Ashcroft Not Likely to Bend on Key Beliefs

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JANET HOOK

Jan. 14, 2001 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

WASHINGTON — Facing what could be the most contentious Cabinet confirmation battle in a dozen years, attorney general nominee John Ashcroft will go into his Senate hearing this week making no apologies for his sharp-edged conservative positions, aides to President-elect George W. Bush said.

Despite demands from liberal groups for Ashcroft to renounce some of his controversial statements on Confederate “patriots,” civil rights, abortion and other issues, the former Missouri senator has no intention of distancing himself from his record when his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee begins Tuesday, they said.

“The most important thing in that hearing is that the facts will have the chance to see the light of day. Sen. Ashcroft in his own words can let the senators hear the facts,” said Mindy Tucker, a Bush representative.

In a city where the politics of apology and conciliation are a fine art, that hard-line tack may rile Ashcroft’s opponents, but it is likely to play well with conservatives.

“My experience is that, if you start apologizing when you haven’t done anything wrong, it wins you absolutely nothing. It’s the equivalent of putting a ‘kick me again’ sign around his neck,” said Gary Bauer, the religious conservative and former GOP presidential candidate.

Ashcroft was a popular member of the Senate until he lost his seat in November. Indeed, Republican and Democratic tallies indicate that he could get as many as 80 votes, despite his controversial stands. Still he is certain to face tough questioning from his former colleagues about a range of positions and episodes, some with racial overtones.

Democrats are likely to press Ashcroft on the honorary degree he received in 1999 from Bob Jones University, which at the time banned interracial dating. They also are interested in a 1998 interview he gave to a neo-Confederate magazine; his meeting last year with a leader of a white supremacist group who wanted him to help a murder defendant; his 1989 veto as governor of a state measure that civil rights leaders said would have helped register voters in St. Louis and, most critically, his 1999 derailment of the judicial nomination of an African American appellate judge from his own state, whom Ashcroft branded “pro-criminal.”

Judge Ronnie White is scheduled to testify Thursday in what Ashcroft’s foes see as a critical opportunity to build opposition by putting a face on some of their allegations.

“I think it’s going to be an incredibly dramatic moment,” said Ralph Neas, head of People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group that is helping lead the fight against Ashcroft.

“You don’t often have a [state] Supreme Court judge testifying before a Senate committee like this, but he obviously wants to set the record straight,” Neas said. “This is an integrity issue. John Ashcroft egregiously mischaracterized Ronnie White’s record.”

Backers of Ashcroft Angered by Attacks

But many of Ashcroft’s supporters in Missouri--where he was reelected as governor in 1988 by the largest margin since the Civil War and remains popular--say that they are incensed by the portrayal of Ashcroft as racially insensitive. They cite his appointment of eight black judges while governor and his role in creating a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday in the state as signs of a strong civil rights record.

“It’s just ludicrous for people to be playing the race card,” said Jerry Hunter, an African American attorney in St. Louis who served as Gov. Ashcroft’s labor secretary. “He wanted to have an inclusive state government. He wanted to have diverse representation.”

When he received his honorary degree at Bob Jones, Ashcroft made brief remarks to students at the conservative Christian college. He said America was founded on the belief that “we have no king but Jesus” and stressed the importance of Christianity as the source of American law, culture and character. The remarks raise questions about whether or how his deeply held religious beliefs might influence his performance as attorney general.

In answering senators’ questions, Ashcroft likely will assume a deferential tone but not at the expense of his core beliefs, according to one of his former political advisors who asked not to be identified.

“The man is who he is, through and through, and he’s not someone who’s ever distanced himself from anything that he’s done in his history,” the advisor said. “He does what he does based on sound principles and democratic beliefs. It’s not a matter of votes.”

But there are risks to such an unbending approach.

“If he comes off as very harsh, very confrontational and divisive, then I think he runs into some serious trouble,” said David Winston, a Republican political strategist.

Winston recalled the vice presidential debate between Dick Cheney and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), and said that, like Cheney, Ashcroft needs to strike a balance between moderate manner and conservative.

Another model, Winston said, should be Ashcroft himself and the gracious way in which he conceded defeat in his dramatic 2000 Senate race. Ashcroft lost a very close race to Gov. Mel Carnahan, who had been killed weeks earlier in a plane crash and whose widow, Jean, was expected to be appointed to serve in her husband’s place.

“He could have taken a more divisive route, and he took the route that pulled the state together,” said Winston. “He has to take that person that people saw and liked. He needs to take that persona and present it at the hearing.”

Nominee Thomas Changed His Tune

Washington has a long history of watching controversial nominees try to explain past viewpoints and actions.

When Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas went before the Judiciary Committee in 1991, for instance, he immediately backed away from controversial statements he had made about abortion, natural law and economic rights. Those comments, he explained, were merely the musings of a “part-time political theorist.” After a divisive debate over Anita Faye Hill’s sexual harassment allegations against him, the Senate narrowly confirmed Thomas to the high court.

Judge Robert H. Bork was not so fortunate.

Nominated for the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1987, Bork opened his confirmation hearing by refusing to soften his severe assessments of past judicial rulings on privacy and other issues, and he was roundly criticized. Although he later repudiated some of his conservative writings in what critics called a “confirmation conversion,” Bork’s appointment was nonetheless rejected by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Then there was John Tower, nominated for Defense secretary in 1989 by President Bush. The former Texas senator, accused of drinking and womanizing, tried to salvage his nomination by going on television and pledging to forgo all alcohol if confirmed.

It wasn’t enough; the Democratic-controlled Senate voted him down.

No Cabinet nominee since Tower has been rejected by the Senate, and political observers said Ashcroft’s hearing is likely to be the most hotly contested in the 12 years since.

Republican leaders said that, despite what they consider shrill partisan rhetoric from his critics, they are confident they have the 51 Senate votes--including all 50 GOP votes--needed to confirm Ashcroft.

Supporters point to Ashcroft’s leadership, competence and integrity as Missouri state attorney general, governor and U.S. senator. And they said he has shown that, despite his conservative beliefs, he can carry out laws that he does not necessarily like.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said Ashcroft enforced a Missouri law requiring a waiting period for handgun purchases even though he is a staunch defender of gun owners’ rights.

“He has to boldly assure people that he’s going to enforce the law and get specific about that in areas that have been raised like civil rights and abortion,” said Vin Weber, a former GOP congressman and an informal advisor to the Bush team. “He should be proud and bold and not the slightest bit apologetic.”

Paul Light, a Brookings Institution expert on presidential transitions, said Ashcroft faces a changing standard for a Cabinet confirmation.

Historically, he said, the president has enjoyed great leeway in choosing his right-hand lawyer at the Justice Department, allowing President Kennedy to bring in his brother Robert as attorney general and Reagan to choose his longtime California friend Edwin Meese III for the post.

But Ashcroft’s views are being analyzed and criticized in ways rarely faced by a Cabinet appointee, Light said. “There’s no free ride. The question is whether he can pass the ideological test . . . without abandoning his strong personal beliefs.”

One clear asset for Ashcroft is his relationship with the senators who will judge him.

Ashcroft was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he has many friends on both sides of the Senate, where he generally was well-liked even by people who disagreed with him.

In an era when many senators have little to do with each other outside of official business, Ashcroft was a member of a barbershop quartet called the Singing Senators, whose GOP members also included conservatives Trent Lott of Mississippi and Larry E. Craig of Idaho and moderate James M. Jeffords of Vermont. And he is a prolific note writer, adding a personal touch to his relations with colleagues. After his reelection loss, he sent a handwritten note to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota saying that he had enjoyed working with him.

“There are some people on both sides of the aisle who clearly allow their partisanship to interfere with their personal relationships, and John Ashcroft is not one of those people,” said Weber.

But with a nominee who has become such a political lightning rod, no one expects the Democrats to go easy on Ashcroft just because they like him personally. Only one Democrat, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, has said publicly that she will vote against Ashcroft. But party strategists estimate that at least 20 Democrats may vote against his confirmation.

“He will have to sing for his supper,” predicted a Senate Republican leadership aide.

Times staff writer Stephanie Simon contributed to this story.