Doc Nagel: Let's get straight to the heart of the matter, shall we Senator? Are you capable of setting aside your religious views and enforcing laws respecting a woman's right to choose?
John Ashcroft: Of course. I was a two-term senator and I respect the law.
DN: Is that why you spent so much time and energy fighting against a woman's right to choose?
JA: I just said, I respect the law.
DN: Let's consider a hypothetical scenario. If someone were to use the Internet to call for people to kill doctors who provide abortions or to bomb clinics, would you have the Justice Department prosecute on federal charges?
JA: Definitely. There's a clear violation of civil rights in these cases.
DN: I must say I'm surprised at that, given your stance on the right to choose. Could they be prosecuted for using interstate commerce for terroristic threats?
JA: Oh yes, no question about it.
DN: Okay, gosh, that's really surprising. Can you tell me what your priority would be in prosecuting? Whose civil rights would be considered in the prosecution - the doctor's, the clinic staff's?
JA: I would consider prosecuting them all.
DN: You mean, prosecuting all the people raising threats?
JA: You have to ask yourself, whose lives are threatened? Whose civil rights are truly violated? We must use federal judicial power to defend the rights of the defenseless.
DN: Uh, you mean fetuses, don't you?
JA: What else is an abortion but a murder? And organizing a clinic threatens and violates the civil rights of the unborn children of our nation.
DN: You'd prosecute murdered doctors and bombed clinics for violating civil rights.
JA: I stand behind the laws of the land. No one can violate your civil rights without facing legal sanction, and that includes children of all ages.
DN: As long as they're fetuses, apparently.
JA: It's the law of the land, and I will enforce it to the best of my ability, so help me God.
DN: Since you mention it, perhaps you could explain your religious views. My understanding of Evangelism is that you do a lot of jumping around in church and speak in tongues and so on.
JA: We believe in the presence of the holy spirit, and when that presence takes over, we speak the Lord's words.
DN: What's he saying?
JA: Beg pardon?
DN: Excuse me, but it just sounds like gibberish when I hear it, kind of a "blagga-blagga oowhee coobah" thing. It's like scat singing, but without a rhythm section.
JA: I'm not familiar with that.
DN: Well, the question is, if you're speaking the Lord's words, what are they? What do they mean?
JA: They mean the holy spirit is present among us.
DN: Or Ella Fitzgerald.
JA: Beg pardon?
DN: Skip it. You're quite active in your church, isn't that right?
JA: I've preached, I've written a few hymns, if that's active.
DN: And you'll give it all up when you're acting as Attorney General?
JA: I will enforce the laws of the land.
DN: Yes, I got that. No sneaking in a few prayers during investigations of House Democrats? No hymns during lunch?
JA: Religious beliefs are a matter of private conscience. As Governor of Missouri and later as Senator from Missouri I have had to deal with the secular world as I find it.
DN: You once said on the Senate floor that far from being restricted from legislating morality, it was in your opinion the duty of the Senate to legislate morality. Could you elaborate on that? What moral views should become law, in your opinion?
JA: We need to recognize that this is a Christian nation and take steps to instill and perpetuate those core values.
DN: Let me get this straight now. This looks like a possible inconsistency in your statements, and I'm sure you'd want to clarify your position. Obviously, you're not contradicting yourself, so could you explain how you can claim that you respect secular law and that law should be based on your Christian views?
JA: It's quite simple. In service to my country, I swear to uphold the law. That's my Christian oath.
DN: I'll ask this as directly as I can: Is it your position that our nation's laws should conform to your view of Christian morality?
JA: Not only that, but we should make laws regarding morality. We should outlaw all manner of vice and sin - pornography, obscenity, abortion, violent rock music, single parents on TV - these things set terrible examples of depravity.
DN: So when you say you'll uphold the laws as Attorney General, you mean the laws you agree with. For instance, abortion is legal, you know.
JA: But it shouldn't be, that's the point. And if I can use my office to work towards the day when abortion is illegal, I will.
DN: So you won't uphold all the nation's laws.
JA: Roe v. Wade was judicial over-reaching.
DN: So you won't uphold all the nation's laws.
JA: I will uphold all the nation's laws, so help me God.
DN: Meanwhile working to undermine the laws you disagree with? Is that the appropriate role for the Attorney General in your opinion?
JA: I would think a good Christian would strive to eliminate the sins of the nation.
DN: For instance, by overturning Roe v. Wade? Eliminating affirmative action?
JA: I would be happy if both happened, yes.
DN: Could you explain why affirmative action is immoral?
JA: It is not in keeping with Christian moral values.
DN: I'm a little rusty - which Christian moral values? Charity?
JA: The values of hard work, making your own way in the world.
DN: In short, unbridled capitalist competition.
JA: That's the Christian way.
DN: Thank you, Mr. Ashcroft.
Obviously, the brouhaha over Ashcroft's nomination is nothing but the expressions of sour grapes by the losers of the recent election, and the rantings of left-wing radicals. One thing we can definitely conclude about John Ashcroft: he is the finest representative of mainstream America.
This document is meant as a satire and entertainment. No offense is meant to people who are anti-choice or Christian, with the exception of Mr. Ashcroft, who I most decidedly do mean to insult. He's a hypocritical lying nut, the most dangerous man in America.