Compare Eric Holder to John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft was considered by all to be an honest and devout person, and yet his confirmation was extremely contentious from the Democrats.
Remember, Ashcroft lost a stolen Senate race when his opponent Mel Carnahan of Missouri was killed in a plane crash a few weeks before the election. Playing on the memory of Carnahan, the new governor declared that if Carnahan's name won the election, he would appoint his widow, Jean Carnahan, to serve.
Right off the bat, a vote for a deceased candidate should have been a wasted vote. There is no such thing in the Senate as voting for a pick to be named later. The candidate must be a living resident of the state, and sad as it was, Carnahan was not. When Carnahan's name won the election, Ashcroft graciously conceded instead of fighting the legality of it.
President Bush decided to name Ashcroft as his nominee to Justice, and even the widow Carnahan, after Ashcroft let her take the Missouri Senate seat uncontested, immediately sided with the Democrat party on this and voted against Ashcroft's appointment. Ashcroft was appointed by a vote of 58-42.
With Holder, he had come off of the scandal of the Marc Rich pardon. He was confirmed by a vote of 75-21.
See how the Republicans play as represented by the Holder confirmation, and how the Democrats play symbolized by the Ashcroft confirmation?
Back to the Carnahan election, Republicans would never try an aggregious switch like that; at least I can't think of a time when they did. One also has to look to the New Jersey election with Robert Torricelli. Democrats swapped a losing Torricelli at the last minute with retired Frank Lautenberg, even though absentee ballots had already been sent out and voting begun. Democrats claimed that they should be entitled to change their failed candidate because it was in the interest of the voter to have a "competitive election," as if Democrats must always have a strong candidate in every election in order for it to be legitimate. Republicans opposed, weakly, and the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed the switch. The United States Supreme Court refused to get involved, still stung from the criticism over stepping into the Florida Supreme Court actions re: Bush v. Gore.
Meanwhile, simultaneously over in the House, Democrat Represented Patsy Mink had died a month before the election, and Democrats were arguing over there that Mink's name should stay on the ballot and that if her name won then the governor should call for a special election to replace her. As expected, her name did win and Republicans lost out on another seat won by an invalid candidate.
Five examples of how Democrats fight and Repbublicans do not: Torricelli, Carnahan, Mink, Ashcroft, Holder.
If there had been no 17th amendment, the Torricelli and Carnahan/Ashcroft situations would never have arisen, as the legislatures would have picked their Senators outright.
-PJ
Rats play to win. Pubbies go along to avoid being called mean, a fool's errand.
As for Torricelli, Carnahan, Mink, Ashcroft, one of the selling points of the 17th Amendment was how it would eliminate corruption.