Ashcroft on 9/11, America's security and more

On one such occasion, I was traveling in Japan when a reporter back home asked Mel about his pro-abortion stance. Mel unabashedly stated that if legislation modifying the state’s abortion laws came across his desk while he was the acting governor, he would sign it.

This was totally contrary to, and inconsistent with, my publicly stated beliefs and positions regarding abortion. I was stunned that Mel would suggest such a thing. Historically, lieutenant governors handled the acting governor’s responsibilities in a manner consistent with the governor’s views. They understood that it was not the intent of the constitution of the state to change the philosophy and law of the state during temporary absences of the governor.

After Mel’s statements, I never again relinquished my role as governor. To clarify the legal situation, while in Washington, D.C., on official state business, I signed some documents as governor of Missouri and sent them back to the state capital for formal registration.

This evoked a challenge as to whether the Missouri constitution’s “absent from the state” clause stripped me of my office as governor when outside the state’s boundaries. The Supreme Court of Missouri ruled in a way that allowed the governor of Missouri to remain governor as long as he was able to carry out his duties, even when temporarily performing official functions outside the state.

The state was better served by the clarification, but my relationship with Mel Carnahan was damaged by the decision. It was an unfortunate consequence that I regret, but it was a fact. Missouri being traditionally a moderate state, its local and state officials elected from the time of the Civil War to Harry Truman had been Democrats. During my lifetime, only one other Republican had been elected governor of Missouri — Christopher “Kit” Bond. Moreover, I had been the only Republican in Missouri history elected to consecutive terms as governor, and amazingly, I had won big. In 1988, I won all 114 Missouri counties and garnered more than 66 percent of the vote in the gubernatorial race, the largest margin for governor ever received in Missouri. In 1994, I was elected to the U.S. Senate by capturing more than 60 percent of the vote. Decades earlier, I had served as the state auditor of Missouri, then eight years as its attorney general, then eight years as governor and six years as a U.S. Senator. Few candidates had held three high-profile state offices, as well as a seat in the U.S. Senate. As the incumbent senator in the 2000 race, it was natural that I was considered the front-runner by many political pundits.

Nevertheless, Mel Carnahan was a formidable candidate. Our battle for the U.S. Senate in 2000 was Missouri politics at its best ... and at its most intense. At its best, it was an important race with national ramifications, since the seat was regarded as a potential pivot on which the majority of the U.S. Senate might turn. On the state level, it was a clash of the titans, two popular two-term governors vying for a seat in Washington’s senatorial club. At its worst, it was a no-holds-barred, political bare-knuckled bout.

The campaign turned tough early on, and it never eased up. Public Broadcasting’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer characterized the vitriolic campaign as “downright ugly,” noting that the two longtime rivals were: clashing on classic hot-button issues such as abortion and the death penalty, in a race that some observers say is becoming downright ugly ... Carnahan announced his Senate candidacy just one day after the November 1998 election and criticized Ashcroft ever since ... Ashcroft’s ads reminded voters that Carnahan accepted money from abortion-rights groups and vetoed a ban on “partial birth” abortion.

The race became increasingly negative this year as Carnahan countered by painting Ashcroft as a member of the extreme right.¹

It was a grueling battle and I tried as best I could to keep our campaign efforts focused. The opposition continually sought to vilify me as an ultraconservative, racist, insensitive, heartless pol. Some of those themes even found their way into the mid-October debates. “Carnahan, Ashcroft Use First Debate to Rip Each Other’s Records,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch headline read following the first debate between Mel and me, held ironically on Friday the 13th, and broadcast live on KMOX radio in St. Louis. The newspaper reported that Carnahan:

... was particularly combative during Friday’s one-hour joint session. Ashcroft returned fire in a milder manner, reflecting his promise at the beginning of the debate to “raise the level of discourse” ... Ashcroft’s strongest criticism arose during their exchanges over abortion. Ashcroft, who opposes abortion, began by observing, “I do understand that good people can disagree.” He then called Carnahan “extreme on the issue” because he has vetoed measures to outlaw a mid-to-late-term procedure that critics call “partial birth abortion.”²

Two evenings later, Mel and I debated again, this time at the Gem Theater in Kansas City. The debate was broadcast live on television throughout the state. National media including reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, and others traveled to Kansas City to see the bloodletting. But it didn’t happen. Mel and I engaged in a vigorous but dignified debate. Mel was actually more animated than usual, taking off his suit coat, sitting down occasionally during the debate, and appearing quite comfortable. At the close of the telecast, we shook hands. “Well, John, it looks as though we’re going to survive this,” Carnahan said.

Bill McClellan, a reporter who covered the campaign, wrote that he was disappointed at the “remarkably civil” debate: “Ashcroft had gone into a nice-guy mode . . . the very image of good cheer and respect. “That meant the burden was on Carnahan. If there was going to be a fight, he’d have to start it. He didn’t seem so inclined. The men disagreed on almost all the issues, but they did so with little rancor . . . a strange stance to take in a campaign noted mostly for its nastiness.”³

The debate over, I left the Gem Theater that night with no reservations about whether I had won, but I was especially pleased that I had resisted engaging in acrimonious statements about my opponent.

Besides, as we entered the final month of the campaign, I felt confident that I was on the way to victory.

MORE FROM TODAY BOOKS: HISTORY POLITICS

What was the greatest moment in sports history?

What was the greatest moment in sports history? ‘A History of Ghosts’ explores paranormal past David Alan Grier: Is beige the new black? Is price gouging in wake of a hurricane wrong? New book places blame for Pat Tillman’s death Blagojevich tells his side of story in ‘Governor’ Geraldo on Hispanics’ new era of prosperity Ousted Ill. governor explains self in new book Michelle Malkin: Obama’s team is corrupt Book: Obama turning slump into socialism   Add Today Books: History Politics headlines to your news reader: