Yesterday's Michael Grunwald article
in the Washington Post
does the best job so far at setting forth the 'campaign politics' explanation (as opposed to the 'racial bias' explanation) for John Ashcroft's decision to oppose the judicial nomination of Ronnie White.
But he also gives Ashcroft a pretty unequivocal, and largely unwarranted, clean bill of health on the racial bias front.
In reality, a review of White's nomination -- the first defeated on the Senate floor since Robert H. Bork's -- provides no evidence of racism by the man who would be America's top law enforcement officer, but strong evidence of bare-knuckled opportunism.
And then later in the same article:
But no one has produced evidence that racial animus had anything to do with his efforts to stop White. And in the heat of a close election, there was a much more obvious explanation.
Grunwald allows Ashcroft to be guilty merely of opportunistic character assassination and political manipulation of the judiciary rather than racial bias. Now I'll admit that Grunwald's discussion of Ashcroft's political motives provides important context. But doesn't he let Ashcroft off a little easy? Does it really have to be either/or?
Sure, Ashcroft torpedoed the White nomination in part as a campaign ploy. But doesn't it seem like one of the things that made White such a juicy political target was the fact that he was black?
Also consider Grunwald's description of the Southern Partisan interview issue:
Ashcroft is taking heat for some seemingly pro-Confederate comments he made in the magazine Southern Partisan â¦
Does that really cover the issues at hand
I really don't mean to be overly critical of Grunwald, who's an excellent writer and reporter, but how much special pleading does someone like John Ashcroft deserve?
P.S. If you're interested in Talking Points' case for opposing the Ashcroft nomination, it's in today's New York Post.