Editorial: MEXICO STANDOFF
Weld may not be best nominee, but he deserves a hearing

William Weld may not be the best nominee to fill the U.S.
ambassadorship to Mexico.

His resignation as governor of Massachusetts this week raises
questions about his commitment to voters there. His
confrontational style in dealing with his irascible fellow
Republican, Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, over his
nomination raises doubts about Weld's diplomatic skills. And his
stance in favor of limited legalizing of marijuana for medical
uses raises questions, at least with Helms and some others of
like mind, about how he might handle one of the thorniest U.S.
Mexico issues, narcotrafficking. All of the above, plus his
willingness to embroil the Republican Party and the White House
in yet another shouting match, raise questions about his personal
political ambitions and possible presidential aspirations.

Nevertheless, Weld, as President Clinton's nominee for the post,
deserves a Senate hearing, and Helms, chair of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, should cease and desist in his recalcitrant
refusal to let the Senate confirmation process go forward.

Helms, a staunch conservative, takes issue with the moderate
Weld's positions on some social issues. What that has to do with
nomination for an ambassadorship and Weld's qualifications for it
is a question that has only a partypolitics answer.

But worse, the people of Texas, like most Americans, had no say
in electing Helms to the Senate. it is unfair to deny Texas'
senators a chance to offer their advice and consent on the
nomination without good reason.

It is also unwise to allow the ambassadorship to Mexico to linger
unfilled at a time when important domestic events are taking
place south of the border and critical crossborder issues such
as drugs and immigration hang in the balance.

If Weld is not a choice acceptable to the United States Senate,
then get on with the process and get to the next choice. No good
can come of this Mexico standoff.