John Ashcroft is now our attorney general.
For six weeks, Republicans have been carrying Ashcroft around on a pedestal.
"He's a man of integrity," shouted Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
"John Ashcroft will restore dignity to the Justice Department," spoke Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
"I have appointed a man with a good heart. A man with principles. A man with good-hearted principles to the role of General of the Attorneys," said the oft-confused president.
America has heard the GOP pay lip-service to Ashcroft's high integrity and honor, and they have heard the GOP insist that the "liberal-smear campaign" against him was either a conspiracy or sour grapes, or both.
I am tired of hearing about the stellar integrity of a man who killed the nomination of a black judge for political reasons, suggested that a man was ill-qualified to serve as ambassador because of his sexual orientation and gave a lecture praising the merits of the "Confederate Patriots" (oxymoron, anyone?), at Bob "separate sidewalks for the girls and boys" Jones University.
Let's face it, to the Republicans, integrity is nothing more than a euphemism for unabashed bigotry.
At first, the GOP used the term integrity to defend Ashcroft's ultra-right-wing agenda. The word was used to justify his positions that were at odds with an overwhelming majority of Americans, not to mention the law of land.
Yet, when Ashcroft took the stand before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he recanted every belief he has professed during his three decade political career. What kind of man of principles changes his tune when he is being questioned?
Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., who voted against confirming Ashcroft, expressed disbelief with Mr. Integrity's change of heart. No kidding. Either Ashcroft has less integrity than a petty opportunist, or he is as certain in his believes as a Messianic Jew.
And even if you buy the Ashcroft-change-of-heart line, there still is the issue of whether he lied under oath before the Judiciary Committee and whether he illegally accepted a gift from his own political action committee.
Apparently, while he was governor of Missouri, Ashcroft asked a potential political appointee if he had "the same sexual orientation as most men." Before the committee, a couple weeks ago, Ashcroft insisted that sexual orientation has never been an issue in any hiring or appointing he has done. Is it a bald-faced lie or a faulty memory? Either way, Mr. Integrity's answer would have caused the GOP to raise holy hell had the nominee been a Democrat.
Could Janet Reno could have walked away from a contradiction like that? No way. At least, she would not get away without hearings, allegations of impropriety and Rush Limbaugh blowing his stack.
And then there is the little matter of Spirit of America PAC. If the Spirit of America is breaking campaign finance laws, then the name of this PAC could not be more apropos.
According to federal laws passed in 1974 and affirmed in the landmark case Buckley v. Valeo, a political action committee is permitted to donate $5,000 to a campaign for the primary season and $5,000 to a campaign for the general election. Any other donations, of any kind, that benefit a campaign financially are illegal. And, unlike perjury in a civil trial, people are prosecuted for this.
Spirit of America PAC, founded by Ashcroft, donated $10,000 to Ashcroft's 2000 Senate campaign. And then it donated its list of donors to the Ashcroft campaign. From this list, Ashcroft raised further sums of money. This is a clear violation of the spirit and the letter of campaign finance laws.
How can we trust Ashcroft to uphold the law of the land, especially on issues with which he does not agree, when his own campaign was breaking the rules?
The 58-42 vote that confirmed Ashcroft is the largest opposition to a nominee for attorney general, including Edwin Meese in 1985, who was opposed by 31 senators. By voicing such strong opposition to the Ashcroft nomination, the Democrats think they have sent a message to the Bush administration-warning the president not to nominate anymore radical conservatives, unless he wishes to face a filibuster.
Their gesture was a mistake. The Democrats should have sent a message to the president by filibustering the Ashcroft nomination to its bitter end. George W. Bush rode into office on a wave of question marks. Since the Supreme Court handed Bush the presidency on a silver platter, Bush has had the audacity to act like he has a mandate from the American people to steamroll his extremist agenda over the desires of millions of Americans. He has been dividing, not uniting.
The Democrats should have stood up to Bush on the Ashcroft nomination. They sacrificed some of their principles for political expediency. Let us hope that Attorney General Ashcroft makes them regret it. Hopefully someone will learn a lesson from this. Hopefully, that someone will be those 50 Senate Democrats who let someone as illegitimate as Ashcroft ascend to a position that jeopardizes the liberties of a majority of Americans.
Martin Barna is a Trinity junior and editorial page editor of The Chronicle.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.