|
 he
prevailing spin on the Senate's 58-42 confirmation of John Ashcroft's
nomination as attorney general is that it's really a win for the
Democrats: The sizable no vote puts
President
Bush on notice that he can't make other conservative appointments,
especially to civil-rights posts or to the Supreme Court. It only
takes 40 votes to sustain a filibuster. Ashcroft will have to tread
carefully at the Justice Department.
Forty-two may have been a number of cosmic significance in The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but it isn't one here. Sure,
the votes are a victory for the Left within the Democratic party.
But Bush was going to have a fight on his hands if he had resubmitted
Robert Bork for the Court whether or not Ashcroft sailed through.
And it will be hard to wage the same sort of campaign against sub-Cabinet
appointments as was waged against Ashcroft: The nominees won't have
the extensive public record (no Southern Partisan interviews, Ronnie
Whites, or Paul Offners) or get the publicity that Ashcroft has.
Then there's the question whether the Democrats would be willing
to mount a filibuster against other nominees, as they were not against
Ashcroft. Doing so might not go over well.
So the we-won-anyway spin from the Democrats is wrong. It's also
reveals their cynicism. It could only be true if everything they
were saying about the nomination were untrue. If Ashcroft really
were a Confederate sympathizer; an extremist who could not be trusted
to enforce the law;
| “Forty-two
may have been a number of cosmic significance in The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but it isn't one
here.” |
|
opposed to civil rights for blacks; a friend of abortion-clinic
bombers — well, then, his becoming attorney general would have
to be counted as a bit of a setback for liberals. When they say
they won by forcing Ashcroft to exercise restraint, they are confessing
that they whipped up a campaign of dishonest hysteria in order to
score a few points in the Beltway.
The Democrats did score a real victory during the hearings: Ashcroft
gave ground on a variety of issues for no discernible purpose (see
here),
and potential nominees who were conservative have been scared off.
But that victory need not be final. By sticking with Ashcroft, Bush
and the Senate Republicans showed that when they refuse to be intimidated
by the Left they can win. Whether Ashcroft's confirmation ends up
being a defeat for Republicans, in other words, depends on what
Ashcroft and the administration do now.
Some Lowlights from the Debate
One of Charles Schumer's reasons for opposing Ashcroft was the latter's
alleged extremism on abortion, which he said was not merely a matter
of being pro-life. Trying to conjure up an example of equivalent
extremism on the other side of the abortion debate, Schumer suggested
that "if someone was nominated for attorney general who was vehemently
pro-choice, who simply did not just espouse a pro-choice position,
but in his or her career spent decades of trying to find ways of
expanding the law so that, say, abortion on demand, for 9 months,
would be perfectly legal," that nominee too would be furiously opposed.
It's good to know that Schumer would have voted against Ruth Bader
Ginsburg's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Ted Kennedy was more forthright, saying that the 42 votes had established
that any nominee to the Court had to favor civil rights, including
abortion. Which is to say, no nominee could be agnostic on the question,
let alone share the pro-life views Kennedy had three decades ago.
Nor, presumably, could he have opposed the school desegregation
orders in Missouri, the way Dick Gephardt and Mel Carnahan did.
Which brings us to Carnahan's widow, Jean. Ashcroft was widely praised
for not contesting her legally dubious election, which unseated
him. She said, however, that she could not in conscience vote for
him (or, apparently, abstain). "I am compelled by principles and
beliefs I shared with my husband for over 40 years in public life.
. ." What was the point of that reference? To show that she intends
to keep dragging her husband's corpse behind her?
Strange New Disrespect
When he supported for Bill Clinton's tax increase in 1993, he was
a statesman. Now that he's backing Bush's tax cut, Alan Greenspan
should just shut up. See here.
|
