Stop John Ashcroft

Bush’s pick for attorney general is just plain wrong

If anything can be said about John Ashcroft that everyone can agree on, it’s this: he’s a man with deeply held moral convictions who’s not afraid to stand up for what he believes in. His strong beliefs have earned him praise from his former Senate colleagues as a man of integrity.

But this raises a question: what would the former Missouri senator do if his duties as attorney general conflicted with his firmly held beliefs about abortion, race, and homosexuality? Ashcroft believes abortion is wrong — with the only exception being if the mother’s life is in danger. He opposes affirmative action, holds an honorary degree from the racist Bob Jones University, and in a 1998 interview described Confederate soldiers as “patriots.” He believes that homosexuality is a sin.

He also believes that morality should be legislated. He recently said as much to Beliefnet, a multi-faith e-community, in an article titled “The Anointed”: “I think all we should legislate is morality,” he said. “We shouldn’t legislate immorality.”

So how could Ashcroft be relied on to execute the laws of the United States? The answer is that he couldn’t. Ashcroft simply doesn’t have the temperament to be the nation’s top law enforcer. And the Senate should vote down his confirmation.

The attorney general is one of a handful of high-profile presidential appointments. The office is responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States and ensuring that US Supreme Court rulings are carried out. Ashcroft, who has a long history of pursuing his conservative agenda in the courts, would make a poor choice. Three times during his tenure as Missouri attorney general and Missouri governor, as the Wall Street Journal has reported, Ashcroft tried to persuade the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal desegregation plan for St. Louis public schools.

The last time the Senate refused to confirm a president’s nominee for a cabinet post was in 1989, when the body rejected Senator John Tower as George H.W. Bush’s pick for secretary of defense. The highly charged 53-47 vote marked the only time the Senate has failed to confirm one of its own for a presidential appointment. But in the intervening years, partisan opposition to presidential picks has accelerated, homing in on a number of nominees: James Hormel (nominated as ambassador to Luxembourg), Susan Oki Mollway (the first Asian-American to be nominated to the federal bench in Hawaii), M. Margaret McKeown (nominated for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals), and Bill Lann Lee (nominated for a top civil-rights post).

Ashcroft — who as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee regularly asked nominees whether they were faithful to their spouses — led the charge against these people, whom he opposed on purely ideological grounds. He held up Hormel’s appointment, for instance, merely because Hormel is openly gay. President Bill Clinton finally appointed Hormel ambassador during a Senate recess, when confirmation wasn’t necessary. Ashcroft delayed McKeown’s nomination for two years and actively campaigned against Mollway’s appointment.

Soon, the Senate must decide on Ashcroft. Republican Senate leaders have stated confidently that all 50 GOP members will vote to confirm him. But there’s been much talk in recent weeks about the special role to be played by New England’s own senators, especially a moderate coalition of GOP legislators who have earned the moniker “the Mod Squad.” This group includes Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Jim Jeffords of Vermont. So far, all four have indicated that they will support Ashcroft. Chafee and Jeffords have made their support conditional on any new information that might come out in the confirmation hearings. Collins says she wants to show deference to the president’s freedom to choose his cabinet.

All four of these senators would be wise to rethink their positions. George W. Bush entered office having lost the popular vote by 500,000 ballots. Such a situation calls for reasonable picks, and he’s made some: Colin Powell for secretary of state, Paul O’Neill for treasury secretary, and Rod Paige for secretary of education. Bush’s decision to make a divisive appointment such as Ashcroft’s may be smart politics with respect to the far right — but it would be folly for moderate GOP senators from states in which Bush lost to support such an ugly partisan pick. Chafee — who is a Republican more for reasons of tradition than of ideology — is particularly vulnerable on this issue. Democratic activists in Rhode Island have been urging him to switch parties. And a Chafee vote for Ashcroft would negate the notion that liberals can feel secure voting for moderate Republicans. So long as the Republicans have hatchet men who enforce party discipline, having quirky Republicans with pretty position papers doesn’t mean much.

On the Democratic side, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts has stated that he is “deeply concerned” about Ashcroft, and John Kerry has also expressed reservations. Rhode Island’s Jack Reed says he’s waiting to see what happens during the hearings. “The burden of proof is on Senator Ashcroft,” Reed says, “and it’s a very high burden given that he enters this process not as a legal professional, but as someone who has been a passionate advocate for ideology.”

We couldn’t agree more.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters@phx.com.