Shrill Seekers
URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002661
Remember when a reporter asked White House press secretary Ari Fleischer about some dopey comments erstwhile TV host Bill Maher had made in the wake of Sept. 11? Fleischer remarked that "need to watch what they say," prompting cries of censorship from the political left. "The notion that Americans 'need to watch what they say' is antithetical to the idea of what it means to be an American," wrote one James Shannon. Mother Jones said Fleischer had "lashed out with an ominous warning." The New York Times said in a news article that "Mr. Fleischer's words . . . suggested that the White House was seeking to curb criticism during the crisis."
Well, Fleischer probably should have watched what he said; his choice of words left him open to being quoted out of context. (If you read the full text of his comments, it's clear that he wasn't advocating or threatening censorship, only expressing an opinion that Maher's remarks had been in poor taste.) But where's all the civil libertarian outrage over Tom Daschle's remarks about talk radio? Here's what the soon to be former Senate majority leader said:
"What happens when Rush Limbaugh attacks those of us in public life is that people aren't satisfied just to listen. They want to act because they get emotionally invested. And so, you know, the threats to those of us in public life go up dramatically, on our families and on us, in a way that's very disconcerting."
Reuters notes that Daschle "declined to go into detail about the nature of the threats" (though the "news" service makes a gratuitous reference to the anthrax letter Daschle's office received last year). WorldNetDaily has more extensive quotes from Daschle, who claims that "when I was accused of being an obstructionist, there was a corresponding and very significant increase in the number of issues that my family and I had to deal with."
Daschle even seems to liken conservative radio hosts to Islamic fanatics:
"You know, we see it in foreign countries, and we think, 'Well, my God, how can this religious fundamentalism become so violent?' Well, it's that same shrill rhetoric, it's that same shrill power that motivates. You know, somebody says something, and then it becomes a little more shrill the next time, and then more shrill the next time, and pretty soon it's a foment that becomes physical in addition to just verbal. And that's happening in this country. And I worry about where, over the course of the next decade, this is all going to go."
On his Web site, Rush Limbaugh responds to the South Dakota senator:
Did Daschle get this upset about the anthrax letters, or when Alec Baldwin screamed that people should stone Congressman Henry Hyde and his family to death? . . . He's so sure these phantom people are my listeners, but where's the proof? Isn't it interesting that this is the first we've heard of this? I guess the Democrats got their polling data in, and it told them to smear all of you [listeners] as violent thugs.
There can of course be no condoning those who make threats against public officials. But Daschle's charge that Limbaugh (and other unnamed commentators) incite violence is simply scurrilous. It's the sort of remark that, when coming from a government official, usually excites the alarm of civil libertarians. Will they pillory Daschle the way they did Fleischer?
The 52nd Seat?
Republicans, who now hold a 51-48 majority in the new Senate, are hoping to pad their advantage by picking up a seat in Louisiana's runoff Dec. 7. They may succeed. Baton Rouge's WBRZ-TV reports that Republican Suzanne Terrell leads incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu 48% to 40% in the latest poll.
The Associated Press recounts this profile in courage:
Faced with a difficult choice in the Capitol and a difficult election in Louisiana, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu stood in the well of the Senate until time to vote had nearly expired.
Finally, with the issue already settled, she cast her vote with President Bush and the Republicans, and against a last-minute Democratic attempt to change legislation creating a new Department of Homeland Security. It was important, she said afterward, "for me to be able to express that I'm for the creation of this department and I've been for the creation of this department." . . .
"I think she did the right thing," said Louisiana's other Democratic senator, John Breaux, who supported the proposal that Landrieu opposed. If Landrieu had voted the other way, "It would have created a new issue for a whole new set of ads" for Republicans to air in her runoff election on Dec. 7, he added.
Gore Descends Into Self-Parody
"Gore Vows More Challenges, Plots 2004 Strategy" reads the headline of the article dated Dec. 2, 2002. Hey, wait a second--how is it that we're able to link to an article that won't be published for 11 days? The answer is that it's a fake--a satire written by David Burge, which CNSNews.com published in December 2000, while the Florida election controversy was still unresolved.
Heeding the advice of his family and close advisors, Gore soon after relocated his government-in-exile to Pleasant Pines Sanctuary, a sprawling residential campus in the wooded hills of northern Virginia, where CNSNews.com satirist David Burge obtained an exclusive interview with the Democratic hopeful. . . .
Gore said life at Pleasant Pines has also given him a new sense of spirituality. "Whenever I find myself getting depressed, I turn to Jesus," he said, tracing a figure 8 in the air with his forefinger. "He lives down in room 4C, and plays a mean game of ping pong."
Despite his numerous legal setbacks, Gore said he is "optimistic that the tide has turned and momentum is on our side." . . .
Methodically combing a handful of strawberry yogurt into his hair, Gore said he has never wavered in his conviction that he is the rightful winner of the election.
"It's not about me, " he avers, "it's about the right of the American people to have the rightful, smartest, deservingest and most bestest president in office, isn't it, Father?"
Upbeat and jovial, Gore enjoyed several random chuckles as he discusses his steadfast conviction that he will eventually earn his rightful chair in the Oval Office. "My advisor, Dr. Jim, says I may soon earn outdoor privileges," he said.
"And boy, I can't wait to announce my re-election campaign."
Now here's an actual story about Al Gore, circa late 2002 (today, to be exact) by the Washington Post's Lloyd Grove, who interviewed Gore at a New York restaurant, where the reporter and the pol shared a good cry:
A dry-eyed Tipper suddenly had two blubbering men to console. "It's okay to cry," she said. "Our families are truly important to us--people that we love and who love us. When we talk about the memories that we have, if you're emotionally attached to that memory of a particular time or situation, it just pops right up."
We asked how devastating it felt two years ago to come so close to occupying the White House--even garnering a half-million more popular votes than George W. Bush--and still come up short.
"Are you trying to make me cry again?" Al demanded. . . .
"I was surprised at the amount of attention [Al's beard] got . . .," Tipper said. "But men don't have that many ways to change--or as many ways as women do. Know what I mean?"
"No, I don't," Al replied.
"Clothing choices, for instance," Tipper explained. "I can wear pants. I can wear a skirt. I can wear a dress."
"I could, too."
"Yeah--you and J. Edgar Hoover," Tipper needled. At which both groaned: "Oooooooh!"
Grove also reports that when he asked the erstwhile veep if he "knows what he's getting into" by agreeing to host "Saturday Night Live," Gore "emitted a high-pitched giggle."
'Poor Mr. Smith'
Last week our friend Russ Smith wrote a very amusing review for the New York Sun of Al and Tipper Gore's new book, which is supposed to offer an "examination of how the American family has evolved since the 1960s." The tome is called "Joined at the Heart," but from reading Smith's review, we'd say a better title would have been "You Don't Say":
As an academic exercise, let me begin--with a straight face--by summing up what the husband-wife team found out about the state of the family. Did you know, for example, that as opposed to a generation ago, there are more mixed racial marriages today? That immigrants grapple with both assimilation and a reverence for the traditions of their former countries? That a growing number of children are currently born out of wedlock, with single mothers carrying the burden? Or that a growing number of gay couples adopt children? And that due to economic conditions, the proliferation of the media and technology (cable television, cell phones, the Internet), families are "stressed-out" and haven't the time to speak with each other?
Smith's review prompted a sanctimonious letter from Martin Peretz, honcho of The New Republic and Gore's friend and most loyal supporter:
What Mr. Smith calls a summation of the Gores' assertions is actually his own grab-bag of what are, in effect, only their topic sentences. I know this for a fact: They have actually read the most exacting recent scholarship on the family and tried to crystallize a coherent viewpoint from it. . . . A senior Harvard historian of the family in its journey since the Middle Ages, told me that he rarely gets more weighty questions about, for example, the role of children in society from other scholars than those he got from Mr. Gore. . . . Poor Mr. Smith. He can't abide people writing about love.
Peretz's humorless letter is a bit embarrassing, but in a weird way, we can't help admiring a guy so loyal he's willing to risk making himself look foolish for the sake of a friend. |
