As Senate today begins to question attorney general nominee John Ashcroft, the controversy that has surrounded the former Missouri senator will not likely fade. In fact, Democrats and special interest groups are ready to keep fighting this particular nomination on grounds that Ashcroft is a right-wing extremist unfit for the job.

Why? Let's consider Ashcroft's history, in which key events have led his critics to conclude he has racist views in addition to his highly conservative record — a record that's bound to haunt him during his time in office, if he can overcome the strong opposition to his nomination.

As Missouri's attorney general, he vehemently opposed a plan to desegregate St. Louis and Kansas City schools.

Later, as Missouri governor, Ashcroft vetoed a bill that would have permitted the League of Women Voters to register voters in St. Louis, a city known for its high black and Democratic population. Incidentally, the same voting procedures were already in place in a surrounding county with mostly white Republicans.

But in relation to civil rights, Ashcroft has been most heavily criticized for his handling of Justice Ronnie White's nomination in 1999. White, the first black justice to sit on the Missouri Supreme Court, was denied a federal judgeship by Ashcroft, who as a senator at the time launched a campaign claiming White was "pro-criminal" and too lax on the death penalty.

As if his questionable history in dealing with minority issues is not enough to prove he is an inappropriate candidate, Ashcroft has received very lopsided ratings from partisan interest groups — the National Rifle Association and Christian Coalition gave him perfect scores during his tenure as a senator while American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way issued him notably low ratings.

What's the significance of all this?

For the next four years, Americans expect to be led by a president who is a "uniter, not a divider." Naming a staunch conservative to a post that heads the Department of Justice and represents the nation in Supreme Court cases does not cry for a united nation.

Regardless of whether his critics can prove he is an ultraconservative bigot is no longer the issue. More important, his nomination has unearthed so many incidents from his past that do not support his nomination as attorney general. At the very least, they imply that he takes extreme positions on issues, including ones involving civil rights.

His post, one that embodies fairness and integrity, cannot be used for partisan purposes nor can it even give the appearance of being used for such things.

As senator, Ashcroft may have been an acceptable reflection of Missouri's electorate (although he obviously wasn't that acceptable given he lost his seat to the late Gov. Mel Carnahan's wife). He is in no way, however, an indicator of the average American's political sentiments.

The best thing for Ashcroft to do is to follow the example of Linda Chavez and withdraw his nomination.

He has, even more so than the Chavez, become a distraction to the transition process.

If Ashcroft keeps his nomination, Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, has called President-elect Bush to action: "I really do think that if [Bush] were to reconsider this, it would heal our nation. I've been in public life for 24 years. I have never seen the kind of outcry against a nominee."

Save the outcries and save this divisive battle. Senators, do everyone a favor and keep Ashcroft out of the Department of Justice.