Time Skips Holder Controversy, But Implied Ashcroft Was Unfit in 2001 Cover Story

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

Time magazine hasn’t devoted a single article to Attorney General nominee Eric Holder yet. (He’s drawn one short mention since being nominated.) This is a big change from eight years ago, when Time had a blazing cover story on George Bush nominee John Ashcroft. With a close-up of Ashcroft’s half-darkened face peering out with a one-eyed Cheneyesque glare, Time asked SHOULD THIS MAN BE ATTORNEY GENERAL?

In their cover story, Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy suggested the Ashcroft nomination was a viciously ugly Bush move, as they began:

So you fought a long and painful battle to become President of the U.S., and it will soon, at last, be Inauguration Day. The Bible your dad used is back for the swearing in, 16,000 yellow roses, 500 lbs. of peach cobbler, tons of fireworks and Ricky Martin are all being readied for the gala celebrations, and you have only yourself to blame if all people remember from this historic week is the historically ugly struggle you ignited in the halls of the U.S. Senate.

Sure, news magazines telling the American people you're historically ugly will have no impact on their memory. Gibbs and Duffy saw only poisonous discord in the making, as they unloaded their discordant anti-Bush editorializing:

Ashcroft's nomination has become the latest battle in America's Forty Years' War, a fight over race and culture and politics that runs from the civil rights movement to the Clarence Thomas hearings to the showdown in Tallahassee that gave Bush his presidency in a way that left many black Americans feeling that their voices and their votes did not count. Now the President who promised to be a uniter, not a divider, faces opposition to Ashcroft from virtually every liberal interest group: feminists, greens, gay-rights and gun-control advocates and, above all, civil rights organizations that charge Ashcroft with exploiting race for political gain throughout his career.

And that means that the President-elect, who told TIME several weeks ago that the greatest misconception about him is that he is racially insensitive, is now defending a key nominee in a fight so fierce it may once again be hard to tell the difference between winning and losing. There are Democrats publicly denouncing Ashcroft and privately praying he survives, so they can raise money and inflame partisans for years to come. There are Republicans publicly pledging their support and privately wondering why Bush chose a man who all but guaranteed that the era of good feeling would be over before his presidency even begins.

Is it possible that Bush did not see this coming? He told friends he thought Ashcroft would sail through because the Senate protects its own, the Republicans would support whatever a new President wanted, and Ashcroft believed he had the Democrats under control. It is true that Bush spent many days and nights of the Florida war down at his ranch with the TV off and the radio turned down. Was that cool detachment, as his aides claimed, or does he perhaps not see the depth of the wounds he is so confident he can heal?

By contrast, while Time went on to cast Ashcroft as a fervent religious conservative seen by his allies as "St. John the Divine," Time’s glancing mention of Eric Holder cast him as a moderate that disturbes the ACLU. In an article in the December 8 print edition entitled "Closing Down the Dark Side," Time’s Mark Kukis wrote:

Obama will need to direct his Attorney General to issue new legal guidance that supersedes all those legal opinions, seen or unseen, if he hopes to prevent a return to such practices in the future. Former federal prosecutor and onetime trial judge Eric Holder, Obama’s pick to lead the effort as the top man in the Justice Department, earned a reputation as a relatively moderate legal thinker when serving there as a senior official in the Clinton Administration.

That concerns some civil libertarians. "If you leave these on the books, you leave a bunch of loaded guns that future Presidents and agency heads can pull out and shoot when they want to," says Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I remember

It was a time when the MSM sounded like Bush was the Anti-Christ and his appointed Officers the minions of Hell. The rhetoric continued for 8 years time, after time, after time.

Now all we get is flowery rhetoric and songs of MSM Angels telling the story of "The One". With "The One" here, we will all be taken care of with no more worries, why I can almost here those guardian Angels singing now...."Don't Worry Be Happy"....

a marketing magazine for the Democratic Party

Time has Obama on its front cover for the thirteenth time according to the Drudge
Report.  Apparently Drudge is counting.  Why bother.  In fact Time should stop changing its cover altogether and leave Obama’s puss on it permanently.  It would be quite fitting, especially with that red border.

Imagine!  Liberals are so insecure they apparently are willing to waste good money for a marketing magazine for the Democratic Party.  Pathetic!

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

The basic flaw

Ashcroft and Palin share one major trait that not only disqualifies them in the eyes of the MSM but makes them the embodiment of evil as well:  They're evangelical, and worse, their pentecostals. 

Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!

And Conservative. If they

And Conservative.

If they were liberal evangelicals or pentecostals, they would be known as enlightened!

Woeful Future For Military?

 

 Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

it's the msm that's

it's the msm that's flawed - pure propagandists, socialists, communists - they will collapse upon themselves - just like the soviets and the nazi's did

congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama

We've been naive all these

We've been naive all these years in thinking that propaganda was aggressive.  We have been learning that another branch of propaganda is what is not publicized.

Hmmm, I am reminded of the way the Red Chinese and the Soviets kept things from their own people, such as the great amount (actually huge amount) of aid they received from the U.S. during World War II.

So it's a one-two punch...attack with lies, smears, ad hominem attacks, etc. with one fist and with the other withold information, cover up, spin what gets out anyway, and ignore what is damaging to the cause of Socialism.

One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

Holder's involvement in the

Holder's involvement in the Mark Riche pardon alone would be the basis of a blockbuster movie.  Surely Time Mag knows this??

PETA KOOK MAY AFFECT MILLIONS!!!

 FROM TOWNHALL  1.16.2009

The most outrageous Obama appointee just might be Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor who's flying under everyone's radar and into a job that hardly anyone has ever heard of.

Cass Sunstein is slated to run the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He's going to be America's chief "regulatory czar." And shocking new research from the Center for Consumer Freedom shows that he's a dedicated animal-rights zealot.

Sunstein has the animal-rights agenda of PETA president Ingrid Newkirk.

Sunstein believes in animal rights---the notion that people shouldn't "own" or "use" animals at all, for any purpose, no matter what the stakes are for mankind.
Cancer research? Not if lab rats are used against their will.
Hunting? Absolutely forbidden, especially if it's for sport.
Leather jackets? The cows need their skin more that you do.
Seeing-eye dogs? They're nothing more than slaves.

And that T-bone steak? Fuhgeddaboudit! If animals have any "rights" at all, the right to not be your dinner is at the top of the list.

All of this makes perfect sense to Cass Sunstein, who organized the "Chicago Project on Animal Treatment Principles" at the University of Chicago. He will soon have the political authority to push for a radical overhaul of the way the federal government regulates everything Americans do with animals.

How radical?
Sunstein supports making sport hunting illegal, and completely phasing out the consumption of meat. And if that's not nutty enough, he's actually in favor of giving animals the legal right to sue people.

Here's what Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions:

"[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

Conservative commentators have been openly fretting that Barack Obama may try to turn welfare entitlements and single-payer healthcare into a new Bill of Rights. But Cass Sunstein threatens to expand the whole concept of "rights" to include the rest of the animal kingdom.

That fish wriggling at the end of your hook could soon be a federal offense (if the fish doesn't file a lawsuit first).
=====
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. BE AFRAID!

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)

Yowza

That's pretty scary.  Thanks for the info, Doug.

P.S.  It's not a fish at the end of my hook, according to PETA, it's a "sea kitten".

Dave.....Sea Kitten Recipe Forum?