FC: Paul Weyrich says conservatives don't want to ditch Ashcroft

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

I know Paul Weyrich to be an honest, straightforward person and I take him 
at his word: "Speaking for myself, right now I do not want to be part of 
any campaign to dump the attorney general." I'm not sure how other 
prominent conservatives feel, though, and it makes sense that over time, 
the limited-government types will become increasingly critical of more 
federal police powers. (Just imagine how many Republicans would be yowling 
if the recent accumulation of power and new laws had been orchestrated by 
Janet Reno...)

Here's the NYT article that Paul is talking about:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/24/politics/24ASHC.html

And the Weekly Standard article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/495xlpwt.asp

Rep. Senenbrenner's criticism of Ashcroft's recent FBI changes:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03604.html

-Declan

---

Reservations Are Not a Call for Removal
by Paul M. Weyrich

-----------------------------------------------------------

A front-page story in the New York Times can generate significant political 
aftershocks. The recent Neil Lewis piece on Attorney General John Ashcroft 
is no exception. It is a perfect example of how there are often stories 
behind the story; that what appears in print is often only part of the 
story, if part of the story at all.

The story asserted some on the so-called "religious right" are concerned 
about Mr. Ashcroft's policies, quoting several conservatives, including 
myself. It is clear to me that the bulk of the story came from leaks that 
occurred at the White House. The complaints cited in the article have 
little if anything to do with our concerns. Instead, it has all the 
earmarks of a campaign to dump the attorney general.

It is true that I have some significant reservations about Mr. Ashcroft's 
policies, but in no way do I want to be connected with a campaign to dump him.

The New York Times reporter never asked me about the supposed unhappiness 
with the attorney general. His story read as if he had been working on 
several stories and strung them together.

The Weekly Standard, a weekly magazine of news and opinion , then took it 
upon itself to publish a piece suggesting the only conservatives concerned 
about Mr. Ashcroft were Grover Norquist, the conservative activist who 
heads Americans for Tax Reform, and myself. Then, the author of the piece 
went on to claim I could not be a spokesman for religious conservatives.

Perhaps this opinion rises out of my having made a sharp rebuke of Weekly 
Standard Editor Bill Kristol's assertion that President George W. Bush was 
engaging in appeasement when one of our planes went down over China.

Or perhaps it comes from my desire - and that of the Free Congress 
Foundation, of which I am president - to raise questions about the war on 
drugs at a congressional hearing where the nomination of John Walters to 
become the nation's drug czar was being considered. Some, including writers 
at that magazine, seem to view the fact of asking questions about the war 
on drugs as equivalent to all-out opposition to it. It never was, but the 
Weekly Standard has apparently held this grudge against the Free Congress 
Foundation and myself ever since.

The fact is that the concern about Mr. Ashcroft's policies extends beyond 
just Grover Norquist and Paul Weyrich.

Recently, I composed a letter to Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the chairman of 
the House Judiciary Committee. The letter congratulated him for his 
legislative oversight over the proposed new FBI guidelines on the domestic 
front.

Mr. Sensenbrenner had been upset that the attorney general and FBI Director 
Robert Mueller had issued these guidelines without prior consultation with 
the Congress.

He expressed the same concerns that the Free Congress Foundation had voiced 
about the new policies and, when I broached the topic at the Wednesday 
policy lunch I chair, the representative of more than 30 membership 
organizations were willing to sign on. One of those signers was a 
representative of the Family Research Council, now Exhibit A in the Weekly 
Standard's case that the criticism of Mr. Ashcroft is limited to myself and 
Mr. Norquist, not other religious conservatives. (See 
freecongress.org/media/020620bltr.asp on the worldwide web for a copy of 
the letter.)

Since the New York Times article appeared, another group has weighed in 
with its concerns. Pat Trueman of the American Family Association says his 
group has problems with the attorney general because there have been very 
few prosecutions of child pornography cases.

When I told the New York Times that conservative organizations have very 
serious concerns about the attorney general, it was based on that letter. 
If it were my opinion alone, I never would have represented it as having 
been held by others. The Standard's writer never had the decency or even 
just the simple commitment to getting the story right to call me on the 
phone to ask if I had been just spouting my opinion or something more 
substantial lay behind what I had said. Mr. Norquist told me the Standard's 
writer never called him either.

What in the long-run is likely to prove to be a minor flap is very 
instructive in how journalism in Washington is changing. Rather than 
demonstrate a commitment to getting the facts straight first, writers 
simply write opinions as if they are facts. That the Standard is an opinion 
journal does not absolve it of the responsibility to make sure its opinions 
are backed up by an accurate portrayal of the underlying facts.

As for Mr. Ashcroft, the New York Times story, noting the discontent with 
his policies among the party's conservative base, appeared to have 
information based on leaks from the White House. Much of the story had 
nothing to do with our real concerns in how the long-term impact of the 
actions he has taken are likely to lead to an erosion of our civil 
liberties; rather it read like several stories crammed into one.

Let me make clear to the public and any journalists who want to do 
follow-up stories to the New York Times story: Speaking for myself, right 
now I do not want to be part of any campaign to dump the attorney general.

My concern is not what Mr. Ashcroft and President Bush will do with the new 
powers granted the government to conduct the war on terrorism. It is what a 
future attorney general like Hillary Clinton could easily do with those 
powers. This is not a trivial matter and it is a view widely shared by 
social conservatives. The reporting about our discontent whether by the New 
York Times or the Weekly Standard ought to reflect that.

Paul M. Weyrich is president of the Free Congress Foundation, a research 
and education foundation.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------