- The Washington Times - Tuesday, October 30, 2001

Family feud
"A bizarre chapter in the Udall political dynasty is opening in rural Arizona, where two cousins of [Democratic] Reps. Tom and Mark Udall are eyeing a new, open House seat in the home state of their family patriarchs, ex-Reps. Stewart and Mo Udall," Roll Call reports.
"Setting the stage for an unprecedented family feud within the national battle for the House, however, Steve and Chris Udall could run against each other in a potential swing district. Steve Udall, the Apache County attorney, is a Democrat. Chris Udall, a field director for [Arizona Republican] Rep. J.D. Hayworth since 1995, is a Republican."
Mr. Hayworth told reporter John Mercurio: "Boy, now that would be quite a family feud. We'd have to get Richard Dawson out of retirement for that one."

'Moronic' McKinney
"Sometimes a politician is so aggressively stupid it simply becomes a moral obligation to point it out, for fear the contagion will spread," Jonah Goldberg says in National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).
"Now is such a moment. I am referring, of course, to one of America's most pugnaciously ignorant politicians Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia."
In an op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post, Mrs. McKinney claimed that her "right to speak" was endangered by criticism of her Oct. 12 letter apologizing to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. In her letter, the Democrat said that New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani should not have turned down the prince's $10 million donation to victims of the terror attacks, and that she and others agreed with him about the need to change U.S. policy toward Israel and, in any case, she would be happy to use the money for destitute blacks, of which there are so many in this country.
"Criticizing people for saying or writing stupid or wrong things is not a violation of free-speech rights but a celebration of them," Mr. Goldberg points out. "Ms. McKinney thinks she's a hero for saying unpopular things. But a bad idea doesn't become a good one simply because it is unpopular."
But "the real kicker," says Mr. Goldberg, was when Mrs. McKinney accused her critics of racism by saying: "I believe that when it comes to major foreign policy issues, many prefer to have black people seen and not heard."
Mr. Goldberg says: "It's offensive because, in her arrogance, she assumes that anybody who disagrees with her is not only wrong, but racist.
"And, it's moronic oh, golly it's moronic on all sorts of levels. Leave aside the fact that if Americans don't care what blacks have to say about foreign policy, then she needs to explain why I keep finding these quotes in my morning paper by Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. It's also dimwitted because you simply cannot assume the role of free-speech champion while simultaneously accusing everyone who disagrees with you of racism."

'Powerless' soldiers
Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney, in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post yesterday, asserted that she is the protector of U.S. military personnel, who are otherwise "powerless."
The Georgia Democrat said she has introduced legislation to override an executive order denying overtime pay for servicemen after 400 days of deployment within two years. Miss McKinney said she was "merely fighting for powerless Americans who are putting their lives on the line to protect our nation and our freedoms."

Shielding an extremist
"The chairman of the Democratic Party is on record: People who attempt to block Al Sharpton's influence 'will be asked to leave,'" New York Post columnist John Podhoretz writes.
"No, this is not a joke and Democrats in New York and elsewhere should be very, very frightened by the ideological and personal coup scored by America's worst demagogue," he said.
"Terry McAuliffe, the head of the Democratic National Committee, came to New York City 10 days ago in an effort to bring the party together. This extraordinary step was made necessary because key supporters of the man who lost the mayoral runoff, Freddy Ferrer, were actively flirting with an endorsement of Republican nominee Michael Bloomberg."
Mr. Ferrer's supporters had accused winner Mark Green of racism because, among other things, anonymous pre-election phone calls said, "Al Sharpton has waited a long time to get his hands on our city. Freddy Ferrer will give it to him." They ended with the words: "This is Sharpton's chance. Will you keep it from him?"
The columnist said, "Every single word spoken in those phone calls was true and unexceptionable." But Mr. McAuliffe said that if he ever found the people responsible for the phone calls, "I am going to ask you to leave the Democratic Party."
The columnist called Mr. McAuliffe's remark "a blatant act of suck-uppery in the name of party unity" and "an avoidable disgrace."
"A decade ago, Republicans from the president on down insisted that David Duke depart the GOP," Mr. Podhoretz said. "In 2001, Terry McAuliffe has built a political shield around his party's racial extremist."

On the merits
"The folks insisting that [airport] screeners be federal workers keep referring to the efficiency of the military. But the Marines have a rather different hiring and firing policy than the average federal employee union. If it's military efficiency we want for screeners, shouldn't Congress also demand military accountability?" the Wall Street Journal asks.
"Too bad none of this nuance is making it into the security debate in Congress. Instead we get demagoguery and the politicization of what ought to be common-sense problem-solving. 'To have [GOP House whip] Tom DeLay delay an airport security bill is immoral, is wrong and it just doesn't make any sense,' says Nita Lowey, who runs the Democratic House campaign committee. Of course, Ms. Lowey's motives couldn't possibly include adding 28,000 federal workers to government-union payrolls, not to mention adding their coerced union dues to Democratic campaign coffers," the newspaper said in an editorial.
"In fact, House Republicans are the ones showing political guts. They're braver than Republican senators, who folded under pressure and whooped through a bill requiring total federalization once they realized they didn't have the votes to defeat it. The White House was also of little public help until this weekend, as advisers tell President Bush he doesn't dare use his 90 percent approval rating on anything except the war effort. No wonder Tom Daschle is rolling Mr. Bush on every domestic issue."
The newspaper added: "We hope House members hold fast because their security bill is better on the merits."

Warner's little helper
"Both major party candidates for governor of Virginia are trying to portray themselves as moderates, but only one has the assistance of The Washington Post in his quest," Brent Baker writes at the Media Research Center's Web site (www.mrc.org).
"Last week in front page profiles of Republican Mark Earley and Democrat Mark Warner, The Post employed various conservative tags 16 times, including 'social conservative,' 'religious conservative,' 'religious right' and 'Christian right' to describe Republican Earley and his supporters, but only applied four liberal labels for Democrat Warner," Mr. Baker said.
"The count of 16 for Earley does not even include another two labels in the headline. And two of those liberal tags on Warner were attributed to claims of his Republican opponents, the third was a reference to an era, not to him, and the fourth came in a quote from a friend: 'Mark never was ultra-liberal. He exhibited pragmatic social consciousness.'
"Though The Post managed to squeeze in four times as many labels for Republican Earley as Democrat Warner, both profiles were nearly identical in length at just under 3,000 words."

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide