 |
 Sudden Exposure: Facts Left Out of the Mainstream News Dianne Feinstein, James Hormel & Charles Kaiser Concur |
|
Compiled By GayToday
Scott Miller, who distributes a daily GLBT newsfeed on the Internet, and who had made public his own distress over what he perceived as silence on the part of the movement, was much buoyed yesterday by Kaiser's Washington Post article, referring to it as a "bullseye" and commenting that "Kaiser, author of The Gay Metropolis, not only gets to state the truth about the news media dissing of gay concerns, but he gets to do it in the Washington Post." "Kaiser's point," agrees Miller "is absolutely right. Gay issues have been totally ignored (during the Ashcroft hearings) in the media." Miller believes that one of the main reasons that the media can get away with it is "because our leadership has been silent. We have allowed it to happen." "At the risk of jinxing it," he states, "I would like to make a prediction. I believe the smoking gun in the Ashcroft nomination is his lying under oath about his reasons for opposing the Hormel ambassadorship. I also believe that, sensing this discrepancy, groups representing the interests of women and African-Americans, who would also like to see Ashcroft get pushed aside, will seize on this, because effective heat will not be forthcoming from glbt advocacy groups. For the first time, I think there is a very real chance that he will not be confirmed as Attorney General." Charles Kaiser's Washington Post Op-ed said:
Readers of certain mainstream news outlets would have known nothing about Ashcroft's testimony on gay issues, explained Kaiser, if they'd been relying for such news through those same outlets. David Williams, editor of Kentucky's GLBT newspaper, The Letter, addressed the same concerns in an advance editorial (see GayToday.'s current 'Pen Points') Significantly, it was reported Wednesday that former Ambassador Hormel would be joining officials from African-American organizations, the AFL/CIO, women's groups and others who will be voicing strong opposition to Ashcroft at a press conference to be held today. Wednesday, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat-California) delivered the most comprehensive and eloquent indictment on record of John Ashcroft's shady dodging of pointed questions. Televised, her statement was carried in the late afternoon on C-Span2. Senator Feinstein addressed the Senate Judiciary Committee: Statement by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein opposing the Nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General Of the United States. January 24, 2001 "I truly believe that a President is entitled to his, or her, cabinet. I am aware that virtually all of President Clinton's cabinet was approved by voice vote, with one exception, which was a roll call vote, and that nominee was overwhelmingly approved.
"Senator Ashcroft's commitment to enforce the law in view of the extremeness of his record, as well as, on occasion, the harshness of his rhetoric, makes it difficult to believe that he can, in fact, fairly and aggressively enforce laws he deeply believes are wrong. "When Senator John Ashcroft opposed Bill Lann Lee's nomination to head the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, he argued that Lee was "an advocate who is willing to pursue an objective and to carry it with the kind of intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not with the kind of balance that belongs to administration ... his pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that will be necessary for the person who runs [the Civil Rights] Division." "If the Senator's own standard is applied to this nomination, he would not be confirmed. "Last week, this Committee held four days of hearings into the nomination of Senator Ashcroft. During that time, we witnessed a man who had undergone a major transformation on many key issues of importance to the people of my State and the nation. The question that each Senator must now ask, is whether that transformation is plausible after more than 25 years of advocating the other side. "On a woman's right to choose, for example, the new John Ashcroft would have us believe that he fully accepts Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, and he will do nothing to try to overturn it. He would fully fund task forces to protect women as they enter abortion clinics, and stated firmly that "no woman should fear being threatened or coerced in seeking constitutionally protected health services."
"On gun control, the new John Ashcroft says he supports background checks at gun shows, says that he voted to deny the right to bear arms to domestic violence offenders, and says he would support re-authorizing the assault weapons ban when it expires in 2004, although he has called it "wrong-headed." "The old John Ashcroft, on the other hand, voted against mandatory background checks at gun shows, trigger locks on guns sold, and a ban on large capacity ammunition magazines. He supported a concealed weapons law that would allow the people of Missouri to carry a concealed firearm into a grocery store, a church, or on school grounds or on a school bus, superceding the Federal Gun Free Schools Act. He was, and still may be, an active member of the National Rifle Association. "On civil rights, the old John Ashcroft strenuously fought a desegregation plan in Missouri. In fact, the judge in the case stated that Attorney General Ashcroft, "as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the authority of this court." "The old John Ashcroft spoke at Bob Jones University, that to this day remains highly questionable for its religious and racial bias; at the hearing he demurred when Senator Biden urged him to return the honorary degree and did not rule out returning to the college in the future. "And the old John Ashcroft, in stating his reasons for voting against James Hormel as Ambassador for Luxemburg, stated that Hormel had "actively supported the gay lifestyle," and that a person's sexual conduct is "within what could be considered and what is eligible for consideration" for ambassadorial nominees. "Yet the new John Ashcroft promises never to discriminate against gays or lesbians for employment and said the reason for voting against Ambassador Hormel was because he knew him personally. Mr. Hormel called to tell me that he not only does not know Mr. Ashcroft, but that the Senator had refused to meet with him prior to his confirmation. "For over a quarter-century of public life, John Ashcroft has established a record of right-wing conservatism, and of views far to the right of the average American, and even of many in his own party. Senator Ashcroft has spent a career fighting against a woman's right to choose. He obstructed the nominations of several women and minority candidates to the federal bench. "Senator Ashcroft said just two short years ago that 'There are voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to reject those deceptions. If ever there was a time to unfurl the banner of unabashed conservatism, it is now.' "In 1997, Senator Ashcroft remarked that 'People's lives and fortunes [have] been relinquished to renegade judges - a robed, contemptuous intellectual elite.' He continued that 'Judicial despotism. . .stands like a behemoth over this great land.' "In a speech entitled 'Courting Disaster: Judicial Despotism in the Age of Russell Clark,' Senator Ashcroft reveals deep and antagonistic feelings toward the courts of our country with this sentence: " 'Can it be said that the 'people govern? Can it still be said that citizens control that which matters most? Or have people's lives and fortunes been relinquished to renegade judges - a robed contemptuous, intellectual elite that has turned the courts into 'nurseries of vice and the bane of liberty?' " "And in the case of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White's nomination to the federal bench, Senator Ashcroft was responsible for a dark day in the Senate. When a home-state Senator objects to a nominee, it is very unlikely that the nomination will go forward. But instead of quietly objecting early on and allowing White to withdraw his nomination with dignity if he so wished, John Ashcroft waited until the nominee reached the floor of the Senate - after waiting for two full years - to derail the nomination and humiliate the nominee by stating, "We do not need judges with a tremendous bent toward criminal activity." "Whatever Senator Ashcroft's problem with Ronnie White, there was no need to destroy White's reputation on the floor of the Senate, with no warning and no chance for Judge White to either defend himself or withdraw. This one act has become a stumbling block to my support, which I have not been able to get around. It says to me that it was done for political purposes. "Taken as a whole, Senator Ashcroft's positions and statements, in my view, do not unite, but rather divide. They send strong signals to the dispossessed, the racial minorities of our country, and particularly to all women who have fought long and hard for reproductive freedom that this Attorney General will not be supportive of laws for which they fought, no matter what he has said in the past weeks. "How can our citizens feel that this man will stand up for them when their civil rights are violated? How can the left out, the rape victim who needs an abortion have faith that this man would enforce their rights? "In the end, every Senator must live with his or her own vote, and for this Senator, that vote will be 'no.' " |
