From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Just
Wait Till Next Time . . .
We'll bet John O'Neill is losing sleep over this report in the Patriot Ledger
of Quincy, Mass.:
John Kerry[*] said Monday there might be a next time for his presidential aspirations, and if there is, the 63-year-old U.S. senator from Massachusetts says he'll be ready for the political torpedoes that helped sink his 2004 White House bid. . . .
"We have put together a documented portfolio that frankly puts their lies in such a total light of absurdity and indecency, that should they ever rear their ugly heads again, we have every single 't' crossed and 'i' dotted, and I welcome that in a sense," Kerry said following a morning address to the South Shore Chamber fo [sic] Commerce. "It's a shame we weren't able to produce all that at the time." . . .
"I think the bigger problem was the campaign should have spent more money putting the truth out there," Kerry said. "I think there was an assumption that is was out there, it was sufficiently out there." . . .
"I have no doubt at all that some of the people involved on the other side don't care about the truth, think nothing about distorting it, will not hesitate to say and do whatever they think is necessary to win," Kerry said. "But I think we are now much more prepared and savvy about those kind of things, and certainly in my own involvement, I will make certain that people don't get away with that."
When a reader passed this along yesterday afternoon--just over three years after Kerry lost the 2004 election--we laughed out loud. Somehow it never gets old! Say what you will about Kerry, he is a never-ending source of joy to your humble columnist. May he live long. (If he makes good on his threat to run for president in 2016, he will be 73 by Inauguration Day.)
It occurred to us, too, that this is a great example of the point we made yesterday about Hillary Clinton--namely, that her whining about being criticized is entirely typical for Democratic politicians, and her sex is incidental. Kerry is acting exactly like "a whiny daughter who's had her Barbie taken away," in Howard Kurtz's memorable phrase.
Kerry reminds us of another figure who has been back in the news recently. To see why, recall what he said in 1971 about his fellow servicemen:
They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Kerry rose to prominence by waging a smear campaign against those who served in Vietnam, and he is spending his twilight years telling anyone who'll listen that they are smearing him. Sort of like Anita Hill.
* "They gave me a hat. I have the hat to this day. I have the hat."
We
All Want to Change Your Head
John Edwards is coming unhinged, the New York Times reports from Iowa:
A few minutes before John Edwards delivered a forceful closing argument to the voters who will help determine the fate of his presidential ambitions, he called upon a gentleman seated near a window in the library in downtown Charles City.
"If the American people understood what's going on all over, there would be a revolution tomorrow morning," exclaimed the man, who said he was a retired eastern Iowa farmer.
"I'm with you, brother!" Mr. Edwards replied, nodding in affirmation.
Seldom do presidential hopefuls suggest the time for a revolution is dawning, but Mr. Edwards is exhibiting a fresh ferocity in his second run at the White House. . . . The charm and optimism that characterized his campaign in 2004 are now fused with an urgent tone of anger and aggression as he seeks to present himself as a leading alternative to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Those who thought Howard Dean was crazy in 2004 had yet to see John Edwards in 2008. Meanwhile, one Linda Hirshman, blogging at The New Republic, is making Hitler comparisons. What's novel about this is that George W. Bush isn't Hitler; Tim Russert is:
Last summer the Nevada Democrats pulled out of a debate sponsored by Fox News. Loaded, racist and all the rest, the Dems decided it was incoherent for them to pretend Fox was a media outlet like any other.
Tim Russert is worse, because he has the mantle of the venerable NBC, network of Nipper, the radio dog. Bulletin to Democrats: Just Say No to Russert. . . .
Oh, and for you Obama and Edwards supporters, remember the story about the man who didn't stand up to the Nazis when they came for his neighbors.
First, they came for the shrews . . .
The
Safety Dance
USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham makes this odd observation in a column about
Barack Obama and black voters:
"I just don't want African-American voters to feel somehow that it can't be done and then not vote their preference," Obama said of his candidacy during a telephone conversation with me shortly after his Clarendon County speech. He also acknowledged the fears that some people have about his safety.
"We're hearing, particularly from African-American women, on this issue. Michelle and I have talked about it and prayed about it," and the couple is confident about the job the Secret Service is doing to protect him. Concerns about his safety "shouldn't be an excuse or a reason" for blacks not voting for him, he said.
Now it's certainly true that assassination is an enormous risk for anyone who becomes president. By our count, the annual murder rate for U.S. presidents since 1789 is nearly 40 times as high as the 2006 murder rate in Detroit--and that doesn't count unsuccessful assassination attempts. Even presidential candidates have been targets: Robert F. Kennedy was murdered in 1968, and George Wallace survived an attempt four years later.
Still, the claim that black voters are shying away from Obama out of concern for his safety doesn't add up. "I'm worried about your safety" is something a prospective candidate's loved ones might tell him to dissuade him from running. But are we really expected to believe that people who don't know Obama from Adam are going to vote for Hillary Clinton because they're less concerned about her safety? It sounds to us as though the women who are telling Obama this just aren't that into him and are trying to spare his feelings.
Lord of the Flies
The New York Times's op-ed columnists have recently emerged from two years in
isolation, and it appears that they responded to their exile by turning on each
other. Last week Maureen
Dowd had a column that consisted entirely of a transcript of Tim Russert
(the Nazi!) interviewing Vice President Cheney. Oh, the interview didn't actually
take place; it was a product of Maureen Dowd's imagination. A few days later
David
Brooks struck back with an imaginary Democratic debate transcript.
Earlier in the week Brooks had a column noting that according to a new survey, most Americans "are satisfied with their family income." This prompted former Enron adviser Paul Krugman to complain, in yesterday's column, about "pundits who claim that Americans don't care about economic inequality."
Can't they all just get along?
Wannabe
Pundits
"Questions could be worse," writes Gregg Doyel of CBS:
Police are still looking for Tony Hughes' murderer. And the U.S. government is still trying to find a way out of Iraq before Kettani, Kaipo and another wave of Navy graduates have to go there.
Can you guess what Doyel is writing about? Here's a hint: Tony Hughes was the brother of Robert Hughes, a Notre Dame freshman who plays running back for the university's football team.
That's right, Doyel thinks that Iraq is somehow relevant to an article about last weekend's Navy-Notre Dame football game. (Navy won, 46-44 in triple overtime.) And it doesn't seem to occur to him that many of those midshipmen may want to go to Iraq. It's not as if they went to Annapolis to avoid the draft.
Another
'Hate' Hoax
"A George Washington University student who told school officials that
someone had drawn swastikas on her dormitory room door was actually responsible
for the incidents, a university spokesman said," the Washington Post reports:
The student, who was not identified, had complained that swastikas appeared on her door over a period of several days last month. A hidden camera positioned in response to the postings in Mitchell Hall, one of the school dormitories, led police to interview the student, who admitted responsibility, according to spokesman Tracy Schario.
The student will not face student judicial action and officials will determine whether any District or federal laws were broken, Schario said.
Over the weekend, another GW student was identified in connection with the writing of racial epithets and the drawing of swastikas on doors in another dorm called New Hall, Schario said. The U.S. Attorney's office is reviewing the New Hall case to determine whether criminal charges should be filed. That student has been barred from campus.
So let's see if we have this straight: Paint a swastika on someone's door, and you're persona non grata and may face federal charges. Paint a swastika on your own door, and hey, enjoy the buffet!
This column is averse to the idea of "hate crime" laws. They strike us as uncomfortably close to criminalizing speech, and also as enhancing rather than diffusing the power of hateful ideas.
But if we have hate-crime laws, hoaxes like this ought to be prosecuted at least as vigorously as "real" hate crimes. The argument for hate-crime laws is that such crimes make innocent people feel as if they are targets because they are black or Jewish or gay. That is no less true if the perpetrator and the "victim" are one and the same. The judge who sentenced California professor Kerri Francis Dunn to a year in prison for vandalizing her own car with racial slurs had the right idea.
Do
They Believe the Hype?
This column is highly skeptical of global warmism, and we wonder if those who
claim to believe in it really do. An example of why is this BusinessWeek story
titled "Clinton Sees Opportunity in Climate Woes." That's Hillary
Clinton, of course:
Global warming hits particularly hard at the poor, she said.
"One in four low-income families have already missed a mortgage or rent payment because of rising energy costs," Clinton said.
This is a complete non sequitur. Rising energy costs are supposed to be a solution to global warming, not a problem caused by it. What's more, if temperatures rise in winter, that ought to reduce the amount of money low-income families would have to spend heating their homes. Mrs. Clinton seems to be invoking "global warming" here just as a politically correct slogan, devoid of meaning.
Higher oil prices, by the way, don't necessarily mean less carbon dioxide emissions. Bloomberg reminds us that there are other fuels:
Now that the price of coal is at a historic low relative to oil, there's no stopping consumers and producers alike from embracing Al Gore's nightmare.
A ton of U.S. coal is so cheap at about $47 that European utilities will pay $50 to ship it across the Atlantic, according to Galbraith's Ltd., a 263-year-old London shipbroker. While oil and coal cost the same as recently as 1998, West Texas Intermediate crude is five times more expensive after climbing to a record $96.24 on Nov. 1.
Peabody Energy Corp., Consol Energy Inc. and Arch Coal Inc., the three biggest U.S. coal companies, forecast the largest increase in exports in 20 years, degrading the call for a moratorium on coal plants by former U.S. Vice President and this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore. Coal use worldwide has grown 27 percent since 2002, three times faster than crude, said BP Plc. U.S. East Coast coal has risen 71 percent, while oil tripled on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Most sources of energy involve burning something and thereby generating CO2. The big exception is nuclear power, but by and large fear of global warming isn't enough to overcome environmentalists' fear of the atom--which leads us to think that they don't take global warming all that seriously.
This
Just Makes Us Cry
Washington's WTOP-FM is doing a series on congressional perks. Here's one we
didn't know about:
Many airlines allow [congressmen] to book multiple flights for the same trip and pay only for the one they use, without any fees or penalties.
The only other air travelers who get such treatment from the airlines are the uber-frequent fliers.
Congress was close to losing this perk last month when the Air Transport Association opined that it violated a ban on gifts.
The Senate ethics committee quickly ruled that Senators could keep booking multiple flights without paying any fees and without fear of violating new tough ethics standards.
We're so disillusioned. We really thought the Democrats would be different!
'Berkshire
Has Protested'
Yesterday we
noted that Warren Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, was complaining
that he doesn't pay enough in taxes. We noted that this is by choice: He could
make a donation to the Treasury if he wanted; and he has taken steps to shield
his assets from the death tax.
It turns out Berkshire Hathaway isn't eager to maximize its tax burden either. This is from the company's 10-Q, a quarterly earnings report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (page 8):
Berkshire and its subsidiaries' income tax returns are continuously under audit by Federal and various state, local and foreign taxing authorities. Berkshire's consolidated Federal income tax return liabilities have been settled with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") through 1998. The IRS has completed its audits of the 1999 through 2004 tax returns and has proposed adjustments to increase Berkshire's tax liabilities which Berkshire has protested. The examinations are in the IRS' appeals process. The unsettled issues primarily relate to the timing of deductions for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses and other liabilities of property and casualty insurance subsidiaries.
Now of course we can't really criticize Berkshire for trying to minimize its tax liability. Its executives, after all, have an obligation to their shareholders. But it does make Buffett look all the more silly when he complains taxes are too low while shielding his personal fortune from Uncle Sam.
Homer
Nods
Sen. Chuck Schumer made his comments on torture, quoted in an item yesterday
(since corrected), in 2004, not 2007.
The
Democratic Primary Heats Up
"Living Donkey Meat Ad Sparks Controversy"--headline, Reuters, Nov. 3
And We Thought
It Was Winning Four Games
"Series' Goal Is Advancing Mideast Peace"--headline, Arizona Daily
Star (Tucson), Nov. 5
What
Happened to His Legs?
"Man Hit by Semi Walks Away With Broken Arm"--headline, Times (Munster,
Ind.), Nov. 6
Look
Out Below!
"School Might Drop 'Chrysler' "--headline, Detroit News, Nov. 6
All
Your Base Are Belong to Us
"Survey Eyes Hovering College Parents"--headline, Associated Press,
Nov. 5
News You Can Use
- "Clinton: Bring Your Mops, Vacuum Cleaners and Brushes"--headline,
ABCNews.com,
Nov. 5
- "Got $1,000 for Lunch? Try This White Truffle Bagel"--headline,
Reuters,
Nov. 6
- "Don't Flush Your Leftover Meds--Mix With Kitty Litter"--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 5
Bottom
Stories of the Day
"Groups Call for More Herring Regulations"--headline, Associated Press,
Nov. 5
And
by the Way, He Served in Vietnam
The BBC reports on the thaw in U.S.-French relations following Nicolas Sarkozy's
election:
The last word comes from John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate once condemned by an unnamed Bush administration official as "looking French."
Mr Kerry says that the period of tense relations is behind both countries now and proper respect has been restored.
"President Sarkozy has forcefully and overtly expressed his affection for the US, has already been over here and met with President Bush.
"There's a very different relationship in the workings of our government right now and people know that.
"People have always had affection for the relationship between the US and France--it goes way back and I think that's been renewed."
Mr Kerry does look slightly French--but these days, it no longer matters.
So Kerry does look French! Remember when he complained that this observation was an example of la politique de la destruction personnelle?
But what does the Beeb mean, "it no longer matters"? Haven't they heard he's running again in 2016?
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michele Schiesser, Michael Segal, Jim Moran, Matt Kaufman, Ed Lasky, Evan Maxwell, Mark Nicholas, James Eckert, David Jurewicz, John Williamson, Rick Geiger, Fred Worth, Richard Reeb, Joe Hopkins, Jim Holm, Gregory Meade, Mark Zoeller, John Beukema, Cliff Thier, Mike Stevens, Ronald Morris, Stewart Seman, Nathan James, Bruce Goldman, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Chris Mario and Joel Griffith. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: A Sarbox for housing: How to restrict lending to the poor for years to come.
- Bret Stephens: Did the Allies in World War II "lower themselves to the level of their enemies"?
- Brendan Simms: John Bolton's new memoir shows that he's no neocon.
