John Ashcroft

* Re “Why Target Ashcroft for a Public Flogging?” Commentary, Dec. 28: The issue is not John Ashcroft’s character or religion, as attorney Theodore Olson claims. It is Ashcroft’s views on many of the laws he will be responsible for enforcing, particularly with regard to civil rights, abortion, gun control and the environment--views where he is clearly outside the mainstream.

Why is it that the Republicans turn every public policy debate or election into a meaningless and distracting discussion on “character” and “religious conviction”? Perhaps because their actual positions on issues that affect people’s lives are not popular. Ashcroft is an extremist whose confirmation as attorney general should be opposed, and I say this as a person of impeccable moral character and strong religious conviction.

HOWARD COTT

Los Angeles

*

It is not only Ashcroft’s conservative ideology that causes concern but his ability to enforce laws that run contrary to his beliefs. The Senate is obligated to assess this capacity and judge him on these merits. I am dubious that he can pass muster, since his opposition to the confirmation of Ronnie White to the federal bench was based on ideology rather than his ability to fairly interpret the law.

LEE Y. SAGA

Culver City

*

After appointing three middle-of-the-road individuals to his Cabinet, President-elect George W. Bush’s appointment of Ashcroft has set off alarms in the liberal camps in this country. Despite the fact that Ashcroft has the desired integrity and talents for the attorney general’s office, which have been lacking in the past eight years, he is being vilified because he doesn’t have the desired left leanings.

It was to be expected that Bush would appoint at least some members of his Cabinet who are conservative. Why the big attacks? If Al Gore had been elected, do you think he would not select mostly liberals in his Cabinet?

MARY J. MONK

San Clemente

*

The idea that many members of the Senate may vote to confirm someone whose views would otherwise be considered so extreme as to render him unfit for the post of attorney general just because he is a Senate alumnus is appalling. Is our nation now to be held hostage to a college-fraternity, ol’ boys’ and girls’ network, as well as a partisan Supreme Court?

ROBERT SILVER

Los Angeles

*

In regard to Michael Ramirez’s Dec. 28 editorial cartoon, “Removing the cancer” (Commentary): Since he has given so much attention to President Clinton and Atty. Gen. Janet Reno over the years, when will he turn his pen toward Bush and Ashcroft?

WALTER J. HAUENSTEIN

Garden Grove

*

Ramirez’s cartoon is startlingly revealing of rancor and anger, rather than insight into the public service of a reputable attorney general. His cruel comparison of Reno’s term in office to something cancerous is not only undeserved and inaccurate, it is inappropriate. Mr. Ramirez, there is a great distance between a candid satirical observation and a crude depiction of the public service of an ethical, courageous lady.

JOSE A. VARGAS

Hacienda Heights