Ashcroft, Southern Partisan and Those Who Opposed Him
Some journalists ( Joe Conasen ) and bloggers ( Skippy ) are suggesting we turn our attention to Attorney General John Ashcroft after Trent Lott. The ACLU , the NACDL (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) and many other groups fought hard to defeat Ashcroft's confirmation. His 1998 interview with Southern Partisan Magazine was but one issue.
Here is the NACDL Press Release describing John Ashcroft's record prior to becoming Attorney General. These are the reasons the Board of Directors of NACDL opposed Ashcroft's confirmation:
We did some research and came across some of the statements issued by Senators who opposed Ascroft's confirmation at the time of his hearings. We especially liked the press release issued on January 31, 2001 by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan as to why he would vote against Ashcroft's confirmation as Attorney General.
Sen. Levin presents the issue of Ashcroft's interview with Southern Partisan not just in terms of Ashcroft's words, but in terms of what those words mean, when considered in context of his other actions and inactions. The entire statement is part of the Congressional Record. It is also available on Lexis.
Levin gives four examples of Ascroft's divisive and impartial views, the first being "his position and his effort with respect to the nomination of Judge Ronnie White as a Federal District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri." The third reason was his statements on drug offenders. In an effort to make this post shorter than War and Peace, we are only going to reprint Levin's second and fourth examples, and his concluding remarks:"While Senator Ashcroft's rhetoric over the years reflects his zeal and determination, it has not reflected the same concern for fairness and impartiality. I have concluded that his record and rhetoric are so divisive and polarizing, that his nomination will not provide the necessary confidence all Americans are entitled to have in the fairness and impartiality required of the Department of Justice."Clearly, it's too late to dethrone Ashcroft as Attorney General. Unlike Lott, he was not elected by the people but appointed by the President, to serve at the pleasure of the President. So what is our purpose in re-airing all of his dirty laundry now? These are our motives: to prevent him from being able to make a run for higher office in 2008; to reduce his chances of receiving a future cabinet post; to make him less desirable to corporate America as a future rainmaker; and most importantly, to implore journalists and the public to examine his statements and actions carefully and to protest loud and often when he steps over the line."Second is Senator Ashcroft's interview with Southern Partisan magazine, a publication which has been described as a "neo-confederate." Senator Ashcroft not only granted an interview to Southern Partisan magazine, he commended the magazine for helping to "set the record straight." He said "We've all got to stand up and speak- in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."
"While in that interview Senator Ashcroft expressed support for Southern Partisan's message, he later said that he didn't know much about Southern Partisan and didn't know what it promoted. Fair enough. But since his interview, much has been said about the magazine in the media and at Senator Ashcroft's own confirmation hearing. Southern Partisan is described as a publication that defends slavery, white separatism, apartheid and David Duke" by a media watch group. in 1995, Southern Partisan offered its subscribers t-shirts celebrating the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In the same year, an author, printed by the publication, alleged "there is no indication that slavery Contrary to Christian ethics" and in 1990, another article praised former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke as a "candidate concerned about affirmative' discrimination, welfare profligacy, the, taxation holocaust. a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal," In 1996, an article in the magazine alleged "slave owners ... did not have a practice of breaking up slave families. If anything, they encouraged strong slave families to farther the slaves' peace and happiness." And in 1991, another writer printed in the publication questioned, "Newly arrived in New York City, I puzzled, Where are the Americans?' I met only Italians, Jews, Puerto Ricans."
"l take Senator Ashcroft as his word that he did not know much about Southern Partisan magazine when he praised them for helping to "set the record straight." But where was the immediate disgust, horror and repudiation when he learned what he had inadvertently praised? And, after the inquiries of others, why didn't he make a prompt inquiry to satisfy himself that he had not inadvertently advanced the purpose of a racist publication? Even in his written responses to the Judiciary Committee, he said he only rejects the publication "if the allegations about (the] magazine are true."
"More than two years after his original interview, it appears that he never took it upon himself to inquire about the magazine's purpose. A person being considered for the office of Attorney General, the single most important person charged with enforcing our nation's civil rights law in a fair and just manner, should accept the obligation to make an inquiry if the American people are to have faith that their Attorney General will "build a single nation of justice...."
"A fourth example is Senator Ashcroft's opposition to James Hormel's nomination for Ambassador to Luxembourg. Senator Ashcroft stated in press accounts that he opposed Mr. Hormel's nomination because Mr. Hormel "actively supported the gay lifestyle." Senator Ashcroft also said a person's sexual orientation "is within what could be considered and what is eligible for consideration" with respect to the qualifications to serve as an Ambassador. To suggest that a person could not represent America's interests or should be judged professionally because of his sexual orientation is inappropriate and divisive. When pressed on this issue by the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft further responded in writing: "I did not believe Hormel would effectively represent the United States in Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe."
"To suggest that Luxembourg would not welcome Mr. Hormel's nomination is untrue. Luxembourg has outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation and its government specifically said they would welcome James Hormel as Ambassador. And, most importantly, to fail to retract such contentious statements about a person, because of his sexual orientation, adds- further doubt that all our people, will have confidence that this nominee will strive to build that single nation of justice the President has called for. "
"In summary, I am deeply troubled by Senator Ashcroft's record of repeatedly divisive rhetoric and sometimes simply unfair personal attacks...Senator Ashcroft has frequently engaged in "us" versus "them" rhetoric. He frequently rejects moderation and has even criticized some members of his own party for engaging in what he characterizes as "deceptions" when they "preach pragmatism, champion conciliation (and) counsel compromise."
"Senator Ashcroft, in his confirmation hearings, in his written answers to the questions posed by a number of Senators, including myself, either reaffirmed some of his divisive statements, or simply never explained his extremely divisive language. His refusal to comment on some of the most troubling past statements leaves them standing as his current views. Senator Ashcroft's extremely divisive language and his approach to issues in terms of "us" versus "them" would not prevent me from voting for his confirmation for most positions in the cabinet. But more than any other cabinet member, the Attorney General, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, is charged with the responsibility of assuring that the Department of Justice's goal is equal justice under the law for all Americans. I will vote no on the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General of the United States."
| < Arizona Judge Blocks Law Keeping Inmates Off the Internet | What Segregation Really Meant > |