Lengthy, Heated Speeches Delay Voting on Ashcroft

The Senate, shucking aside any claim to a spirit of bipartisanship, opened its debate Wednesday on former Sen. John Ashcroft with heated accusations over whether the attorney general nominee can fairly execute the laws for all Americans.

Several dozen senators launched into lengthy and emotional speeches on President Bush’s most controversial appointment, delaying until at least today what is expected to be Ashcroft’s ultimate confirmation, largely along party lines, in the evenly divided Senate.

Bush introduced Ashcroft nearly six weeks ago as a man who would rise above politics, but Wednesday’s debate demonstrated even more convincingly that the nomination, instead, has badly split the upper chamber of Congress.

Republicans attacked Ashcroft’s Democratic opponents for engaging in the politics of “personal destruction” against a man who served alongside them until a month ago. But Democrats--including several declaring their opposition for the first time--blamed President Bush for selecting such a divisive nominee for the nation’s chief law enforcement post.

“It’s a sad day for our country,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who opposes Ashcroft. So soon after the trauma of the presidential election deadlock, Schumer said, “this nomination sadly threw salt on the wounds of those who felt disenfranchised.”

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Ashcroft’s nomination, 10 to 8--the closest margin for an attorney general nominee in memory. All nine Republicans voted for Ashcroft, while eight of nine Democrats--all but Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin--opposed him.

Debate continued well into the evening and will likely conclude today, followed by a vote. Barring some dramatic last-minute reversals, there remains no real doubt that Ashcroft will be confirmed.

As Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said during Wednesday’s debate: “Everyone in the Senate knows approximately how the vote will come out on this.”

The question is what the final tally will be and whether opponents can muster a symbolic victory by surpassing the 31 votes cast in 1985 against Edwin M. Meese III--the last attorney general to face serious resistance.

That now appears likely. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said he suspects that at least 30 of the 50 Democrats will oppose Ashcroft’s nomination. “I think it would be phenomenal if we were able to reach 40 votes. I don’t know if we can do that,” he told reporters.

As full debate opened Wednesday morning, senators from both parties agreed that the attorney general post is one of the federal government’s most critical because of its enormous influence in enforcing the nation’s laws, including those on civil rights, white-collar crime, immigration, health care and gun control.

But the two sides agreed on little else.

Republicans hailed Ashcroft’s competence, integrity and compassion during a quarter-century in government as state attorney general and governor of Missouri and then as a U.S. senator.

“Contrary to the rhetoric from the other side,” said Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.), “everybody in this institution knows that he’s one of the finest people who ever served here.”

Republicans accused Democrats of using “ugly” and unethical tactics in distorting Ashcroft’s record. The John Ashcroft depicted by Democrats in recent weeks, said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) “is not the same person with whom I served for six years.”

The Democrats’ real motivation, charged Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), is to spur campaign contributions, keep new senators “on a short leash,” and establish themselves as a force “to be reckoned with” in the newly divided Senate.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), one of only a handful of Democrats who have declared their support for Ashcroft, said that the nominee’s vow to enforce the law should be accepted, regardless of his personal beliefs. “What else can we demand--a pound of flesh?” Byrd said. “I have reason to believe, if he is a man of strong religious faith, he means what he says.”

In something of a surprise, Democratic Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut said that he too feels compelled “to give [Ashcroft] the benefit of the doubt” even though he finds some of his actions “contemptible” and has “concerns about what kind of attorney general he will make.”

But two Democratic newcomers--Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan--said that they were joining the opposition.

“I regret that I’m going to have to vote against our new president,” Carper said. But, he added, “people in my state, particularly people of color, are not comfortable with this nomination.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and other Democratic leaders rattled off a familiar litany of concerns about Ashcroft. This included his efforts to severely restrict abortion rights, his opposition to a Missouri desegregation plan, his veto of several state voting rights bills and his opposition to the nomination to the federal bench of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie L. White and the ambassadorial nomination of James Hormel, a gay philanthropist from San Francisco.

*

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this story.