So, Sen. John Ashcroft’s nomination for attorney general is being vociferously challenged. Snore. The only person that couldn’t see this coming is Mel Carnahan, and that’s because he’s not seeing much of anything right now.
It’s not difficult to see why Ashcroft’s opposition is barking up his tree like Justice Department hounds on a Bill Gates fox. In a world spurting out the bunghole with faux-conservatives, middle-of-the-roaders, moderates, limp-wristers, liberals, commie symps and pinkos, Ashcroft is a rare breath of air. Considering that he’s an unreconstructed right-winger, for some it’s fresh air; for others it’s more like the putrid stench wafting off a stagnant pool of pond scum. Different strokes for different folks.
I’m just tired of it all.
The whole sordid controversy has been driven into the ground deeper than the flaming cross Revs. Jackson and Sharpton seem convinced the former Missouri governor is going to dance around come confirmation day. Give me a break.
Answering charges of racism in a case like this is beyond silly. The man’s wife teaches at Howard University for heaven’s sake. Mr. Racist from Missouri has appointed 26 of 28 black judges (only one was actually rejected) — a staggering figure if we’re to believe that Ashcroft hides a pointy-topped white hood in his right-hand desk drawer. So let’s just cut all the hooey and be honest for a moment: Ashcroft’s about as anti-black as Marcus Garvey.
In reality, all of the whoop-up about Bush’s AG nominee comes down to something much different than the fiery darts aimed his direction.
Ashcroft’s opponents pose questions like, “Will you enforce the laws of the land, such as Roe v. Wade? What about federal laws banning discrimination?”
Notice how these media sages and witchdoctors of the press never bother to go beyond issue-specific questions like those? Maybe they fret at answers to broader questions, like “Will you enforce the laws of the land, such as the U.S. Constitution?”
Bad idea, that.
Being the extra-chromosome, crazed, knuckle-dragging right-winger that he is, Ashcroft’s actually got an inkling of respect for that dog-eared document, so maligned by 21st-century sophisticates and muckspouts.
Democrats are worried that, with Ashcroft at the helm, the government will lose its favorite billyclub for coldcocking recalcitrant U.S. industries and businesses like Big Tobacco, Big Firearms and Microsoft. With good reason. Given Ashcroft’s constitutional convictions, the cash-cow power-trip of federal judges hearing cases brought by federal prosecutors designed to buckle the knees of any and all juicy targets is about to be ended, stopped butt-cold, with no apologies.
There goes one of activist government’s favorite tools of behavior manipulation, tossed down the commode like the refuse that it is. No wonder the power fetishists on Capitol Hill are growing incontinent with fear about his appointment.
He’s also dead set against federal judges working to enhance their “acting” careers, leading congressional hearings to combat judicial activism. Hear it? There goes that john again; another tool of anti-constitutionalism flushed.
Given his pro-Christian views, it might be natural for the left to view Ashcroft like some sort of Bible-thumping troglodyte whose legal and political opinions go rah-rah for plugging abortion doctors; banning hangers to stop abortions once he personally sticks a fork in Roe v. Wade; and having homosexuals consigned to mental wards (if this only applied to Rep. Barney Frank, of course, I think many of us would be willing to bargain).
But, to turn it on its head, given his pro-Christian views, the opposite is actually true.
Consider Ashcroft’s November 1998 statement to the Detroit Economic Club: “We must embrace the power of faith, but we must never confuse politics and piety. For me, may I say that it is against my religion to impose my religion.”
Catch that? “Against my religion to impose my religion.”
He’s not going to be jihading around the country looking for abortionists to jail or denying women their God-given right to skewer their womb-ridden children — er, I mean, choose. He may loathe the practice of abortion, but presently it’s legal, and, should he be confirmed, Ashcroft will be taking a vow to uphold the laws of the land.
I’m not game to all his interpretations of it, to be sure. I think his go-ape appreciation for the drug war is counterproductive and detrimental to American liberty. But I also know that having an attorney general who is, by and large, not titillated by the prospect of tightening the thumbscrews on the American public is a good thing. Nay, a great thing.
I’m up to my Ashcroft with the cross-banter about the man’s qualifications and disqualifications. Sure, he’s got problems and areas with which disagreement is sure to come, but Janet Reno had those in droves (you want to talk about not enforcing the laws of the land? Ever heard of campaign finance laws?). The difference with Reno is this: Despite any failings, Ashcroft has a basic appreciation for liberty — a quality sorely needed in the nation’s attorney general, and sadly lacking for eight long years.
