Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (1534)	1/31/2001 4:39:11 PM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Every once in a while one of the talking heads on the nighttime cable scream-a-thons says something interesting. Last night, Chris Matthews opined that the Dems are assailing Ashcroft in order to send a warning shot across GWB's bow. Why? Because the inside buzz in D.C. is that Rehnquist will resign in two years and GWB will appoint Sen. Orrin Hatch to replace him as chief justice of the U.S.A. That's a somewhat scary thought.

To: Mephisto who wrote (1534)	1/31/2001 5:06:57 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 93284

It appears the economy is Bushed! cnnfn.cnn.com TP

To: Mephisto who wrote (1534)	1/31/2001 7:30:49 PM
From: ecommerceman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Mephisto--there is some truth to what you wrote--I agree that the vote would be closer if Ashcroft hadn't been a senator; I think the two North Dakota Democrats wouldn't have voted for him had Ashcroft not helped them on a big dam project in that state. I can tell you, though, that even had he NOT been a senator he would still have been confirmed, albeit by a closer margin. The Republicans have 50 votes, and in all likelihood, all 50 of them will vote for Ashcroft, all they need is one Democrat to vote with them, and there's no doubt in my mind that they would have got at least one Democrat to vote with them with or without Ashcroft being a former Senator...