From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Reporting
for Duty
John Kerry* appeared yesterday at Pasadena City College
to campaign for Phil Angelides, Democratic challenger to California's Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger. This is from the Pasadena Star-News's report on the event:
Kerry then told the students that if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs--"If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," he said to a mixture of laughter and gasps.
YouTube has video. It turns out "comfortable jobs" was a paraphrase; here is the direct quote:
You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq[**].
What a stirring call to self-service from this war hero and patriot.
** He might have added, "fighting in a war that I voted for."
The
Mature Alternative to Howard Dean
John Kerry issued the following statement today in defense of the above-noted
remark. We quote it in full and verbatim:
Statement of John Kerry Responding to Republican Distortions, Pathetic Tony Snow Diversions and Distractions
Washington--Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry's comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:
"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.
I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.
The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.
Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men. And this time it won't work because we're going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq."
Um, well . . . (ahem!) that certainly puts the whole thing in a different light.
The
Arabs and the Midterms
"Arab governments are looking for change in U.S. policy in the Middle East
after the midterm elections," the Associated Press reports:
One thing they hope for is that a politically weakened President Bush would talk with Iran and Syria. They also hope he would show greater interest in the Palestinians and find a way out of the crisis in Iraq.
So if you want a politically weakened president cutting deals with terror-sponsoring dictatorships, vote Democratic on Nov. 7.
Ex-Friends
The New York Times reports that political polarization is taking a personal
toll for many Americans: "People who once feistily shared their convictions
about politics now report biting their tongues around--or even completely avoiding--friends
and relatives who disagree, trying to avoid fights over the Bush administration
and, specifically, the war." Here's one example:
For years, Sheri Langham looked at the Republican politics of her parents as a tolerable quirk, one she could roll her eyes at and turn away from when the disagreements grew a bit deep.
But earlier this year, Ms. Langham, 37, an ardent Democrat, found herself suddenly unable even to speak to her 65-year-old mother, a retiree in Arizona who, as an enthusiastic supporter of President Bush, "became the face of the enemy," she said.
"Things were getting to me, and it became such a moral litmus test that all I could think about was, 'How can she support these people?' " said Ms. Langham, a stay-at-home mother in suburban Virginia.
The mother and daughter had been close, but suddenly they stopped talking and exchanging e-mail messages. The freeze lasted almost a month.
"Finally, it hit me that if one of us got hit by a bus tomorrow, I don't want my final thought to be, 'She supports George Bush,' " Ms. Langham said. They resumed contact, but have agreed not to discuss the administration and the war, or even forward each other humorous political e-mail messages.
What's interesting about the Times piece, as blogger Josh Treviño notes, is that "every person in the piece who actively rejects a friend or family member over politics is a Democrat"--a fact that reporter Anne Kornblut does not specifically note. Treviño observes:
The American left--which we'll posit as synonymous with Democrats here--is sincerely angry, and the anger goes beyond reason in a surprising number of cases. The conservative view of politics holds that it does not encompass all spheres of human activity. . . . There is no sound reason, for example, to reject association with like-minded parents, or friendships with co-workers, or the company of one's own mother, on the grounds of political disagreements. Yet we see emphatic Democrats doing all these things in Kornblut's piece. Why? We can only hypothesize, with the caveat that perhaps, if the tables were turned, Republicans and conservatives might behave the same way toward their family and neighbors--even if, in the last comparable period, from January 1993 through January 1995, it doesn't seem they did.
A core leftist tenet may be expressed in the old feminist cliché, "the personal is political." This gets muddied a bit by the left's predilection for espousing "privacy," as found in some metaphysical emanation or penumbra of the Constitution; but the net--and discrete--effect of this espousal is not a depoliticizing of the "private" sphere. Precisely the opposite: where "privacy" is invoked, it is toward a definite politicized end, be it the legitimization of arbitrary couplings under the rubric of marriage, or the breaking-down of the social structures necessary for the maintenance of a conservative order. In this context, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to maintain relationships with people with whom one disagrees on political or ideological grounds.
There is an internal consistency here, but it's pitiable nonetheless. The spectacle of a grown woman rejecting her own aged mother over their conflicting opinions on the Bush Administration, to take just one anecdote from Kornblut's piece, is at best an affront to piety borne [sic] of a monumental lack of perspective. To borrow a non-leftist parallel, one is reminded of Ayn Rand's furious fault-finding with those who dared disagree with her. . . . But Rand's group was, and remains, essentially a cult. The Democratic Party is not. Or, I should say, it didn't used to be.
Yet if the Democratic Party--or, more precisely, the Angry Left--is a cult, it is a peculiar sort of cult. It is a cult with no leader, only what we might term an "antileader," namely George W. Bush. And it is a cult whose adherents imagine that there is a cult on the other side. As we noted in February:
There is a sort of Newton's Third Law of politics, which was at work during the previous administration as well. People on the left who reviled Bill Clinton's policies in such areas as trade, welfare and capital punishment nonetheless backed him, and supported him fervently when Congress impeached him.
For most conservatives, Bush is not perfect but he is far better than the alternatives that were on offer in 2000 and 2004. Those on the left who look at the right and see blind loyalty for the most part are actually viewing a reflection of their own blind hate.
Roger Simon makes the case for reviving the old idea that it's impolite to discuss politics in social settings. We're not sure we agree; we often enjoy discussing and arguing politics with friends. But it's a delicate matter, requiring both sensitivity and detachment. If you become angry or demanding when a friend or loved one does not see things your way, there is a good chance you will sour the relationship. If this happens, the personal toll may be heavy; the political payoff is almost certain to be nonexistent.
Unenthusiastic
Endorsement Watch
Chris Reed of the San Diego Union-Tribune calls our attention to an endorsement
in that newspaper:
The Democratic candidate for treasurer, Bill Lockyer, has displayed a vicious partisan streak in his eight years as attorney general, using his powers to sandbag initiatives he doesn't like and to file frivolous lawsuits solely to score political points with unions and environmentalists. In his previous job, as Senate president, he was the epitome of the pay-to-play Sacramento culture, famously blocking a law meant to keep criminals out of California casinos and card clubs after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the gambling industry.
Incredibly enough, we have no choice but to endorse him. . . . Lockyer may be the devil, but he's a smart devil. . . .
We set out to give Lockyer the most grudging election endorsement in the history of the printed word. We hope we have achieved our goal.
Close, but we still give the edge to the Virginian-Pilot. Meanwhile, check out the New York Times endorsement of Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey:
Mr. Menendez has a history of ethical lapses that have been all too common for Democratic officials in New Jersey, especially for those, like him, who continue to take an active part in local party politics. If re-elected, the senator should make it clear he is giving up any role in the Hudson County Democratic organization. . . .
Our unqualified endorsement goes to Robert Menendez.
This is by no means the most unenthusiastic endorsement we've seen, but it probably is the most unenthusiastic "unqualified" one.
This
Just In
"Analysis: GOP Likely to Lose House Seats"--headline, Associated Press,
Oct. 30
You
Don't Say
"Heavy Coverage at Midterm Favors Democrats, Study Says"--headline,
USA Today, Oct. 31
Good News for Republicans
"Mirror Test Implies Elephants Self-Aware"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 30
"House Majority Leader John Boehner: 'We're Going to Do Just Fine' "--headline, Human Events, Oct. 30
Just
in Time for Halloween
"Monster Worldwide Director Resigns"--headline, Associated Press,
Oct. 30
Sorry,
No Candy, but Have Some Coffee
"French Press Declares Halloween Dead"--headline, Reuters, Oct. 31
He's
Quite a Drinker!
"Spitzer Reaches $2.3M Deal With Liquor Suppliers"--headline, Crain's
New York Business, Oct. 30
Is He Still Dead or Isn't He?
"Dead Bassist Lesh Has Prostate Cancer"--headline, United Press International, Oct. 30
"Ex-Dead Bassist Lesh Has Prostate Cancer"--headline, Marin (Calif.) Independent Journal, Oct. 31
That's
One Generous Basketball Player
"European Shares Rebound"--headline, Agence France-Presse, Oct. 31
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "David Beckham: No Plans to Join Maccabi Netanya"--headline, Jerusalem
Post, Oct. 30
- "Study: Soccer Referees Not Always Fair"--headline, LiveScience.com,
Oct. 30
- "Koala Semen Has Shelf-Life Boosted"--headline, NewScientist.com,
Oct. 30
- "Chinese Fail to Embrace Hugs From Strangers"--headline, Reuters,
Oct. 30
- "Pitbulls Not Involved in Attacks, Animal Control Not Surprised"--headline,
WAND-TV
Web site (Champaign, Ill.), Oct. 31
- "At 2 TV Stations in Maine, What Al Gore's Movie Says Isn't News"--headline, New York Times, Oct. 30
Global
Warming Heats Up Boulder
The Rocky Mountain News reports from Boulder, Colo., on a scientific conference
that "descended into name calling":
Colorado State University's William Gray, one of the nation's preeminent hurricane forecasters, called noted Boulder climate researcher Kevin Trenberth an opportunist and a Svengali who "sold his soul to the devil to get (global warming) research funding."
Trenberth countered that Gray is not a credible scientist.
"Not any more. He was at one time, but he's not any more," Trenberth said of Gray, one of a handful of prominent U.S. scientists who question whether humans play a significant role in warming the planet by burning fossil fuels that release heat-trapping gases.
"He's one of the contrarians, some of whom get money to spread lies about global warming," Trenberth said during a break following his presentation at the 31st annual Climate Diagnostics & Prediction Workshop.
Boy, it's true what they say about disputes in academia: They're so vicious because the stakes are so low.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Mark Schulze, Don Stewart, Arnold Nelson, Rod Pennington, Ethel Fenig, Anne McCaughey, Joe Seely, Jena Olsen, Dan O'Shea, Chris Scibelli, Evan Slatis, Mark Van Der Molen, David Burkhart, Samuel Walker, Joel Goldberg, Anil Adyanthaya, Lori Cohen, Michael Segal, Ezzie Goldish, Robert Paci, Alan Utter, Paul Boyer, Michael Napier, John Williamson, David Wesolowicz, Rhonda Cisneros, James Wittenbach, Bill Jones, Dave Undis, Christine O'Rourke, Jeff Dobbs, Israel Pickholtz, Mike Carroll, Clara Magram, Sarah Cole and John Sanders. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Michael Barone: Democrats may take Congress, but will it matter in the long run?
- Omar Fadhil (from Iraq the Model): Losing is not an option.
- Robert Scales: Max Boot surveys five centuries' worth of military revolutions.
