Ashcroft, of whom I’m no fan, is not overtly racist. Even his staunchest Democratic opponents admit that he’s a man of integrity. His views are extreme, to many, but he doesn’t have a bad record of enforcing laws with which he disagrees.
So why did he publicly humiliate Ronnie White by torpedoing White’s nomination for a federal judgeship? Ashcroft killed the nomination in a public vote of the Missouri Senate, rather than in committee where it’s always done so as to avoid the public spectacle that will sink a judge’s career. He branded White as “pro-criminal”, when that’s manifestly untrue, for writing a lone dissenting opinion in a death penalty appeal where White perceived the defendent to have had incompetent council, and therefore not received a fair trial (White heard 59 death penalty appeals, and supported the verdict 41 times; in only 6 cases did he dissent from the majority, and in only half of those dissents was he alone).
This article in Salon suggests that Ashcroft was out for vengeance after White opposed an anti-abortion bill he supported. But the bill was vetoed by Mel Carnahan, governor of Missouri at the time, and later the stiffest senator around. White seems like only a peripheral player in that issue.
So why did Ashcroft wreak such political havoc on White? I don’t understand what he gained by doing so, when he in fact created a possible threat to his later elevation to AG.
On of the better explanations I’ve heard is that Ashcroft was at the time embroiled in a nasty race with Mel Carnahan. Carnahan, upon urging from Pope John Paul II (during the latter’s visit to St. Louis), pardoned a convicted murderer. The theory is that in a play to make himself look tough on crime, especially compared to Carnahan, Ashcroft decided to make a public statement in Congress. white was the unfortunate recipient of Ashcroft’s political manuevering.
Slightly OT, but I thought it was very respectable of White to be the bigger man during Ashcroft’s hearings. White could have said (lied), “oh, yeah, I think he’s a racist,” and done considerable damage. But he didn’t. Besides, I’m sure those apologies more than made up for his missing out on the promotion :rolleyes:.
And personally I don’t think Ashcroft is very humble when it comes the possibility that his views might not be the right ones.
Let me ask the Original poster- do you think the Democrats “crucified” Robert Bork? Did they attempt to “crucify” Clarence Thomas? Are they now “crucifying” John Ashcroft?
Or are they merely trying to stop the appointment of someone they genuinely believe is an extremist, and whose views they find repulsive?
That is, if the Democrats have a right to trash Robert Bork (Democratic operatives even tapped into his local video stores records, in the vain hope they’d find he’d rented porno tapes), why didn’t John Ashcroft have the right to
do the same to Judge WHite?
Here in Missouri, most of us are betting it was payback to White for opposing him on the abortion bill.
I have not voted for Ashcroft in a single one of his races – and doubt I ever would. Still, there is such a thing as opposing someone I think is personally honorable. Ashcroft simply could have said he didn’t like White’s record on abortion and people would have understood. Dredging up this soft on crime red herring was not Sen. Ashcroft’s finest moment.
I’m more interested in the reason Ashcroft crucified White. It makes little sense to me, since I can’t figure out what Ashcroft really gained by it.
I don’t know enough about the circumstances of Robert Bork’s nomination, but I think it’s indicative that some reporters have referred to what happened to White as “Borking”. I think Thomas was unfairly attacked. I think that the Democrats are being fairly gentle to Ashcroft, largely because there’s little on which they’re able to attack him.
I don’t think anyone has a “right” to crucify anyone else, but it’s a normal enough part of the political landscape for both sides that I don’t understand why Ashcroft would do it to White without there being a clearer reward for doing so.
Ashcroft may have been playing politics with Judge White, but, if he was, he was playing a losing game. OK, it’s fair enough in politics to accuse someone of being something they’re not (ie White being “pro-criminal”, White being against the death penalty). Maybe there is a place in politics for going after the bit players as regards legislation you don’t like, as with Ashcroft’s dislike of the abortion bill White was only marginally involved in. As long as you can get away with politicking with a fairly clean nose, just about anything is fair game.
The difference in this case? Ashcroft is a conservative white politician, and White is black. When politics are being played, that combination spells danger. Wasn’t Ashcroft thinking straight when he played politics with White? Didn’t he realise that some would sense racism in his actions, even if there was none there and none intended? There’s got to be something else behind what Ashcroft did to White. I think Ashcroft is too smart to risk a charge of racism just because he perceived White as anti-abortion. Heck, Ashcroft would never have accepted any vaguely liberal judge if he was treated every other judge the way he treated White.
I read that Ashcroft opposed White not because of any one pro-abortion action, but because of many pro-abortion actions. They’re evidently at opposite ends of the spectrum on the issue. I also read that Ascroft accused White of being soft on crime because using his abortion position against a judicial candidate was disaproved of. It occurs to me that it could also be that Ashcroft simply used the charge he thought would work best.
Don’t you think there’s a difference between the two cases, astorian? The difference in this case being that the Democrats unloaded on Bork based on views he really held (at leat based on my understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong); while Ashcroft blatantly and dishonestly ascribed to White views he did not hold, i.e., being opposed to the death penalty? Even a cursory examination of White’s record shows that to not be the case, yet Ashcroft argued with a straight face that it was, and convinced other Republicans of the same thing.
Consider yourself corrected. Although opposition to Bork’s nomination arose because of his repugnant, ultra-conservative views, he only got shot down when opponents started digging up evidence of financial misconduct. The exact details of the misconduct escape me, and ISTR they were minor. But given the cover of a non-ideological excuse to vote against Bork, the Senate shot down his nomination.
I don’t remember Bork’s nomination going that way. All of the opposition to him was on ideological grounds. Perhaps you are thinking of the Abe Fortas nomination to be Chief Justice. He was opposed by Strom Thurmond, among others, on ideological grounds, but ultimately there were serious financial irregularities (large speaking fees among them) that shot down Fortas’ elevation to the center chair.
From news accounts I’ve reviewed, Bork was shot down because his views were considered too out of the mainstream.
I thought that the Dems went after Bork because he was the tool that carried out the “Saturday Night Massacre”.
Both the Attorney General and his assistant resigned rather than obey Nixon’s order to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Bork, as Solicitor General, was third in line in Justice and he accepted the task.
Was this the ass America wanted on the highest bench?