From the WSJ Opinion Archives
|
Old
Whine, New Bottles
While we were away, Hillary Clinton finally let her vulnerable side show. We
can't say we're sorry we missed it, but we're happy to join the piling on.
Oh wait, sorry. Bad Taranto! We mustn't pile on. That would be sexist. As The Politico reports:
[Mrs.] Clinton's campaign this week accused rivals of engaging in "the politics of piling on" after they roundly criticized her evasive and confusing answers at the Philadelphia event about whether illegal immigrants should be eligible for driver's licenses.
The next day, Clinton called the political world a "boys' club," and a union chief endorsed her with the observation that the debate had been "six guys against Hillary."
According to The Politico, a "debate" is "churning in feminist circles, where some women's activists said she had every right to invoke sexism and gender stereotypes as a defense on the campaign trail--and predicted that this tactic will prove effective against fellow Democrats and against a Republican, if she is the general election nominee":
[Eleanor] Smeal said that she and other women deeply involved in politics didn't immediately see the debate in terms of gender, but rather in the political terms of rivals engaging a front-runner.
Then, she said, her group started getting e-mails from women complaining that Clinton was being attacked. "Our rank and file . . . saw it the other way," she said.
She and some other women's activists were unapologetic about Clinton's willingness to use stereotypes to her advantage.
"You reap what you sow," she said. "There's been discrimination against women for so long, and for once this is benefiting a woman."
But abortion advocate Kate Michelman, who only has eyes for John Edwards, disagrees:
The Edwards campaign released a statement from Michelman, accusing Clinton of "trying to have it both ways."
"At one minute, the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card," Michelman said. "It is not presidential."
The trouble with feminists is that they're so obsessed with sex. In this case, it blinds them to the point that Mrs. Clinton is simply acting like a Democratic politician. That she is female is incidental. Consider the following quotes:
- "Of course, the vice president is questioning my patriotism. I don't
think there's any question about that, and I resent it. I resent it."--Michael
Dukakis, Sept. 25, 1988
- "A lot of this is deliberately designed to sensationalize charges against
my husband, because everything else they've tried has failed. . . .
This is--the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about
it and explain it--is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring
against my husband since the day he announced for president."--Bill
Clinton's wife, speaking on his behalf, Jan. 27, 1998
- "You don't have to get snippy."--Al
Gore, Nov. 8, 2000
- "For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve
as commander in chief. We'll, here's my answer. I will not have my commitment
to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they
could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq."--John
Kerry, Sept. 3, 2004
- "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."--John Kerry, Oct. 31, 2006
Male Democrats routinely do what Mrs. Clinton stands accused of doing now: pout and play the victim. There is no question that such behavior is unmanly. But it would be an outrageous sexist calumny to suggest that it is womanly. It is childish: Little boys and girls pout and play the victim. Grown men and women do not.
What about the politics of all this? Maybe it is true that women respond better than men to such childishness. Certainly they have tended to vote more Democratic than have men in recent presidential elections. Will a woman's playing the victim qua woman resonate even more with female voters than, say, Dukakis's or Kerry's crying over wounded patriotism? Perhaps. On the other hand, men vote too, and it also seems possible that they will find Mrs. Clinton's bellyaching especially off-putting.
There is another danger for Mrs. Clinton in all this. Her great advantage in the Democratic field is that she is the only one of the top candidates who comes across as a grown-up. Barack Obama seems like a bright young man who may do great things when he grows up. John Edwards is Peter Pan, Esq.
Being a woman sets Mrs. Clinton apart from the boys. Whining like a girl reduces her to their level.
Save
a Life, Go to Prison?
There has not been a major terrorist attack on American soil in six years, and
someone has to be punished for it! That seems to be the attitude of the fringe
left, which has been blogging up a storm of late demanding that Bush administration
officials be prosecuted for "war crimes" for offending the dignity
of al Qaeda terrorists who want nothing more than to murder American civilians.
Are these people serious? Certainly in their own minds. But more importantly, they do have influence in the Democratic Party. Last week it appeared as if they might succeed in stopping the confirmation of the eminent jurist Michael Mukasey as attorney general. Democratic senators, eager to appease their far-left base, were lining up to oppose Mukasey--until Friday, when two Judiciary Committee members, Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, declared that they would support him. That pretty well assures him a favorable vote both in the committee and on the Senate floor.
In 2004, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before the Judiciary Committee on the question of "torture," and Schumer--whose home state, after all, was the site of the worst carnage on 9/11--injected some common sense into the proceedings. Here is what he said, as quoted by Byron York (MP3 available here):
There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.
Take the hypothetical. If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, "Do what you have to do."
So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal. And I respect--I think we all respect the fact that the president's in the foxhole every day. So he can hardly be blamed for asking you or his White House counsel or the Department of Defense to figure out when it comes to torture, what the law allows and when the law allows it and what there is permission to do.
To a significant portion of the Democratic Party's base, Schumer's views are not just mistaken but criminal. It is, in their view, better to let thousands of Americans be murdered than to harm a hair on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's chinny-chin-chin. The faction that believes this holds enough sway that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd--that is, all the Democrats who are running for president (or think they are)--raced earlier last week to announce their opposition to Mukasey. Suffice it to say that this does not speak well of their leadership qualities.
Great
Moments in Journalism
John Simpson, BBC News's world affairs editor, went to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,
to interview King Abdullah ahead of the king's state visit to Britain. When
he arrived, he learned that Abdullah was setting preconditions for the interview:
The king would not, it seemed, be prepared to talk about Iraq, or the possibility that the Americans might bomb Iran.
Nor would he speak about the BAE arms contract between the UK and Saudi Arabia, with its attendant allegations of corrupt payments. . . .
I have never been told so close to an interview that some of the main questions are off-limits.
And so I heard myself saying that, unfortunately, it looked as though we would not be having an interview after all.
In the end, though, he got the interview:
Something else had become clear to me by now. The king was not refusing to talk about Iran and Iraq because he was not interested in them.
On the contrary, I now realised he felt so strongly about what the US had done in Iraq, and the thought that they might soon bomb Iran, that he felt he might upset his relations with Washington if he spoke openly to me.
So I agreed.
Within five minutes of agreeing to the deal, I was sitting opposite the king.
Presented with an interview subject's unacceptable restrictions, Simpson simply read the subject's mind, found him to be simpatico, and agreed to the restrictions. That's how they do journalism at the BBC.
Wannabe
Pundits
OK, see if you can guess the topic of a column by Lee Benson of Salt Lake City's
Deseret Morning News. It begins as follows:
The financial news from the front--the president wants another $196 billion for wars that have already cost $600 billion--is bleak.
The financial news from the campaign trail--where candidates are going to spend $1 billion trying to become president--is depressing.
Here in Utah, the financial news from the private school voucher fight--where people on both sides have already spent $9 million (how about settling it with a coin-flip and give the money to the kids?)--is astonishing.
Give up? Here's the next sentence:
But if you want financial news you can really grind your teeth over you have to move into the world of Alex Rodriguez, also known as A-Rod, who just this week told the New York Yankees he doesn't want the $25 million they're offering him to play baseball for them next season.
Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times injects politics into a car column:
I spent a week in an up-spec Impreza WRX five-door ($29,833) and came away wondering why Subaru would dilute one of its core products in hopes of attracting a mainstream audience that will never, ever materialize. Come on, Subaru, follow the GOP model: Pander to your base.
This analogy doesn't even make sense. The GOP often attracts a "mainstream audience," as in the presidential elections of 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. Stick to cars, Dan.
And then there's this, from Tony Long of Wired News. Long remembers the 69th anniversary of Orson Welles's radio dramatization of H.G. Wells's "War of the Worlds." Many listeners didn't realize it was fiction and thought Martians actually had landed in New Jersey. (It apparently never occurred to ask anyone why they would go to New Jersey of all places.) Long opines:
The resulting hysteria--people fleeing in their cars, barricading themselves inside their homes--led to calls for stricter regulation of radio broadcasting to prevent this sort of thing from occurring again. Fortunately, it was the Roosevelt administration and not the Bush administration that steered the ship of state in those days, and the furor eventually died down.
Right, because FDR would never do anything hysterical like lock up tens of thousands of innocent American citizens.
Buffett's
Bluster
"The United States' second-richest man has delivered a blunt message to
the Bush administration: he wants to pay more tax," reports London's Guardian:
Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the "Sage of Omaha", has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff--including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic; I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed."
During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.
"There wasn't anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don't have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do," he said.
Presumably the disparity arises from two factors: Dividends and capital gains, which presumably account for a large share of Buffett's income, are taxed at a lower rate than wages; and the Social Security tax cap (currently $97,500 of wages) ensures that Buffett pays a much smaller percentage of his income in that tax than someone with a more ordinary income.
But does Buffett really want to pay more in taxes, or does he want the rest of us to pay more in taxes? If what troubles him really is his own meager contribution to the federal government, he could easily remedy that without being compelled to by law. Call it an act of civil obedience. Blogger Mark Perry leads us to this page on the U.S. Treasury Web site, which explains how to do it:
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D17
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Buffett would be a far more effective advocate of higher taxes if he put his money where his mouth is. But in fact he has done just the opposite. Fortune reported last year on what he planned to do with his money:
"Brace yourself," Buffett warned with a grin. He then described a momentous change in his thinking. Within months, he said, he would begin to give away his Berkshire Hathaway fortune, then and now worth well over $40 billion.
This news was indeed stunning. Buffett, 75, has for decades said his wealth would go to philanthropy but has just as steadily indicated the handoff would be made at his death. Now he was revising the timetable. . . .
Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world's largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett's (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).
By giving his assets to charity, Buffett shields them from the death tax, which, under current law, his estate will have to pay unless he dies in 2010. As we noted in 2006, Buffett is also a supporter of the death tax. He just intends not to pay it.
Metaphor
Alert
"State Rep. Hermina Morita, D-14th (Hanalei, Anahola, Kapa'a), said the
House was emasculating the courts and the rule of law. She said it was
appropriate that the vote was taken on Halloween. The bill, she said, 'dressed
in the facade of the toothless conditions, is still one ugly
bill that reeks the horrors of political favors gone awry and
should be haunting this Legislature on how cheap we sold the credibility
and respectability of this institution and our moral compass."--Honolulu
Advertiser, Nov. 1
Spies Like Us
- "Clinton Dons a 1960s-Era Anti-War Cloak"--headline,
New York Sun, Nov. 2, 2007
- "Mr. Schumer sees a dagger virtually everywhere he looks."--editorial, New York Sun, Oct. 19, 2005
Life Imitates the Onion
- "Van Duyne consumed three-quarters of a jug of Gallo wine he found
in Layton's kitchen cabinet. Shortly after 2 a.m., he stumbled seven blocks
back to his apartment. 'This happens every time I drink Gallo, especially
red,' Van Duyne said. 'That stuff really gives me a hangover. It probably
has something to do with all the sulfites they use.' "--from "Man
Blames Hangover on Everything but How Much He Drank," Onion,
May 29, 2002
- "The effects are all too familiar: a fancy dinner, some fine wine and then, a few hours later, a racing heart and a pounding headache. But a device developed by University of California, Berkeley, researchers could help avoid the dreaded 'red wine headache.' "--Associated Press, Nov. 1, 2007
'Since
You Asked So Nicely . . .'
"Israel Says Hezbollah Can Hit Tel Aviv"--headline, Associated Press,
Oct. 31
Food
Fight!
"Rice to Turkey: Kurds Are 'Common Threat' "--headline, USA Today,
Nov. 2
Vinny
Testaverde, RIP
"Oldest Living NFL Player Dies at 104"--headline, Sports Illustrated
Web site, Oct. 30
So
Spin It Again!
"Mainland Greece's Top Stops"--headline, CNN.com, Nov. 2
Oh
Lord It's Hard to Be Humble
"Red-Light Cameras to Ticket Humble Drivers"--headline, KPRC-TV Web
site, Nov. 1
Someone
Set Up Us the Bomb
"Harry Quiz Over Shot Rare Birds"--headline, Sun (London), Oct. 31
Help
Wanted
"Police Impersonator Sought"--headline, Boston Globe, Nov. 5
Breaking
News From 1992
"Mondale Endorses Clinton for President"--headline, Associated Press,
Nov. 4
Breaking
News From 2006
"U.S. Unions Ready to Push New Laws if Dems Win Big"--headline, Reuters,
Nov. 4
News
of the Tautological
"New York City Marathon Winners Cross the Finish Line"--headline,
FoxNews.com, Nov. 5
News You Can Use
- "Toilets Integral to Tribal Development"--headline, Inter-Press
Service, Oct. 30
- "Near-Death Experiences: Hard to Forget or Explain"--headline,
CNN.com,
Oct. 31
- "Wailing Babies Lack Shutoff Button"--headline, St.
Petersburg (Fla.) Times, Nov. 5
- "NC the Best Place to Have a Heart Attack"--headline, WPTF-AM
Web site (Raleigh, N.C.), Nov. 5
- "Tuesday Morning Is Almost Here"--headline, Paris (Texas) News, Nov. 4
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Giuliani Campaigning in Iowa, N.H."--headline, Associated
Press, Nov. 5
- "Woman: Pet-Sitter Overfed My Potbellied Pig!"--headline, MSNBC.com,
Oct. 31
- "Michigan Wins First Annual James L. Oberstar Safe Routes to School
Award"--headline, Michigan
Department of Transportation press release, Oct. 30
- "Kucinich Questions Bush's Mental Health"--headline, Associated
Press, Oct. 30
- "U.S. Embargo of Cuba Hits Many Canadian MasterCard Holders"--headline, CBC.ca, Nov. 1
Where
Credit Is Due
Further evidence of Philip
Klein's observation that the Angry Left really, really hates Rudy Giuliani:
Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman devoted his column last Friday to attacking
the former New York mayor. Claims Krugman:
Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue.
Hmm, where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, it was from the New York Times's then-ombudsman, Daniel Okrent:
Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.
OK, it's not word-for-word identical, but the idea is pretty much the same. Krugman really should have credited his source.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Kevin Mullaney, Michael Segal, David Gerstman, David Shapero, Avram Shacham, John Williamson, Matt Neely, Todd Stubbs, David Eastwood, David Shifrin, Robert Koontz, Matthew Noonan, Michael Riley, Howard Daniel, Alan Utter, Christian Durrett, Bruce Goldman, Michael Fisher, Brian Azman, Kyle Kyllan, Eric Brown, Dan Ryan, Jim Haffemann, James McCarty, Charlie Gaylord, Peter Iorio, Greg Askins, R.J. Sorce, Don Stewart, James Eliason, Naftali Friedman, Brendan Schulman, Ed Jordan, Brian Terwilliger, George Struve, Jeffrey Parker, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Curt Schmidt, Steve Tuso, Jeff Meling, Clark Goodwin, John Hoh, John Sanders, Chuck Bloomer, Thomas Brueckner, Daniel Foty and Douglas Segal. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: Musharraf backs himself into an even tighter corner.
- Philip Klein (from The American Spectator): The Angry Left finds someone new to hate.
- The Journal Editorial Report: A transcript of the weekend's program on FOX News Channel.
