: Cross Country: Why the Candidates Should Move Beyond Iraq

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Re: Dr. Holsinger's statement quoted above:

Why attack a person of knowledge who speaks the truth?

Posted by: Richard J. Mullin | June 14, 2007 09:53 AM

I would be curious to read the initiatives written by Hans. Does the NYT have the documents? I also find the comments written by the WaPo to be a reflection of their favorite past time; bashing our president. I hope for the day when the progressive elitists in the editorial board rooms will get dowen to doing what they are supposed to do; print the news from a balanced and objective perspective rather than this partican drivel they print today.

Posted by: Dave Bump | June 14, 2007 09:56 AM

I would be curious to read the initiatives written by Hans. Does the NYT have the documents? I also find the comments written by the WaPo to be a reflection of their favorite past time; bashing our president. I hope for the day when the progressive elitists in the editorial board rooms will get dowen to doing what they are supposed to do; print the news from a balanced and objective perspective rather than this partican drivel they print today.

Posted by: Dave Bump | June 14, 2007 09:56 AM

I would be curious to read the initiatives written by Hans. Does the NYT have the documents? I also find the comments written by the WaPo to be a reflection of their favorite past time; bashing our president. I hope for the day when the progressive elitists in the editorial board rooms will get dowen to doing what they are supposed to do; print the news from a balanced and objective perspective rather than this partican drivel they print today.

Posted by: Dave Bump | June 14, 2007 09:56 AM

I would be curious to read the initiatives written by Hans. Does the NYT have the documents? I also find the comments written by the WaPo to be a reflection of their favorite past time; bashing our president. I hope for the day when the progressive elitists in the editorial board rooms will get dowen to doing what they are supposed to do; print the news from a balanced and objective perspective rather than this partican drivel they print today.

Posted by: Dave Bump | June 14, 2007 09:56 AM

Is anyone surprised about these appointments? When has Dubya appointed anyone who might disagree with his hard-nosed stances? His first appointment to the Supreme Court -- rigtfully rejected by EVERYONE -- is now under subpoena in another inquiry into Bush Administration funny business. If the USA can hold out for another 18 months, we might be able to undo the damage by the time the grandchildren of the baby boomers reach adulthood.

Posted by: Eleanor | June 14, 2007 09:59 AM

LOL--I have to just chuckle when I say I read the first comment regarding today's hot topic. If being a progressive elitist means actually have the intelligence to question a poor choice for office based on political affiliation, then by all means, I'm not rich, but count me as a progressive elitist too! To think that there is anyTHING left of the Bush Administration at all, that is fair and balanced to all Americans only makes me laugh harder. Why in the world would we hold journalists to one standard but yet our very GOVERNMENT, to another?

Posted by: Suzanne | June 14, 2007 10:31 AM

Just another day of idiocy in the bush administration. As DEFCON states, "the religious right are wrong..." (and in my own personal opinion, alot more to be feared than Islamic terrorists...

Posted by: nyboy47 | June 14, 2007 10:47 AM

Love Eleanor's comments above. You don't have to be "rich" as she points out to be an elitist. You just have to think you're smarter than everyone else. Intelligence is no substitute for common sense - to watch these progressive types go through such machinations wrapping twisted logic on top of twisted logic is always a treat. As to the main subject - I cannot recall the WaPo or the NYT ever calling a Carter or Clinton appointee 'extremist' or 'dangerous' or any other other pronoun modifiers they choose to annoint the current administrations' nominees with. Come to think of it, they did precisely the same thing to Reagan and Bush 41's nominees. I'm sure Eleanor and the rest of the intelligentsia could pick up on the trend here?

Nevertheless, both sides have and continue to engage in the personal destruction of people, regardless of the facts. The only difference being is that WaPo and NYT are consistently on the personal destruction team of the Left.

Posted by: Bill | June 14, 2007 10:57 AM

Mr. Mullin's question speaks volumes about him. Obviously, he is mentally, emotionally and spiritually disadvantaged.

Posted by: swweaver | June 14, 2007 11:27 AM

It has nothing to do with Mr. Mullin's disadvantages, spiritual or otherwise; rather, it has to do with his overwhelmingly localized mind and uneducated, unrealized persona. Hatred is spoken by those who fear progress and the truth; Mullin stands among the (shrinking) class of unenlightened, internalized menaces to reality; he is a fool .

Posted by: William Bartholomew | June 14, 2007 12:33 PM

Is your newspaper one of the reasons why people feel free to criticise the President for appointing to public office people who agree with him idealogically? It is ridiculous to expect a public official to appoint people who disagree with him. The people elect the President through the Electoral College, but once elected he is supposed to do what he thinks is right and not bow to political opponents in every instance. As Patrick Henry once said, "My country (or President), may she always be right, but my country (or Presdient), right or wrong.>"

Posted by: Frank W. Riggs | June 14, 2007 12:49 PM

Well David Bump bashing our so called leader, George W. Bush, is the only way to talk about one of the worst presidents thios country ever had. Of course if you have an overflowing bank acount, have stocks in oil industry, drug or insurance companies you'll be a buddy of the bushies.

Posted by: Ralph Dietlin | June 14, 2007 11:59 PM

Well David Bump bashing our so called leader, George W. Bush, is the only way to talk about one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. Of course if you have an overflowing bank acount, have stocks in oil, drug or insurance companies you'll be in love the bushies.

Posted by: Ralph Dietlin | June 15, 2007 12:02 AM

"Bush bashing", I think, is a term often used to describe any thoughtful criticism of the Bush administration and it's mishandling of Iraq, the environment, government appointments, and other issues. And sometimes the criticism IS fanatical and unreasonable. But people are rightfully angry over the falling integrity and grace of a once great nation. I was a loyal Republican for 35 years having voted for Reagan and even Nixon. That all turned around for me with George W. Bush at the helm. This man will go down in history as one if not THE worst president in our history. It's pathetic, really, that such a dull-witted man has leaned so much on the likes of Rove and Cheney who I believe are the real architects of a nation in decline. There's nothing elitist about this belief. If I had a choice of belonging to the industrial/corporate, Religious Right "elite" or the Thinking Brotherhood of Man "elite", I'd take the latter any day and be proud to be called an "elitist".

Posted by: Lita Oppegard | June 17, 2007 01:18 PM

Yes, we criticize. However, if we had not gone into Iraq, would we have known about, North Korea, Mohmmar Gadofy's Nuks, Iran's nuk work and are we for sure Hussain, didn't try to get the yellow cake uranium out of Africa? After all Hussain believed he had the WMD'S. The slow progress in Iraq, I blame a lot on our generals. Before we jumped into Iraq, they should have known what kind of war we were going to be fighting and that was their job to check to past fighting (History) in that area. Especially when the English had their battles. A commander has to go with his best intelligence, if he decides he or she must fight. Those of you who keep calling the Pres. a liar must have all the information he had and knew what he was not only thinking, but, if a good man with that information would do such a thing. I didn't know so many people could read other peoples mind. I'm sorry for those of you who have been so against winning this war, and those of you that are aiding our enemies with your rhetoric. Being retired, I have more time then the average citizen to read, study and absorb the news, information and try to make sense out of it. I also had a brother that was over in Iraq and just retired from the Army. I hope that I really have a better prospective on this than all those that seem to just be mouthing words and many times have no facts to support their writings and those that rant and rave, but, don't even vote. Better days ahead, I hope, SFC. Baranek (Ret) 1950 to 1971.

Posted by: gbaranek | June 17, 2007 07:34 PM

Yes, we criticize. However, if we had not gone into Iraq, would we have known about, North Korea, Mohmmar Gadofy's Nuks, Iran's nuk work and are we for sure Hussain, didn't try to get the yellow cake uranium out of Africa? After all Hussain believed he had the WMD'S. The slow progress in Iraq, I blame a lot on our generals. Before we jumped into Iraq, they should have known what kind of war we were going to be fighting and that was their job to check to past fighting (History) in that area. Especially when the English had their battles. A commander has to go with his best intelligence, if he decides he or she must fight. Those of you who keep calling the Pres. a liar must have all the information he had and knew what he was not only thinking, but, if a good man with that information would do such a thing. I didn't know so many people could read other peoples mind. I'm sorry for those of you who have been so against winning this war, and those of you that are aiding our enemies with your rhetoric. Being retired, I have more time then the average citizen to read, study and absorb the news, information and try to make sense out of it. I also had a brother that was over in Iraq and just retired from the Army. I hope that I really have a better prospective on this than all those that seem to just be mouthing words and many times have no facts to support their writings and those that rant and rave, but, don't even vote. Better days ahead, I hope, SFC. Baranek (Ret) 1950 to 1971.

Posted by: gbaranek | June 17, 2007 07:34 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company