LIBERAL KNIVES ARE ATTACKING JOHN ASHCROFT

The vilification of Attorney General-designate John D. Ashcroft,
spearheaded by liberal interest groups and a handful of Democratic senators
can serve as a case study of what's wrong with how Washington operates.

We're not big fans of the "can't we all just get along" school of thought,
in which both sides are urged to sit around a campfire, sing "Kumbaya," and
work together to solve the nation's problems. Washington is the big
leagues, after all, so we don't expect a nominee as opinionated as Ashcroft
to slide through the Senate without sufficient grilling.

But there is a difference between trying to destroy an honorable man's
reputation, and raising legitimate concerns about the policies and
principles to which he adheres.

We believe Ashcroft deserves to be confirmed as attorney general, but we
would like to hear him answer some tough questions about America's drug war.

As attorney general, Ashcroft would be responsible for enforcing federal
drug laws. Instead of calling for a more reasoned approach toward the drug
war, Ashcroft promised new vigor in its waging.

We'd like to know why, despite all the evidence to the contrary, he
believes that a stepped-up war will be just or productive. We'd like to
know his views on the unfairness of current drug law convictions, which
fill the prisons with non-violent offenders.

We'd like to know whether he would recommend the zealous application of
seizure laws, which deprive Americans of their property without due process.

Instead, the campaign against former Sen. Ashcroft has all the markings of
a "Borking," the term referring to the way liberal senators derailed the
Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork in 1987.

During that confirmation process, Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy of
Massachusetts said that in Bork's America, "women would be forced into
back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue
police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, school-children
could not be taught about evolution."

Those were scurrilous charges that had no backing in any facts, but were
pushed forward to keep a strict constructionist off of the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's not surprising that Kennedy has been one of the liberal voices trying
to depict Ashcroft in similar terms. U.S. Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond,
R-Mo., accused Kennedy of "slash and attack" politics in the Ashcroft
nomination battle.

Kennedy and others make two key arguments: Ashcroft is a racist in part
because he opposed elevating a black judge to the federal bench. Ashcroft
cannot be trusted to be the nation's top attorney because he is
conservative and religious, and would therefore not enforce civil rights
and abortion laws.

The idea of Ashcroft as a racist is spurious. Ashcroft had promoted many
black judges, but was disturbed by Judge Ronnie L. White's decision in a
death-penalty case. Some argue that Ashcroft was unfairly using Judge White
as a way to bolster his tough-on-crime image. That may be true, but because
the judge is black doesn't mean that Ashcroft is racist.

The second argument is more serious, but equally tenuous. Certainly,
Ashcroft doesn't agree with many of the nation's laws.

At his confirmation hearing Tuesday, however, he made it clear that he
would uphold all of the nation's laws, not just the ones he personally
approved of.

As Missouri attorney general, for instance, he argued that religious
materials could not be distributed on school property.

He defied the will of pro-life activists in two opinions, and at one point
argued that state law allowed a 15 percent minority set-aside program. He
disagreed with the laws, he said, but believed it was his duty to uphold them.

Sen. Robert C. Smith, R-N.H., pointed out that Attorney General Janet Reno
was a vocal opponent of the death penalty, yet was not attacked about her
ability to uphold the nation's death-penalty laws.

Sen. Bond said correctly, we believe that there are "elements of religious
bigotry" in the assertions that Ashcroft can't be trusted with upholding
the laws because of his conservative religious beliefs.

But why the trepidation at bringing up the important drug-war issue?

It's a perfectly reasonable question, in no way imputes Ashcroft's motives
and directly applies to the job at hand unlike, say, the charge that he is
a "neo-Confederate" because he once was interviewed by Southern Partisan
magazine.

Unfortunately, in the weird world of Washington, it's more sensible to Bork
an honorable man than to raise tough, legitimate questions about how he
will handle his new office.