Posted on 12/09/2004 6:55:41 AM PST by STARWISE
THE CURSE OF NORM MINETA
By Michelle Malkin · December 09, 2004 10:37 AM
The man who said this...
Kroft: Are you saying, at security screening desks, that a 70-year-old white woman from Vero Beach, Florida, would receive the same level of scrutiny as a-a-a Muslim young man from Jersey City?
Mineta: Basically, I would hope so.
...is staying in the Bush administration.
Flashbacks:
Rich Lowry on Mineta, January 2002:
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta may not necessarily be the least impressive Bush cabinet secretary — there's competition there — but he is certainly the most dangerous.
When President Bush the other day said that he would be "madder than heck" if his Secret Service agent had been ethnically profiled, he wasn't just playing to the media or seeking to assuage the agent's feelings, he was enunciating administration policy: no profiling on the basis of ethnicity or national origin whatsoever.
As I write in the latest National Review, this is an instance of a piety of our racial politics — no "racial profiling" — triumphing over experience and commonsense. Islamic terrorists will necessarily be Muslims, and probably from the Arab world.
Not to try to single out young males with these characteristics for extra attention — more extensive searches and questioning — is folly. It ignores, among other things, the successful Israeli experience securing El Al from attacks.
But adopting something along the lines of the Israeli system would require a tough-mindedness, and instead of tough-mindedness, we have Norm Mineta. On the issue of profiling, Mineta's ignorance appears to be nearly invincible.
Michael Smerconish, testifying before the Transportation, Treasury and General Government Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Passenger Screening and Airline Authority to Deny Boarding, June 2004:
Time and again Secretary Mineta has made clear his refusal to consider personal characteristics in the war on terrorism. In particular, I note his Statement to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on October 12, 2001, and his speech in Rochester, New York on that same date. Secretary Mineta was active in the aftermath of 9/11 in dictating to the airlines his view of the world. In the months after 9/11, the DOT issued several memos to the airlines, warning them against “profiling” passengers. Consider that on October 12, 2001, the DOT issued a memo titled “Carrying Out Transportation Inspection and Safety Responsibilities in a Nondiscriminatory Manner...”
Peggy Noonan, June 2002:
Mr. Mineta has received many awards for his sensitivity to ethnic profiling. Good for him, but I'd personally give him an award if he'd begin to act like a grownup and recognize that his childhood trauma shouldn't determine modern American security policy.
Ann Coulter, April 2004:
In June 2001, as Mohamed Atta completed his final "to do" list before the 9/11 attacks ("... amend will to ban women from my funeral ... leave extra little Friskies out for Mr. Buttons ... set TiVo for Streisand on 'Inside the Actors' Studio'...."), Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was conducting a major study on whether airport security was improperly screening passengers based on ethnicity. As Mineta explained: "We must protect the civil rights of airline passengers." Protecting airline passengers from sudden death has never made it onto Mineta's radar screen.
A few months later, after 19 Muslim men hijacked U.S. airplanes and turned them into Weapons of Mass Destruction on American soil, Mineta was a whirlwind of activity. On Sept. 21, as the remains of thousands of Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from implementing the one security measure that would have prevented 9/11: subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He sternly reminded the airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin, or religion.
Mineta would have sent the letter even sooner, but he wanted to give the airlines enough time to count the number of their employees and customers who had just been murdered by Arab passengers...
Glenn Reynolds, August 2002:
DO I REALLY WANT TO IMPEACH NORMAN MINETA? Some people have emailed with that question. And the answer is -- Hell, yes!
But what they really mean, I think, is: do I really think that impeaching Norman Mineta is the way to do something about the idiocy of air security? That's a bit more complicated.
It's certainly possible to impeach a cabinet official -- they're "officers of the United States," and hence subject to impeachment. But it never happens, because a cabinet official who's that unpopular will be fired by the President first.
Mineta isn't the whole problem, of course. He's a symptom as much as a cause, a symptom of a bureaucratic mindset in which -- it must be said -- he participates fully. (And according to Gary Leff, who is all over this story, James Loy, the new TSA chief, is no better).
But since everyone knows that Mineta personifies the very mindset that is causing the problem, and since "Impeach Norm Mineta" makes that point nicely, it's not a bad slogan. And judging by the glee with which a colleague of mine grabbed one of those bumperstickers, it reflects a widely shared sentiment.
Mineta will probably withstand the blogosphere-generated juggernaut, of course -- especially as Republicans won't want to attack a member of the Administration, and Democrats won't want to attack one of their own. (Yeah, Mineta's a Democrat, actually). But there's nothing like bumperstickers calling for impeachment to bring home the unpopularity of a politician's actions. So get one, and display it proudly!
Looks like the Bush administration still hasn't gotten the message. Maybe I'll wear the bumper sticker on my forehead the next time I'm on TV...
Rush laughs at so-called 'independents' all the time as those who are afraid to take a stand.
Having convictions is a FAR cry from your silly Kool-aid label and party line nonsense.
As I have previously said on this thread, if you have 100 Republicans, you most likely have 100 perspectives on politics. Being affiliated with one party or the other does not preclude independent thought, and it is absurd for you to say so.
I am more conservative than most Republicans, but that doesn't mean that I'm not a Republican. No 'party hack' speaks for me, but overall, the Republican candidate more closely represents what I believe (i.e. lower taxes, pro-life, strong military, etc.).
I may not be in agreement with Rush that all independents' minds are full of mush, but I SURE don't agree with you, that you are somehow superior to those of who identify ourselves as Republicans.
I'm glad that the Independents were smart and voted for President Bush, but that doesn't mean that I have to respect their inability to have strong convictions, and stand up for them.
Bush signed CFR thinking that the Supremes would overturn it, sheer idiocy in my book. So I have absolutely zero faith that he knows what he is doing with Mineta. But we shall see.
america has a new class structure:
1. rich white males and females who tout "diversity"
2. minorities and illegal immigrants who yell "racism"
3. not-rich white females
4. not-rich white males
1. I didn't here, nor have ever said that President Bush is a conservative across the board.
2. I will not base my judgement on any decision he will make on what I perceive to be his only major mistake during his Presidency (i.e. CFR)
What it comes down to is that I trust him, and you don't. It's pretty much that simple.
(btw, thanks for ending this conversation without an insult in your post).
Ummm, NO!
"What exactly qualifies you to declare that the President of the United States has made a poor decision?"
That's a silly thing to say. We are the American electorate, we are qualified because we are citizens, therefore we are expected to have the intelligence and forethought to decide the wisdom of President Bush and any other officeholders or candidates for office.
Saying that we have no ability or right to judge the actions and appointments of a president is almost akin to saying that we have no right to judge a candidate's worth for public office, and therefore no right to vote for them over another, for...if we cannot judge a president's actions after he is elected president, then why would we be able to judge a person's actions before he is elected president.
Did you also consider it wrong to judge Bill Clinton's appointment of Janet Reno as AG as being a disaster, or is it just Republican presidents that we don't have the right to disagree with their appontments?
Ed
Thank you for your excellent reply. I was away all day and just now saw Howlin's question. I was preparing to answer that it is my God-given right and duty as an American citizen, but I see you beat me to it. Thank you for reading my mind and communicating that to Howlin. :-)
Inviting the muslims in for dinner at the WH when most of us know full well that all the evil teachings of the corrupt koran are believed by all muslims.
The Mineta problem is so blatantly politically correct that our lives could be endangered by his colossal ineptitude.
We need a theocracy where only Christianity is recognized by our nation's leaders. That'll work well.....
As for the colossal ineptitude that endangers our lives......poppycock.
This President would not deliberately endanger our lives to be PC, and if you think he would, you are as ignorant as any leftist on the planet.
Good day, Mr. Houseman. I only discuss serious issues with rational people, and you clearly do not qualify.
You want to elaborate why its stupid? I like these articles.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001367
and this one.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005982
Maybe if you stopped and think in about it, instead of relying on someone elses opinion, you'll realize racial profiling is stupid.
Yes, Reno as the AG was an absolute disaster. There is absolutely no comparison between what Reno did and what Mineta is doing. Disagree all you want, just bring a better argument to the table of debate. Might I remind you that it was the Clinton administration that allowed 9/11 to happen, or are we supposed to forget that? The Clinton administration didn't even once lift a finger to do something about it, they just let it get out of hand. I'm more critical of that, rather than being critical of an administration with a vested interest in stamping out terrorism, while at the same time protecting you, me, and everyone else here.
I just saw your caustic comment after returning from a weekend trip.
You, Ohio Fan, are wearing blinders....like the ones they put on horses.
As far as my qualifications are concerned, they are prestigious ones.
Sorry I misinterpreted your "handle." I thought the W was for Wesleyan and you were an Ohio Wesleyan fan, which could have explained your acute myopia.
My observation that there's no point in discussion serious issues with people who advocate Christians only in the White House, among other irrational things, is not 'caustic' in the least. It's the truth.
Take off your blinders, son, and you may be able to see it yourself.
(btw, my Dad went to Ohio Wesleyan and it's great school, so you'll never really know what the W stands for, now, will you? :)
discussion = discussing
I would never have voted for him except the only choice was Kerry.
Ooooh, got me there. Hey, who says I don't think for myself. I found articles that support what I think. They are paid to articulate ideas and do a better job than I can. I got a thought, instead of reciting PC credo as fact, why don't you think some and get back to me on why profiling is stupid. I'll accept articles if you want to post them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.