By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
The one senator whose vote I believe the nation was watching was that of Jean Carnahan, the woman who benefited from John Ashcroft's sterling character and conciliatory manner. While it was obvious that her vote had no meaning in the final outcome of the Ashcroft battle, a point she actually admitted in her statement on the vote, what she did and how she did it might have gone a long way in convincing us that the Democrats were actually going to try to be a little less vicious in their partisanship.
It was, sadly, a real disappointment. She is simply going to be another petty politician incapable of rising above the politics of personal destruction. Worse, she is going to be another petty politician who says one thing and then does the exact opposite.
Her written statement begins:
"Encircling the Great Seal of the State of Missouri are the words 'United We Stand; Divided We Fall.' It is a motto that has guided our people well over the last 180 years."In that same spirit, President Bush, at the onset of this new century, has declared that he wants to be a 'uniter not a divider.'
"I am deeply encouraged, for I want to join with him and the Congress to reach across the chasm of our political differences to do some hard work for the American people.
Now, if she really wants to join with President Bush and the Congress to "reach across the chasm of our political differences" she could either have voted for John Ashcroft, since she knows he is an honorable man, or she could have abstained from voting. She did neither. She used the vote to create partisan resentment. She cast that vote knowing full well that she was casting a vote that would deepen the chasm and ignore bi-partisanship. She cast that vote knowing that President Bush had chosen people to serve in his cabinet from a liberal Democrat, in Norman Mineta, a member of Clinton's cabinet, as Secretary of Transportation, to Colin Powell, a left leaning Secretary of State, to several moderates to strait-laced and conservative, John Ashcroft. All the appointments were people with real qualifications for the jobs they have been asked to take, and John Ashcroft is exceptionally well-qualified to be Attorney General. Without Ashcroft, Bush would not have been able to say his Cabinet was truly representative of ALL factions - from liberal to conservative. And, there are certainly as many conservatives as there are liberals in our divided nation.
As Sen. Orrin Hatch said, he had voted for Janet Reno, knowing she was poorly qualified for the job, because he believed that President Clinton had the right to a cabinet of his choice.
Some of the comments made by Democrats voting against Ashcroft were nothing short of remarkable. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said in explaining his opposition to Ashcroft:
"Assuming he was an honest and honorable man, we had no choice but to oppose him."
Was that a slip of the tongue or is Schumer telling us that he could not possibly vote for an honest and honorable man? Does that mean that honesty and honor are such negative or such foreign characteristics to Schumer that he cannot see himself voting for people who possess them.?
Even the Washington Post felt compelled to recognize the quality of Ashcroft's character by describing his actions when Sen. Carnahan's husband and son were killed in a plane crash:
"in the midst of his hard-fought Senate race with John D. Ashcroft, a painful decorum has governed relations between Ashcroft and Carnahan's widow, Jean.Ashcroft attended his Democratic rival's funeral, suspended his campaign for a week and - after Missouri voters declared their preference for the deceased governor - won widespread praise for declining to contest Carnahan's narrow margin of victory.
Jean Carnahan, who was appointed to fill the Senate seat that Ashcroft had occupied since 1994, responded in kind. She introduced her fellow Missourian to Senate Judiciary Committee members considering Ashcroft's appointment as attorney general, praised his record of public service and declared her opposition to a threatened Democratic filibuster aimed at blocking his confirmation by the full Senate.
Yesterday, however, the gracious widow became a politician. She joined 41 other Democratic senators in voting to reject Ashcroft's nomination.
In Missouri, the Post noted, a number of pundits and political analysts urged her to vote yest, suggesting that a reciprocal show of magnanimity - especially one that placed a Missourian in the attorney general's office - would serve Carnahan well when she faces voters in a special election in 2002."
That thought crossed my mind when I saw her vote against Ashcroft yesterday. It was a very close vote in Missouri that put her in office. There was no doubt many people voted for her because they felt sorry for her losing her husband and son in such a tragedy. Many of them may very well see her in a very different light as a result of her pettiness in the Ashcroft vote. He's a popular man in Missouri and the vote not only was close, it was close with known voter fraud being committed in St. Louis in Democrat precincts. In spite of that, and the fact the constitutionally she has no right to BE a senator could turn voters off.
The Constitution requires that "No person shall be a Senator who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Mel Carnahan was not an inhabitant of the State of Missouri or any other State. He was dead. Had Ashcroft challenged the close vote, he almost surely would have won the case. He didn't because he is an honorable man, and a kind man, who did not want to cause Jean Carnahan more troubles.
She ought to be ashamed of herself for her vote against John Ashcroft - especially since it had no particular impact other than to show the nation how petty she is
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com.
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
