George W. Bush has just about finished up picking his cabinet. He's already showing that "compassionate" is taking a back seat to "conservatism." Anyone surprised?

Okay, fine, no one can argue with Colin Powell as Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice as National Security Advisor or Rod Paige for Secretary of Education. Also hard to fault are choices such as Christie Todd Whitman for EPA chief or Tommy Thompson for Heath and Human Services head (all those who wanted a pro-choice person at HHS were dreaming).

But then there's John Ashcroft, the nominee for attorney general. Yikes. I mean, YIKES!

I spent five long years at the University of Missouri while Ashcroft was governor. During the summer of 1989 I covered the university's board of curators, most of whom were Ashcroft appointees. I still can't imagine seven people with more contempt for public higher education.

These people acted as if the best thing for the state would be to close the university system altogether. If someone can't afford Harvard (or, at the very least, Yale), they didn't deserve to get a college education. These supposed proponents for the University of Missouri system absolutely refused to ask the legislature for more money (Missouri has a history of underfunding education at all levels; it generally ranks in the low 40s in state rankings). And this was when it cost less to attend the University of Kansas at out-of-state tuition rates than it cost to attend MU at in-state rates.

No, Ashcroft wasn't pulling the strings, but his appointees did reflect his thinking. Every single year, the state budget came up short. And you know the first place he raided for cash? Education. John Ashcroft simply does not believe that our society demands an educated public. I think he would prefer to rule over a field of dumb serfs. You ask why the guys record on education matters? Ashcroft isn't a particularly mean or petty man in person, but he has a callous disregard for those who are not at his table. That would include minorities and poor folks, among others. He'll be a great AG for CEOs and fundamentalist Christians, but for the rest of us, well, I don't hold out much hope.

And then there's the most appalling choice of all: Gail A. Norton for Interior Secretary. Her mentor? James Watt.

'Nuff sed.

I really don't care about her record on the environment (and it is quite convenient that she doesn't have one). Anyone even slightly associated with Watt should never be allowed in the doors of the EPA or the Department of Interior. His great-great-great-granddaughter should be shunned.

Some of Norton's defenders say that she isn't as bad as Watt, that she isn't so confrontational. James Watt's problem wasn't that he was confrontational. He was a deranged fool. His environmental policy can be summed up in one sentence: Jesus is coming back soon and he'll fix all our mistakes, so let's get started raping the earth NOW!

I've read a number of books on the Reagan administration (many by administration members), and not one of them had the first nice thing to say about Watt. He was a jerk, a bully, a boob, a fool and a windbag, and on top of it he had no class. Anyone who speaks even somewhat kindly of James Watt should be shot. I don't know why we didn't pass that law years ago.

I could complain about the choice for Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, but what's the use? The reason conservatives are conservative is that they live by the dictum "same as it ever was." So why not have a Defense chief in 2001 who also headed the department at the end of the Vietnam War? I mean, that's classic Republican thinking.

So much for the consensus-building. The Republicans are gonna ram a few things down our throats during the coming months and see if we choke on them.

Same as it ever was.

Jon Worley thought about writing a 2001 column as well, but he felt like being a crank instead.