I hope that Condit does not resign. I think he should resign.
[53]Why Condit Flummoxes Democrats
Writing in Salon, Joshua Micah Marshall complains that Democrats
aren't being vigorous enough in their defense of Bill Clinton. Huh? We
thought Clinton was out of office and it was time to move on. But
Marshall's claim is that "conservatives are using the Gary Condit
controversy to renew their attacks on Bill Clinton," and that
Democrats, by refusing to criticize Condit, are letting them get away
with it:
Democrats' silence tends to retrospectively tarnish the rightness
of standing up for Clinton during the manic foolery of impeachment.
Defending Clinton during impeachment wasn't about taking a stand
for scofflaws. It was about taking a stand in favor of privacy and
against the craven manipulation of the mechanisms of the law to
serve partisan ends.
Rather than being similar, the Clinton and Condit cases could
scarcely be more different: In the Clinton case, out-of-control
prosecutors used a trumped-up crime to shoehorn their way into
getting at private, consensual sex. In the Condit case, Condit's
defenders have used sex as a talisman to ward off attention to what
is potentially a crime of the very highest order. . . .
Republicans are clearly intent on using the scandal to drive home
the argument already in play in many parts of the country: That
national Democrats are indifferent to questions of values and
proper conduct. You wonder why so many Democrats seem intent on
making that argument as easy as possible to make.
We can clear up this mystery. We're prepared to believe that for
Marshall, defending Clinton during impeachment was "about" privacy and
fairness. But no one can claim with a straight face that congressional
Democrats were standing on principle.
Clinton's "trumped-up crime"--the underlying offense that led him to
lie under oath and obstruct justice, the crimes for which he was
impeached--was sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a very serious
matter--or so we were told by congressional Democrats who took up
Anita Hill's cause in 1991. If they really believed in privacy and
fairness, they would have told Hill to take a hike and limited their
attack on Clarence Thomas to matters of ideology, competence, judicial
temperament and so forth.
The common thread that explains Democrats' responses to the Thomas and
Clinton cases is political expediency: Allegations of sexual
misconduct are a big deal, in the Democrats' view, if they can be used
to keep a conservative off the Supreme Court. They're no big
deal--indeed, making such accusations is outrageous and scurrilous--if
they may force a popular Democratic president out of the White House.
Democrats cannot approach the Condit scandal in a principled way for
the simple reason that when it comes to sex-related misconduct, they
have no principles. Even political expediency is no guide in this
case, because the political stakes--a single House seat--are so low.
The party's discomfiture over Condit is the result of a process of
corruption that Anita Hill began and Bill Clinton consummated.
[54]A Ban on Intern-al Affairs?
Rep. Scott McInnis, a Colorado Republican, urges the House Ethics
Committee to pass a rule stipulating that "it's unethical for a United
States congressman to have a sexual relationship with an intern." Most
of the reactions we've heard have been along the lines of journalist
Steve Roberts's comment on CNN's "[55]Late Edition":
I think that's absurd to make if official. But I, as a college
professor, send young women to be interns every day, and I feel
extremely strongly that Gary Condit or anybody in the position of
responsibility has a personal responsibility to conduct themselves
well.
Why, though, is it "absurd to make it official"? Presumably the
college where Roberts teaches has rules barring him from having
affairs with students. As Slate's [56]Dahlia Lithwick writes:
Politicians are immune from the sexual harassment systems that
protect young women in corporate workplaces and academia, where the
presumption has become that the older male will say no or face
brutal consequences. These kinds of advances would cost your
political science professor his job. In an office, it would be
sexual harassment. In D.C., it's still 1951, and young girls are
still curvy temptresses.
Why should politicians be immune from the laws they impose on the rest
of us? Wasn't the [57]Contract With America supposed to force
congressmen to abide by them?
McInnis, meanwhile, takes a harder line on Condit, telling the
[58]Denver Post: "I look at this through my own two daughters. If it
were me, my behavior would be, as they say, 'somewhat aggressive'--my
hands would be around his neck."
[59]Clinton's Postpresidency
The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton will soon be "plunging
far more assertively into domestic politics than most ex-presidents
have--by courting big donors and talking strategy with presidential
aspirants and other Democrats. He met last week with a group of
freshman House Democrats to offer advice about the party's agenda; he
will attend his first formal Democratic fundraiser, a golf outing,
next month." The Post gives yet another weepy account of Clinton's
difficulty adjusting to ordinary life:
Accompanying Clinton to an automated teller machine, one aide saw
that he was keeping a balance of a million dollars in an ordinary
checking account. Terence McAuliffe, a close friend, recalled
Clinton dropping off the line three times during a conversation
while he fumbled to use his portable phone. When the basement in
his Chappaqua home flooded, badly damaging a rare book collection
that Clinton treasured, his home insurer told him to get over it;
basement floods weren't covered.
All together now: Bill, we feel your pain!
[60]Rid of Radek
Lee Radek, the head of the Justice Department's public-integrity
division who was an obstacle to investigations of Clinton's and Gore's
fundraising abuses, is transferred to a new job as senior counsel in
the Justice Department's asset-forfeiture and money-laundering
section. The Washington Times quotes Assistant Attorney General
Michael Chertoff, a Bush appointee, explaining the transfer by saying,
"New leadership brings with it fresh ideas and an invigorated sense of
purpose." The new acting chief of public integrity will be Andrew
Lourie, a career prosecutor currently in the Southern Florida U.S.
attorney's office.
[61]'Fun, Not Gay Rights'
A headline in yesterday's New York Times (link requires registration)
reads: "Fun, Not Gay Rights, Is Issue at Scout Jamboree." How
out-of-touch can you get? To the Times, apparently, the Boy Scouts are
an exotic organization, known primarily for their peculiar (and, need
we add, benighted) views on homosexuality. The Times regards it as
news that the Boy Scouts do anything other than oppose the Times'
concept of "gay rights."
Coming next: A Times reporter visits a Catholic church and is
astonished to learn that it's more than an antiabortion outfit.
[62]Custer's Last Stand
A Minnesota history professor is suing his school, claiming he was
unjustly disciplined for hanging a recruiting poster depicting
[63]Gen. George Armstrong Custer and seeking soldiers to fight
"militant Sioux.'' The school forbade Jon Willand from using any more
"examples which are provocative or inflammatory'' or "phraseology
which does not manifest a clear concern for student sensibilities and
which may promote student misunderstandings.'' Willand of [64]North
Hennepin Community College, tells Reuters, "We've always had a problem
with censorship, but with political correctness hitting full tide here
within the last five or 10 years it's gotten worse.''
[65]Another Kennedy in Congress?
William Kennedy Smith, acquitted of rape in 1991, is "testing the
waters" for a run for Congress as a Democrat in Illinois, the Chicago
Sun-Times reports. Smith, 39, is a nephew of Sen. Ted Kennedy and has
been working as a physician in Chicago.
[66]Those Crazy Dutch
The Times of London reports that the Dutch Health Ministry is
subsidizing Mainline Lady, a fashion magazine for heroin addicts:
Despite its stylish appearance, the magazine is about as far
removed from Elle and Vogue as it is possible to get. The
horoscopes are in stark contrast to the usual emphasis on dieting
found in women's magazines.
Gemini readers are told that they will "finally manage to put on a
bit of weight". Capricorn addicts are promised passion and fun and advised to "make sure you have enough condoms" while Librans are
told that their doctor will "for once understand what your problem
is, instead of just prescribing methadone again".
The magazine will be nonjudgmental, the Times reports. "We treat
people like adults, offering them information so they can make healthy
choices," says editor Jasperine Schupp. "Getting them to chuck the
habit is not our first priority." After all, it wouldn't be good for
circulation.
[67]Chronic Indefatigable Syndrome
Los Angeles Times columnist Sandy Banks reports on Cindy Hart, who's waging a campaign to force her ex-husband, whom she divorced a decade
ago, to keep paying alimony:
From the bedroom of her modest Santa Barbara apartment, she mounts
her campaign with missionary zeal. She calls the White House, the
district attorney and her elected officials every week. She's made
dozens of court appearances, spent countless hours on research and
compiled 100 pages of "points and authorities" from legal cases
that support her. Her files include dozens of letters--from
everyone from her physician to the mechanic who fixes her
car--urging the district attorney to go after Tom Hart. . . .
Since 1983, she has been disabled by respiratory problems and chronic fatigue syndrome. Some days, she is too tired to rise from
bed.
Interesting how someone with "chronic fatigue syndrome" is able to
mount such an energetic crusade on behalf of her own enrichment.
[68]Oh, What a Feeling
We're worried. Apparently you can now be hauled into court for making
a pun. Jodee Berry, a former waitress at a Florida Hooters restaurant,
is suing the restaurant's owner, alleging that she was promised a new Toyota for winning a beer-serving contest. The actual prize: a toy
Yoda, as in a "Star Wars" doll. "A corporation can't lead their
employees on like that," Berry tells the Associated press. "It's not
good business ethics. They can't do that to people."
[69]Flaming Pop Tarts
A couple in Washington Township, N.J., "is suing the Kellogg Co. for
$100,000 over a house fire they say was caused by a flaming Pop-Tart," the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. Brenda Hurff put the pastry in the
toaster and left it there when she drove her kids to nursery school.
"When she returned 10 to 20 minutes later, smoke was pouring from the
house and firefighters were on the scene," the paper reports. The
Hurffs' lawyer, Mauro Casci, tells the Inquirer: "I never thought a
Pop-Tart could turn into a blowtorch."
Two thoughts occur to us. The first is the obvious one: It's pretty
stupid to leave the toaster running when you leave the house. (Pop Tarts boxes even carry a warning against leaving "the toaster
appliance unattended due to possible risk of fire.")
The second is that Flaming Pop Tarts would be a great name for a band.
Their first project should be a cover of the [70]Talking Heads' 1983
hit "Burning Down the House."
(Ira Stoll helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to C.E. Dobkin,
Rosslyn Smith, Greg Buete, Damian Bennett and Matt Coldwell. If you
have a tip, e-mail us at [71]opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please
include the URL.)
opinionjournal.com
tom watson tosiwmee |
