Looks like the hot political issue for while is going to be John Ashcroft. People seem to think he'll get through the nomination process in the end. A quick aside, David Horowitz makes me almost tear with laughter whenever I read his column. He reminds of the one guy in everbody's office to whom no one wants to speak. Anyway, it seems most of the questioning regarding Ashcroft will center around his blocking the nomination of Ronnie White. White seems more than ready to skewer his old foe before the country in much the same way Ashcroft did when he levied what are now seen as baseless and exaggerated claims in an effort to rally the republican majority in the Senate to block the nomination. The vote went down party lines. The Salon.com article covers the whole thing pretty well, and I've yet to see and info from either side greatly contradicting its report.

I think the most troubling aspect of the debate will range around people trying to levy charges that Ashcroft is a racist. Given his record of supporting minority nominations to various levels of government, I don't think this one will stick. Someone may know that he is, personally, a bigot, but his public life does not seem to clearly indicate that he is. Upon reading the Salon article, it seems pretty clear that Ashcroft's opposition went back a long way and centered almost solely around abortion. Apparently Ascroft has fought in the past with White and the late Missouri Governor/Senator-elected-post-mortem Mel Carnahan over abortion. Ashcroft seems to have felt that by stopping his nomination he could get back at both while at the same time setting himself up as a conservative leader in the party. Of course, hindsight tells us that he's now only propped up in his party by far right anti-abortion zealots and may be savaged by both moderate and liberal democrats alike.

The question seems to be, was his opposition to White a raical one? How could he levy charges of being soft on crime based on one dissent out of a flood of votes in favor of the death penalty? If he gets through these two questions (which I think he will) honestly, he'll be left in an awkward corner of having violated the Senate's in-house informal policy of not opposing or supporting nominations solely on the abortion issue. Moreover, knowing that he was violating this policy, what does it say about his political ethics that he would wait until he could railroad White on the Senate floor (instead of in committee where he could simply have blocked the nomination and had it die there) to settle an old grudge on a lawful act? This is quite a fire-storm, especially if handled deftly. If it is, I don't know that he will be confirmed. I think all of this has more legs that "nanny-gate." Of course, I'm biased.
- posted by levinson @ 1/08/2001 11:56:00 AM