Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:15:17 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Nanny and Zoe

After my wondering aloud if Zoe Baird was treated to a double
standard Tim asks:

>These sort of accusations get tossed about all the time.
>Do you have an example in mind?  I suppose I can think
>of one:  Barney Frank.  The whole prostitution ring in
>his basement was dismissed when he asserted that it was
>his friend (of unclear personal and professional relation)
>who had been running the business, not Barney himself.

>Clarence Thomas's acts of indiscretion were, on the other hand,
>loudly trumpeted by the press, and the committee lusted after
>each lurid detail; but in the end, they ignored the whole business,
>apart from fidgeting as their trousers got uncomfortably tight.

Neither example is particularly apt, although Frank's situation
is closer.  I didn't have an example in mind.  What I was thinking
was that since it was a *child care* issue, the senator's found
that line of questioning unduly fascinating.  Since Baird
admitted wrongdoing at the outset, the continued line of questioning
was, for the most part, redundant.

If Clarence Thomas had *admitted* that Hill's accusations were
accurate, do you think that the senators would have dwelt on that
topic as persistently as they did?  (Perhaps that question should
be whether the senators *should* have dwelt, etc.)

Since Baird admitted her guilt with respect to the illegal aliens,
the subsequent questioning on that matter served only to fan the
anger of the public.

>There is a difference, I think, between confirming someone who has
>had some indiscretion in their past and confirming someone who has
>violated INS regulations to a position overseeing the INS.  In Zoe's
>case we aren't talking about outstanding parking tickets, but a
>premeditated violation of laws directly related to the position to
>which she was nominated.

No argument here.  I plead guilty to not being real clear about where
I was going with that argument.  I was thinking of Douglas Ginsberg
be force to withdraw because he had inhaled.  I agree with you about
the seriousness of having violated laws directly related to the job
to which one has been nominated.  However, since it was a civil
violation (and not something worthy of time in the "Big House" even
if she is a democrat), it is, though quite serious, not necessarily
a disqualifying factor.  Probably, but not necessarily.

and linda wonders:

>*what happened to the peruvian couple?*

Local news is that they have separated (not necessarily because of
Baird's nomination though the senate is investigating ;-)  )
 The Baltimore _Sun_ has also reported that INS is seeking to deport them.

Tim again echoes from down the hall:

>> the Tower confermation [sic and sic]

>  Ooh, another good example.  Steve, are you listening?
>Is *this* what you meant?

No.  Tower's debacle was nearly purely partisan crap.  Although a case can
be made with respect to whether a drunk should be approved as Sec'y of
Defense.  On the other hand, had a woman been nominated and subjected
to questions about her drinking and womanizing, it would have made for
interesting questioning indeed.

and Dan, ad nauseum:

>That said, there is NO excuse for the Attorney General of the United States in
>claiming that they received bad legal advice.

In fact, this may be the most legitimately disqualifying factor in the
entire proceeding.


Again, the main point of my original post was that the Senate continues
to embarass itself.  Baird may not have been treated differently had
she been a man - but I suspect otherwise.  She may or may not have
been confirmed had she not withdrawn but her actions re the illegal
aliens were not *necessarily* sufficient reason to reject her.  Had
she been an otherwise absolutely stellar candidate, she may well
have been confirmed.

Remember, 1-800-4NO-GOVT,

Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU