HORMEL’S CHILLY RECEPTION

Hormel’s nomination had languished in the Senate for well over a year, blocked by Republicans. When Congress dispersed for Memorial Day weekend, the president made a recess appointment — typically used in emergencies when the Senate is out of town for more than a week. But this was no emergency; it was a poke in the eye, clearly designed to provoke Hormel’s Republican detractors. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma obliged by vowing to put a hold on all other administration nominations needing Senate approval — both federal judges and executive-branch appointees — unless Clinton withdraws Hormel’s appointment. Majority Leader Trent Lott has (reluctantly) given Inhofe his support.

The Hormel appointment has been a political flashpoint for religious conservatives and gay-rights activists since Clinton first announced it in October 1997. Hormel, heir to the multi-million dollar meatpacking company that bears the family name, is most infamous for seeming to applaud the antics of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of habit-wearing drag queens, during a gay-pride march in San Francisco in 1996.

At a time when Kosovo and budget priorities dominate the political agenda, Hormel’s nomination really isn’t anyone’s most pressing problem. But it injected an issue into the political arena that terrifies most GOP politicians, and it wasn’t surprising that virtually none of the Republican presidential candidates was eager to comment on it.

“Governor Bush would make extremely limited use of the recess appointment power,” George W. campaign spokesman David Beckwith says, “and never to make political points.” Was the president making a political point with Hormel’s appointment? “I’ll just let it sit at that,” Beckwith demurs. The Texas governor has a 16-point lead in the polls, and it is clear his campaign isn’t about to make any waves.

Would Bush have appointed Hormel? He would not have, says Beckwith, “because Mr. Hormel does not share his conservative political philosophy or his political agenda.” What is Bush’s conservative political philosophy and political agenda with respect to homosexuality?

Beckwith referred me to an April 9 New York Times article. “As a general statement,” Bush told the paper, “if someone can do a job, and a job that he’s qualified for, that person . . . ought to be allowed to do his job.”

And gays? What’s the governor’s stance? “Nobody would be disqualified on the basis of sexual orientation,” Beckwith says. But what is Bush’s political stance on homosexuality? “He would appoint people who have the same political agenda as he does and not a different one,” Beckwith explains. Oh.

Howard Opinsky, campaign spokesman for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, says that while the senator “hasn’t given [the Hormel nomination] a whole lot of thought,” generally, “elections have consequences, and presidents have the right to choose who they want.” Opinski says Hormel “personally assured” McCain that he would “advance the interests of the United States. And the senator takes him at his word.”

But of course it’s Hormel’s words that have conservatives in a tizzy. Andrea Sheldon, who heads the Traditional Values Coalition, calls Hormel a “purveyor of smut.” She mentions the James Hormel Gay and Lesbian Center at the San Francisco Public Library, for which the new ambassador contributed $ 500,000 and some of his favorite books. “I’ve personally been to the Hormel library,” says Sheldon. “There’s a coloring book with, with female genitalia. It’s called the — well, it starts with a ‘C’ and it’s four letters. It’s the ‘Blank’ Coloring Book.”

Sheldon suspects Hormel’s appointment was a ploy to rally the sleepy Gore campaign and turn the Republican candidates against each other. “I mean, it wasn’t like there was a great need for an ambassador to Luxembourg,” says Sheldon. “Al Gore is linked at the hip with Hormel.”

“It’s kind of similar to appointing Larry Flynt ambassador,” says Karen Hickey, campaign spokes-person for Sen. Bob Smith for New Hampshire, adding, “Frankly, the materials [in the Hormel library] are pornographic.” Really? How do you mean? “We have a lot of the materials. I can get it for you.”

But then Hickey backs off a bit, retreating to the issue of anti-Catholicism. “It’s not really the fact that he’s homosexual. It’s the fact that, when appointing leaders of the country, the president should be in a position to appoint people who are leaders. The senator doesn’t think Hormel should be appointed anywhere — especially to a country that’s 95 percent Catholic.”

Gary Bauer, the erstwhile president of the Family Research Council, agrees. “The bottom line here is that, at the very least, Hormel gives evidence of prima facie bigotry toward people of faith generally and toward Catholics particularly. And that’s reason enough not to allow him to be an ambassador that represents the United States, particularly to a Catholic country,” he says in an interview.

“I think generally there’s a growing squishiness within the Republican party that makes supposed leaders afraid to talk about almost anything,” Bauer says. “So if we don’t have confidence in our agenda, I don’t know how we can expect the American people to.”

A propos of squishiness, the Elizabeth Dole campaign, taking my third call, again promised that spokesman Ari Fleischer would “get right back” to me. This time he did. “I have not had the opportunity to discuss the Hormel issue with Mrs. Dole,” says Fleisher. Apparently she’d been traveling all day. All day? “I will give it my best shot.”

The campaign of Steve Forbes, who’s spent the last four years courting social conservatives, promised to call back, too, but never did. Former vice president Dan Quayle, however, responded. “I would not nominate individuals who support political objectives contrary to the goals of my administration,” says the vice-president, “and the gay-rights agenda falls in that category.”

Pat Buchanan’s campaign response was more amusing. “Well, we don’t really have a campaign spokesman,” says somebody in Buchanan’s campaign press office. “But if he was going to do a release on it, he probably would have done it already. It’s couple of days old,” he says. Surely that doesn’t preclude comment now? “Well, we might have a position paper on something like that. I’ll go look and see what I can find.” An hour later, a phone message was waiting. “We did a search of Pat’s old columns and couldn’t find anything.”

Time to give the gay-rights Log Cabin Republicans a call on Hormel. “We support his ability to be judged on his merits,” says Kevin Ivers. “He’s qualified. I don’t know why he shouldn’t be allowed to be confirmed.” But Hormel’s a Democrat. “This transcends partisanship,” Ivers says. “It transcends everything else. This is character assassination. James Hormel is a victim of partisanship and the far right.”

Actually, he’s an ambassador, not a victim. As they stumble and duck, it’s the GOP presidential candidates who are starting to look like victims of Hormel’s nomination.

Sam Dealey is a staff writer for the Hill newspaper.