Joe Klein is upset yet again–this time at Senator Joseph Lieberman. The source of his consternation is an interview Lieberman gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN. When asked about a Hamas spokesman’s endorsement of Obama, Lieberman said that
John McCain obviously knows and has said that Senator Obama clearly doesn’t support any of the values or goals of Hamas. But the fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question “Why?” and it suggests the difference between these two candidates.
According to Klein, Lieberman is
smearing Barack Obama re Hamas. He is entitled to his views about the Middle East, but for the past five years he has taken those Likudnik views a step beyond propriety–saying that those who disagree with him (i.e.–the Democratic Party, which nominated him for the Vice Presidency in 2000) are counseling “defeat” and “surrender.” And now this. I wish Blitzer had been a bit more dogged and asked: “What could you possibly mean by that, Senator Lieberman–and please be specific. Why do you think Hamas “favors” Obama over McCain? What are you implying here, Senator?
Now one might believe Lieberman is wrong in what he said, but it is hardly a smear. In fact, Lieberman goes out of his way to stress that Obama does not share the values or goals of Hamas. His argument is a completely legitimate one: Obama would pursue policies that would (unintentionally) advance the aims of Hamas. It’s the flipside of an argument I presume Klein endorses: Bush’s policies–from Iraq to Guantanamo Bay to water-boarding–have helped the jihadists cause rather than hurt it.
It’s not a smear to make the argument that the policies of a President will have real-world consequences–in some instances making life easier for our enemies, and in some instances making life harder for our enemies. Is it unreasonable to conclude that the leaders of the Soviet Union were rooting for Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984?
Likewise, it’s perfectly legitimate to argue that the policy Barack Obama embraces would lead to an American surrender and defeat in Iraq–just as it’s perfectly legitimate to argue that McCain’s policies would harm American interests. Political campaigns are supposed to be about such matters.
This is all part of what is becoming an increasingly tiresome reflex within the media and which Klein embodies as well as anyone. When Lanny Davis said that Obama’s relationship to Jeremiah Wright was a legitimate, troubling issue, Klein accused Davis of “spreading the poison.” Now Lieberman’s argument that it’s worth asking why Hamas would rather see Obama than McCain as President is a “smear.” And next week if Lindsey Graham criticizes Obama’s willingness to meet with President Ahmadinejad without preconditions, I suppose we can expect Klein to charge Graham with “character assassination.”
For a fellow who likes to rip the hide off of his critics, Klein has developed some fairly thin skin. Years ago Bob Dole asked, “Where’s the outrage?” The answer, is appears, can be found in the writing of Joe Klein. Outrage seems to be a perennial state for him these days.
Don’t forget the Oblomov-like Senator, Christopher (‘My Dear Commandante’) Dodd, and his sweetheart mortgage deal with Countrywide. Barney Frank’s latest travesty is also getting a pass.
Our nation has become a cesspool of corruption and the press adores him as he crows about his new ethics rules
And we refuse to fight. Where is our ‘moveon.org’ purchasing ads to expose these hypocrites?
I’m going to say this again, even though I have said it on another thread: I was self-employed in 2007. When tax time came, besides the self-employment tax issue I also had to deal with somewhat complicated medical bill and moving expense deductions. I made a few mistakes on my 1040 form, but was able to correctr them myself. I was an English major. If I can do it, the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank can do it. The notion that this is complicated is b.s. Rush Limbaugh’s taxes are complicated. Timothy Geithner’s were not. He’s just another liar and cheater, typical of the Dems.
Instead of writing that “Those are the actions of people trying to get away with beating the system” J.G. Thayer should have written “Those are the actions of those caught in the act of cheating the system”.
Mr. Thayer,
I think you are aiming too high: simplifying the tax code is a matter of eschatology not politics.
I’d settle for a simplification of the confirmation process that dispenses with the Kabuki dance.
Geithner was always going to be confirmed and that is appropriate. He is the President’s choice and he appears to be moderately competent (though certainly not indispensible).
What I find most irritating is that the nominee can’t just come out and say, look, I didn’t want to pay that obnoxious tax, so I didn’t. I hoped the IRS wouldn’t catch me but they did, so I paid what I had to and not a penny more.
Instead we have to go through an endless series of idiocies such as: that tax was so obscure no one has ever paid it. When that is shown to be absurd, we get, “I forgot.” When it turns out he didn’t forget to file for reimbursement of the tax he forgot to pay, we get “I dunno.”
What is the point of going through this exercise?
We see the same thing with the Holder confirmation. There the nominee continues to insist that he had no idea who Marc Rich was in 1999 – despite having prosecuted a Rich-controlled company in 1995.
Soon we’ll be back to “lying under oath isn’t perjury”.
He got audited and paid his taxes. Give it a rest, wingnuts. Wait: Don’t. Keep talking about it. See where it gets you.
Ok, Hartland. For probably the only time in my life, I shall take your advice. After all, a famous tax cheat in charge of the IRS is the sort of meat from which great satires are born.
Where is ole Jon Swift when we really need him?
What did you expect? Corrupt Chicago politician is pushing for tax cheater. Geithner tried to steal 30K from Government by not paying taxes. Big deal. Obama paid himself a million giving earmark to employer of his wife, and that employer created position for Michelle to transfer that money directly to Obama. Geithner is clean as a Snow White in comparison with his future boss.
I wish Mr. Hartland would see through his Obama-can-do-no-wrong attitude and realize it’s really not good public policy for the Secretary of the Treasury (who supervises the IRS) to be a known tax cheat.
Apparently the Dem Culture of Corruption Rule is that you’re not a cheat until an audit reveals that you’re a cheat & then you pay up the amount you cheated the government out of, plus fines & penalties, if any, and then you’ve been absolved ab initio of being a cheat. So let’s move on; nothing to see.
Shredding my tax law, they are.
I wish Mr. Hartland would see through his Obama-can-do-no-wrong attitude and realize it’s really not good public policy for the Secretary of the Treasury (who supervises the IRS) to be a known tax cheat.
Hmm, aren’t you forgetting a few people between 2001 and 2009?
Dear Materialist:
Having a tax cheat for head of the IRS and a guy who was too corrupt for the Illinois Gaming Commission for Attorney General IS satire.
An Administration composed of Scoundrels.
Surely among the 18 million Americans capable of mastering Turbo tax, we could find enough Honest, Candidates to staff an Administration.
With probably only one shot at stimulating the Economy, We could do better than the Political Payoff Scheme currently being considered.
“He got audited and paid his taxes. Give it a rest, wingnuts.”
Shame you can’t say, “He paid his taxes and got audited.”