The Ashcroft Vote
Forty-two is no magic number.

By NR’s John J. Miller and Ramesh Ponnuru
February 2, 2001 2:15 p.m.

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; 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.