The president, Republicans keep saying, should have the right to pick a cabinet whose members reflect his views. In the case of George W. Bush, perhaps we should amend the axiom to say a president should have the right to pick a cabinet whose members reflect the views of the people who financed his election. It’s not clear Mr. Bush has any views of his own. Either way, the symmetry between the president-elect and his cabinet designees runs deeper than ideology.
Mr. Bush lost the popular election to Al Gore by a half million votes. He may well have lost the electoral vote, too, but let’s let that go for now. Two of Mr. Bush’s cabinet appointees, the controversial John Ashcroft and the low-profile Spencer Abraham, lost their Senate seats when the voters spoke on November seventh. For them, the west-wing cabinet room will be something of a political Valhalla, where the dead rise to fight again. Can a president with such a thin mandate, perhaps a negative mandate, afford to be appointing people who could not, even as incumbents, gain a plurality in their home states?
Let’s leave Mr. Abraham alone, he going to the Department of Energy, that’s punishment enough. The Ashcroft nomination hearings are underway and highly contentious. Mr. Ashcroft has made no fatal mistakes in his past, a la Linda Chavez, although some people think, with some merit, that accepting an honorary degree from the racist Bob Jones University was an act that should be fatal to his nomination. George W., who also spoke at BJU, does not agree.
Mr. Ashcroft has drawn criticism for his views on abortion, on school desegregation, on the defunct confederacy and the old south, on civil rights in general. Much is being made this week about John Ashcroft’s role in defeating the nomination of Judge Ronnie White for the federal judiciary. Mr. Ashcroft’s opponents say his attacks on Judge White were exceptional in their virulence. Most striking was Mr. Ashcroft’s assertion that Judge White is “pro-criminal.” Mr. Ashcroft didn’t say Judge White is “pro-defendant” or “pro-rights of the accused,” but “pro-criminal.” A criminal, by definition, is someone who has broken the law. Mr. Ashcroft’s statement says he believes Judge White is in sympathy with lawbreakers against those of us who obey the law. It’s an astounding statement, and in light of Judge White’s record on the bench, it’s a statement without merit. Why would John Ashcroft make such an outrageous allegation on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
Some people say it’s because Ronnie White is black, and that if you connect the dots of the attack on Judge White to the fight against Missouri school desegregation to Bob Jones University to admiration for the Confederate States of America, it draws a picture of a racist. John Ashcroft’s defenders leap to remind us that as a Missouri governor and U.S. senator, Mr. Ashcroft appointed or approved the appointment of several African-American judges.
Maybe it all came down to timing. Senator Ashcroft condemned Judge White’s nomination in 1999, when he knew he would be facing a stiff election challenge from then-Governor Mel Carnahan. Governor Carnahan, who commuted a death sentence at the request of Pope John Paul. What better way to look tough on crime – and perhaps send a coded message to the bigoted faction of Missouri’s voters – than to shoot down Ronnie White’s nomination with the phrase “pro-criminal”?
It was for naught – John Ashcroft lost the election to the late Governor Carnahan, but now he’s nominated to a position where he can influence the appointment of federal judges.
Is John Ashcroft a racist, is he a man of deep religious conviction – or is he just a political hack who is willing to savage another man’s reputation if he thinks it will advance his career?
Pro-Criminal
The president, Republicans keep saying, should have the right to pick a cabinet whose members reflect his views. In the case of George W. Bush, perhaps we should amend the axiom to say a president should have the right to pick a cabinet whose members reflect the views of the people who financed his election. It’s not clear Mr. Bush has any views of his own. Either way, the symmetry between the president-elect and his cabinet designees runs deeper than ideology.
Mr. Bush lost the popular election to Al Gore by a half million votes. He may well have lost the electoral vote, too, but let’s let that go for now. Two of Mr. Bush’s cabinet appointees, the controversial John Ashcroft and the low-profile Spencer Abraham, lost their Senate seats when the voters spoke on November seventh. For them, the west-wing cabinet room will be something of a political Valhalla, where the dead rise to fight again. Can a president with such a thin mandate, perhaps a negative mandate, afford to be appointing people who could not, even as incumbents, gain a plurality in their home states?
Let’s leave Mr. Abraham alone, he going to the Department of Energy, that’s punishment enough. The Ashcroft nomination hearings are underway and highly contentious. Mr. Ashcroft has made no fatal mistakes in his past, a la Linda Chavez, although some people think, with some merit, that accepting an honorary degree from the racist Bob Jones University was an act that should be fatal to his nomination. George W., who also spoke at BJU, does not agree.
Mr. Ashcroft has drawn criticism for his views on abortion, on school desegregation, on the defunct confederacy and the old south, on civil rights in general. Much is being made this week about John Ashcroft’s role in defeating the nomination of Judge Ronnie White for the federal judiciary. Mr. Ashcroft’s opponents say his attacks on Judge White were exceptional in their virulence. Most striking was Mr. Ashcroft’s assertion that Judge White is “pro-criminal.” Mr. Ashcroft didn’t say Judge White is “pro-defendant” or “pro-rights of the accused,” but “pro-criminal.” A criminal, by definition, is someone who has broken the law. Mr. Ashcroft’s statement says he believes Judge White is in sympathy with lawbreakers against those of us who obey the law. It’s an astounding statement, and in light of Judge White’s record on the bench, it’s a statement without merit. Why would John Ashcroft make such an outrageous allegation on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
Some people say it’s because Ronnie White is black, and that if you connect the dots of the attack on Judge White to the fight against Missouri school desegregation to Bob Jones University to admiration for the Confederate States of America, it draws a picture of a racist. John Ashcroft’s defenders leap to remind us that as a Missouri governor and U.S. senator, Mr. Ashcroft appointed or approved the appointment of several African-American judges.
Maybe it all came down to timing. Senator Ashcroft condemned Judge White’s nomination in 1999, when he knew he would be facing a stiff election challenge from then-Governor Mel Carnahan. Governor Carnahan, who commuted a death sentence at the request of Pope John Paul. What better way to look tough on crime – and perhaps send a coded message to the bigoted faction of Missouri’s voters – than to shoot down Ronnie White’s nomination with the phrase “pro-criminal”?
It was for naught – John Ashcroft lost the election to the late Governor Carnahan, but now he’s nominated to a position where he can influence the appointment of federal judges.
Is John Ashcroft a racist, is he a man of deep religious conviction – or is he just a political hack who is willing to savage another man’s reputation if he thinks it will advance his career?