Ashcroft's beliefs give no comfort to Democrats

By Armstrong Williams

I was zigzagging through the sea of faces at the first Million Family March,
laughing and talking, when a voice collided with me. "Hey! Armstrong, my
brother, glad to see you could make it."

I turned. Wading through the crowd was Sen. John Ashcroft, who proceeded to
envelop me in a great, big bear hug. We chatted away, discussing how to
build and affirm family values.

In the years since, I have remained deeply sensitive to the senator's
efforts in this regard. That's why it pains me to see the Democrats circling
the wagons around his recent nomination as attorney general.

You see, Ashcroft -- by all accounts a man of honor and integrity -- is
staunchly opposed to abortion and affirmative action. In short, the
Democrats do not see themselves reflected back in Ashcroft. Therefore, they
intend to bloody him during the upcoming confirmation hearings.

Already battle lines have been drawn, with particular attention being paid
to the fact that Ashcroft opposed President Clinton's nomination of Judge
Ronnie White -- the first black member of the Missouri Supreme Court -- for
a federal judgeship last year.

Now it's payback time. Along the way, the Democrats hope to keep blacks
sucking on this bitter pill of racism. As the liberals learned long ago,
playing the race card pulls black voters out to the voting booths.
Presently, they're keeping the wounds open by turning Ashcroft into a white
Justice Clarence Thomas.

Recent salvos all pretty much tell the same story. Each does a quick
denouncement of Ashcroft's conservative views, then savages the senator for
blocking White's nomination, concluding by implying, at best, that
Ashcroft's staunchly conservative positions will interfere with his ability
to enforce laws. At worst, they suggest that he is a racist.


For example, a recent New York Times commentary by Bob Herbert claims that
"[Ashcroft had] no legitimate reason to oppose Justice White's confirmation
by the Senate." Herbert then implies that the decision was racially
motivated.

In fact, concern over White's criminal record was pervasive enough to
warrant opposition from his home state senators, the National Sheriffs
Association and the Missouri law enforcement community. For obvious reasons,
Herbert failed to mention any of these rousing points. Nor, for that matter,
have the high priests of blackness mentioned that as governor of Missouri,
Ashcroft appointed the first black judge to the Kansas City State Court of
Appeals.

Such omissions reflect the not-so-subtle ways that Democrats manipulate
racial fears in this country. Like popcorn to pigeons, the Democrats are
readying themselves to toss out charges of racism as a means of getting back
at Ashcroft for opposing them. In doing so, they trivialize the very issue
they claim to defend.

Even more hackneyed are the criticisms that some extreme feminist groups are
launching against Ashcroft. Clearly, his opposition to abortion has the
feminists on the defensive. Ashcroft is "a real danger to women's rights,"
snarled feminist Kate Michelman. The gist other criticism, near as I can
figure, is, by God, he don't believe in murdering fetuses.

In short, the feminists are pumping their fists at Ashcroft's nomination
because he ascribes to a different core value system and maintains different
social circles then they do. In their egotism, they quiver at the notion of
a social conservative presiding so close to the law that binds them.

None of which, incidentally, has anything to do with Ashcroft's duties as
attorney general. As Ashcroft has plainly stated in his own writings, the
law is not a philosophy and the attorney general is not a social engineer.
Just because Ashcroft is a conservative, that is no reason to believe he
will remake the law in his own image.

Get it? Ashcroft's opponents are on the warpath not because he is a threat
to our civil liberties (he is not), but because he is a different sort of
person than they are.

Amid the corruption and privilege that characterized the Clinton/Reno
Justice Department, this might not be such a bad thing.

Armstrong Williams writes for Tribune Media Services. http://tms.tribune.com

-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-----------------------


===================================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 01/10/01 Time: 14:09:07
http://www.constitution.org/  mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org
===================================================================

jon.roland