 |
|
Novermber
12, 2002, 9:10 a.m.
Fritz
Mondale, the life of his party. The “collegial” Jim Jeffords. A
Muslim heroine — and martyr? Etc.
|
|
ow out of touch is Walter Mondale? In his debate with Norm Coleman, he
said, “He runs with the pro-life crowd!” It’s been a while
since I heard a Democrat, or anyone “pro-choice,” say “pro-life”
— and mean it, of course, as a pejorative! Poor Mondale didn’t
know that the abortion people stopped saying “pro-life” long
ago, if they ever really did. Now, if they don’t say “anti-abortion,”
they say “anti-choice.”
A true pro-lifer
doesn’t care what he’s called (just don’t call him late
for dinner). He’s happy to be called anti-abortion, and he’s
even happy to be called anti-choice, if the choice involved is that to
abort a child.
Still, control of
the language is vitally important. It drives Kate Michelman nuts if you
say, ‘The mother should have a choice whether to abort her baby.”
She’ll jump in and say, “Hey, watch your words, first of all!
It’s not ‘mother’ and ‘baby,’ it’s ‘woman’
and ‘fetus.’”
Ah, Orwell, always.
Following my complaints about the use of “anti-war,” a reader
wrote in to say, “Instead of pro-war and anti-war, why don’t
we say pro-appeasement and anti-appeasement?”
Political language
can go on forever — and every Impromptu ever written, for all time,
could address it.
Here is CBS’s Harry Smith questioning Trent Lott: “The margin
of victory is so narrow in so many of these races, and it’s just
a razor-thin difference in some cases between the parties: Does that give
you a responsibility to govern from the middle or, with the majority,
do you go all the way to the right?”
The validity of the
question aside, have you ever heard a journalist question a Democrat
that way? Did one ever question Tom Daschle like that, when he had merely
50 senators and was given control by the machinations of Jim Jeffords?
Did any journalist ever press Bill Clinton on the fact that he was elected
president, twice, without a majority? What kind of “responsibility”
did that give Clinton?
Harry Smith evoked
a memory in me. The year is 1988, November. George H. W. Bush has just
smashed Michael Dukakis. And Andrea Mitchell of NBC News asks him, at
his first press conference as president-elect, “You were awfully
hard on liberals during this campaign. What have you to say to them now,
as Americans? Can you assure them that you will respect them and include
them in what you do?” (I’m paraphrasing.)
It was breathtaking
— not because there was anything wrong with it in itself, but because
the question never, ever could have gone the other way. (“Mr. Dukakis,
what do you have to say to conservative Americans . . . ?”)
Our friend Mr. Jeffords is acting awfully funny about now. Asked whether
he expected “retribution,” he said, “The Senate’s
a pretty collegial group. You learn it’s best to get along.”
Oh? Is that a lesson
one needs to learn from James Jeffords — who ditched his party of
many decades when the Senate was split 50-50 and handed control of that
body to the opposite party? That was “collegial”?
But he had to serve
his conscience, you might say. Okay, fine: but remember that he
partook of two acts. He left the Republican party to become an independent.
That was one. But he — he by himself — threw control of the
Senate to the Democratic party, by choosing to caucus with Mr. Daschle.
That was the second act. And if he’d wanted to do that, he should’ve
done the semi-honest thing and joined the Democratic party outright.
I could go on about
Jeffords forever . . . but I will spare you.
We’re all supposed to buy now that Richard Gephardt was a moderate,
a centrist. Well, I don’t buy that. Do you? It’s silly. He became
a “moderate” when the Democrats lost the ’02 election and
the left wing got angry and demanding. Sure, Gephardt is a moderate in
comparison to, say, Ron Dellums or Barbara Lee. But not being a pro-Communist
(and, yes, I considered those words, very, very carefully, knowing a great
deal about Dellums and Lee) should not make a Democrat a “moderate.”
If Gephardt is a moderate, what does that make Lieberman (despite his
2000 flip-flops)? Attila the Hun?
In the above paragraph, I was speaking of Lieberman’s flip-flops
in 2000, not 2,000 flip-flops, although there were a great many:
Social Security reform; school choice; affirmative action . . .
A couple of remarks from Nancy Pelosi — and about those remarks.
She said, “We have to be forceful in making our distinctions. It’s
very hard. We don’t have the bully pulpit. The president does.”
Somehow, I don’t think she’ll have trouble getting on television
— or having reporters, actors, and many others echo her views.
She also said, referring
to Republicans, “They have to perform. We have to point out where
the public’s interests are not served.” So the Democrats don’t
have to “perform”? They don’t have to co-govern? That’s
the attitude, and it makes a huge difference.
Everywhere, Jennifer Granholm, the new governor of Michigan, is described
as “telegenic.” That is strictly a codeword, and a regrettable
one. Jennifer Granholm is beautiful. In fact, she’s a total babe
— everyone who’s ever met her knows it. What’s wrong with
stating the simple fact that she’s beautiful? It’s certainly
not to her credit; it’s just a lucky break that came her way. “Telegenic”
my . . .
The Wall Street Journal’s Dan Henninger, in his Friday column,
had a line I loved: Terry McAuliffe was so wracked by Florida 2000 that
“he poured millions of Hollywood’s box-office receipts into
the state to burn down the Bush brothers.”
Of course, I loved
all the other lines in that column too.
May I tell you what the Democrats said about Tim Hutchinson, in their
successful campaign to defeat him in Arkansas? Here’s what they said
in one radio ad aimed at black audiences: “If Hutchinson had it his
way, 189,000 Arkansas children could go hungry.” Children, mind you:
not just adults, with their hardy stomachs. And here’s what they
said in another ad: “[Hutchinson has] made a career in Washington
of threatening the education and economic future of black children in
Arkansas.”
Not just blacks,
mind you, but black children. Hutchinson made a career of it.
Folks, the Democrats
at one time may have been the party of racial healing and harmony. I’m
prepared to accept that they were (hold the mail, please — I have
enough). But it’s beyond question that they’re the party of
racial antagonism today. That question has long been closed.
Here is Linda Chavez’s analysis of the election. All I can say, in
the manner of the Jews, is, “From her mouth to God’s ear”:
The Democrats were
big losers Tuesday night, and not just because they lost a half-dozen
seats in the House and their slim grip on the Senate. What this election
proved is that the politics of fear isn’t working anymore. Over
the last three national elections, Democrats have tried to scare Americans
into voting for them, especially blacks. But fear isn’t a viable
political platform, as Republican candidates proved on Election Day.
I don’t know.
Gimme a few more elections, and we’ll see.
In my neighborhood today, I saw a woman wearing a button that said “No
War on Iraq.” Interesting wording that. No recognition that this
would be a campaign to depose a brutal dictator and his clique. The button
said “War on Iraq,” as though we would be taking it to a country.
This is extremely dishonest, and a key element of the current debate (or
maybe that debate is over). If the U.S. and its allies deep-six Saddam
and liberate Iraq, and we see scenes of national jubilation reminiscent
of the freeing of Afghanistan, what will the likes of that woman say then?
That we have made “war on Iraq”? Will such people feel embarrassed?
Maybe — but
they won’t tell us about it.
I was pleased with one thing about the Reuters report on the big anti-war
rally in Florence: a recognition of the very strong Communist influence
in that rally. All through the 1980s, the media refused to acknowledge
the major Communist role in anti-American, anti-NATO demonstrations in
Europe. This was a sore point of the Reagan administration, and of all
of us on the “right.”
At the top of the
Reuters report, we read that the demonstrators “sang Communist hymns.”
And the final quotation was from “Sean Murray, 29, a member of the
Workers’ Revolution.”
Yes, exactly.
Folks, if you read one story this month, please make it the New York
Times story
about a Somalian Muslim heroine in Holland — and the Muslims who
are intent on killing her. It says so much about what we’ve been
discussing and wrestling with for the last year. The woman says, “I’ve
made [other Muslims] so angry because I’m talking from the inside,
from direct knowledge. It’s seen as treason.” She’s pushing
for “drastic changes in Dutch immigration policy.” The government,
she says — according to the Times — “should impose
Dutch law on men who beat their wives and daughters, even if the Muslim
clergy say it is permissible. It should also end teaching the immigrants
in their own language and stop paying for the more than 700 Islamic clubs
. . . ”
This miraculous woman’s
name is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Let us remember it — and let us toast her
while she’s still alive.
You really want to punish the exercise fiend and sniping serial killer
John Muhammad? Deny him exercise in prison. Nothing drives the exercise
addict crazier. To deny such a person the opportunity to exercise is to
deny the hopeless alcoholic his bottle or the junkie his needle. In fact,
it may be worse. I’ve seen denial-of-exercise rage, and it’s
as volcanic and frightening as any other kind of rage.
There will be those
who know exactly what I’m talking about; and those who, not
knowing, will merely roll their eyes. If you don’t know the hold
of exercise addiction, count your blessings.
More election news? Remember the “politically correct coffee”
referendum in Berkeley?
Well, here’s
what Reuters had to say about it:
Too little, too
latte. [These guys are getting too cute.]
Berkeley voters
on Tuesday poured cold water on a ballot measure that would have made
their California city the first in the nation to mandate “politically
correct” coffee — deciding nothing should come between a thirsty
consumer and a cup of mocha-java.
Berkeley’s
ballot Measure O sought to slap tough new restrictions on the city’s
many cafés, bars, and restaurants by requiring them to sell only
coffee that was organic, grown in environmentally friendly conditions,
or “fair trade” — meaning growers are paid at least $1.26
per pound.
But with coffee-shop
owners facing up to six months in jail for selling the wrong brew, city
voters soured on the measure and it trailed by almost three to one.
Supporters of “Fair
Trade” coffee had hoped to win victory in Berkeley, saying the
city’s liberal electorate would back their drive to pay more for
coffee and protect rural agricultural workers from wild swings in commodity
markets.
But the coffee
campaign provoked a sharp reaction from major retailers including Starbucks
Corp., Peet’s Coffee and Tea, Inc., and the National Coffee Association,
which spent thousands of dollars on mailers in an attempt to sway voters
their way.
Odd how life can
resemble a South Park episode.
Several Impromptuses ago, I wrote about the plan of the Italian government
to go around inspecting Italian restaurants throughout the world to verify
that the food was authentically Italian. The inspectors would grant a
Certificate of Authenticity — or a wet noodle, presumably.
This story was my
“Libertarian Outrage of the Week” (or something like that).
A reader wrote in,
“Your report makes me want to try to open the first Olive Garden
franchise in Italy. No one would eat there (I’m surprised anyone
eats in them here), but it’s all about the statement.”
I loved that letter
— but I, for one, think Olive Garden’s just great!
Guys, I know I promised you more Great First Lines in this column, but
there’s just too much other stuff going on at the moment. Please
stayed tuned.
Instead, I will close with a headline I just read, regarding Pelosi’s
ascension: “A Change that Pleases Both Parties.” That was a
superb headline. And it flies in the face of one of my most cherished
golf expressions, which applies to life broadly: “Every shot pleases
somebody.”
Later.
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
