Surrounded by controversy and confronted with her past, Linda Chavez stepped down from her cabinet nomination. Chavez’s comments on the “search and destroy” politics of Washington, D.C., elicited a mixed response from local political experts.Chavez, the former labor secretary nominee for the Bush administration, announced Tuesday her decision to bow out of her appointment after the Bush transition team confirmed she housed a Guatemalan woman who was in the country illegally in the early 1990s.Chavez acknowledged her mistake in allowing the woman, Marta Mercado, to live with her, although she said the intense background checks ultimately led to her decision.Political experts disagree on the validity of Chavez’s claim, although they are unanimous in pointing out the partisan rift in the nation’s capitol.Sarah Leonard, communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party, said the heavy emphasis placed on the pre-confirmation investigations of cabinet nominees is standard.”Anytime a cabinet secretary breaks a law, it’s going to be brought to the attention of the American public,” she said. “Especially when a labor secretary breaks a labor law.”Chavez initially claimed she did not know Mercado was an illegal immigrant, although Wednesday she said she was aware of the woman’s status. Mercado helped with household chores while living with Chavez, although Chavez said the money she gave her guest was not payment for her work.Dee Stewart, executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa, said liberal opponents of Chavez, who does not support labor unions, set up the nominee for defeat.”I think that Bill Clinton and Al Gore over the past eight years have created a climate that is conducive to bitterness and conducive to search-and-destroy politics,” he said. “It’s obvious to anyone who paid attention to this matter that what Linda Chavez did in regard to providing assistance to a needy person was in no way illegal.”Stewart said Chavez put the Republican Party ahead of herself when she decided to remove herself from the list of nominees.

“I think it was a classy move on her part to withdraw and kind of rise above the mud that had been slung at her by liberal Democrats who don’t want to accept the results of the [presidential] election,” he said. “What you have to realize is that the Democratic Party has allied itself with some very unsavory characters over the last eight years who love to dig up dirt on Republicans and destroy their reputations on a personal level. We have to be prepared for that as a party and realize we’re dealing with dirty politics.”Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science, said the opposition to some of Bush’s Cabinet selections is revenge in the Biblical sense — an eye for an eye.”I’m not at all surprised that now that the Democrats have a chance, they’ve declared war on the Republicans,” he said. “And why shouldn’t they? The Republicans spared no ammunition in making life hell for Clinton and his appointments. Linda Chavez is the first casualty in that war.”Aaron Fister, president and producer of ISU9’s “Politics Unlimited,” said Bush probably never would have asked Chavez to join his cabinet if the information had been disclosed sooner.”The Bush administration is going to have to make sure they’re as squeaky clean as possible,” said Fister, junior in management information systems. “Whoever opposes someone, any excuse will work to keep them from getting nominated and confirmed.”Leonard said Chavez should have been prepared to face the heat of intense opposition.”Every cabinet position goes through the check — it’s nothing new,” she said. “Linda Chavez broke the law, and therefore she wouldn’t have made a good cabinet secretary.”