| Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty July 25, 2013 When Party Loyalty Demands You Support a Creep, It's Time to Walk Away It is not necessarily the most important question before us, but it is one that's persistent and widespread this week: Just what is Huma Abedin thinking? The delightful Kemberlee Kaye asked why so many Democratic women are willing to overlook, accept, or forgive creepy and awful behavior from their elected officials: "Public service has nothing to do with bedroom service. 98.4367% of men cheat. I do know a few good men who don't. Leave Weiner alone," Tamara Holder tweeted. Bogus statistic aside, why should anyone ignore the actions of a sexual predator*, particularly one currently seeking the mayorship of the largest city in the United States? And the young women he sought out? What about them? See also Ted Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Bob Filner, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards and Al Gore. Their legacies, at least in the minds of the collective left, do not include their abhorrent treatment of women. No, no, Democratic women wouldn't dare criticize the way these power-drunk politicians treated their wives, mistresses, ladies of the evening, et al. At least not publicly. *If you momentarily feel the instinct to dispute the notion that Weiner was a sexual predator, keep in mind he chatted online with a 17-year-old girl but assured the world that "nothing inappropriate took place." We should try to resist the temptation to believe that you and I are better, smarter, or more moral than other people because we're conservatives. That's just not true. You and I are better than everyone else because you read this newsletter. Yes, you can find plenty of folks on the Right who fail to live up to their own ideals or general standards of acceptable behavior. But thankfully, for all of our flaws, you don't see a lot of conservatives arguing that certain creepy behavior has to be accepted out of party loyalty. And that represents a key philosophical difference with the Left, at least in practice. Whether you come from a more socially conservative perspective or a more libertarian one, your philosophy gives you some strong arguments about why this sort of behavior is unacceptable. If you're socially conservative, your values are likely shaped by a Judeo-Christian teaching that every person is created by God and thus deserving of respect, etc. So besides the usual Biblical/Torah-based teachings -- don't commit adultery, etc. -- sexually harassing your underlings, using an employee as a sexual plaything, or using your wife as a human shield during an embarrassing press conference is to objectify them and is pretty obviously not in line with God's teachings. If you're libertarian, one of your core tenets is the value of the individual and the need to protect the rights of the individual -- and sexual harassment undoubtedly represents an infringement upon the rights of an individual. You may have less of an issue with adultery between consenting adults or even with prostitution (freely agreed contracts!) but ultimately whatever happens must be agreed upon by both/all parties. Cheating on one's wife and humiliating her in a public scandal isn't usually part of an agreed contract. (Someday we may have a political power couple in an open marriage, and it will be interesting to see what the public reaction will be.) However, modern liberalism usually defines the world in terms of groups and group rights. The rights of the individual are much less important (see how often the Left criticizes our society as too individualistic or "go it alone") and their vision of a wise redistribution of money, power, authority, rights, etc. often requires the correct person or group to be in charge. Having the Left's preferred people in charge is, in fact, the preeminent value on the Left, and any other "rule" can be broken in its name -- i.e., it's okay to serve on corporate boards and make lots of money, as long as you donate to the party, etc. In short, the rights of a female employee of San Diego mayor Bob Filner don't amount to that much in the minds of a lot of San Diego Democrats, compared to the need to keep Filner in charge so he can enact their preferred policies. In fact, when forced to take a side, they side with the powerful man running the gravy train: The local Democratic Party has known for a long time about sexual harassment allegations against Bob Filner, a former Democratic assemblywoman said in a Thursday interview. "I blew the whistle on this two years ago to the Democratic Party leadership," former Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña said. Saldaña said that in summer 2011 six prominent women in local politics, business and education told her that Filner had physically or verbally harassed them. Saldaña had been exploring what turned out to be an unsuccessful bid for Congress and the conversations came in the context of the 2012 elections. Saldaña said she contacted former party Chairman Jess Durfee with the allegations and Durfee was among a group of Democratic leaders who met with Filner to discuss them that summer. She said nothing happened. "As disgraceful as Bob's behavior has been, it's been tolerated by our Democratic Party leadership," she said. Saldaña said Filner never personally harassed her and declined to say who alleged to have had run-ins with the mayor. She said former City Councilwoman Donna Frye, who is calling for Filner's resignation over unspecified sexual harassment allegations, inspired her to talk. Saldaña has a long history of conflict with Filner, most prominently over a failed border sewage treatment project about a decade ago. She also wound up endorsing him for mayor. Party leaders, she said, made it clear that if people didn't support Filner they wouldn't receive their support again. Most of us recoil from that as a soulless and ghoulish way of seeing people, as insignificant cogs whose well-being is easily sacrificed in the name of the "greater good." But that's why we're on this side. Discussing this on a conservative e-mail list, Emily Zanotti of NakedDC noted: A lot of these Democratic men use their power and position to cow these women. Sanford was a schmuck, but his affair was consensual. Weiner (and Clinton and Spitzer) all had affairs with women who basically worshiped them. The latest girl revealed to be messaging Weiner kept saying, 'I can't believe I'm talking to you!' 'wow, you're so awesome,' etc. Clinton banged an intern. Spitzer paid sex workers. It's a combination of power-broking and power-worship that probably results from the ideology but takes on a really perverse sexual form. While we're on the subject . . . dear mainstream media: every disgraced politician wants the kind of soft-focus powder-puff coverage that People gave Weiner and Abedin in 2012 to help their redemption narrative. Don't give it to them. 
"I'm very happy in my present life," Weiner, 47, tells PEOPLE in an exclusive interview. "The only next dramatic steps I'm planning on are Jordan's first," he says, referring to his 6-month-old son and remaining noncommital on whether he will run for office again. In his first joint interview with wife Huma Abedin, who is deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the couple address how they survived Weiner's lewd text and photo scandal that led to his resignation, as well as who has diaper duty. Around the same time as that interview, Weiner was beginning his online relationship with his new 22-year-old object of affection. Oh, GreenTech Automotive. What Are We Going to Do with You? WatchDog.org catches a key business partner of GreenTech Automotive in a . . . well, in recognition of GreenTech's hair-trigger reflex for $85 million lawsuits when it feels it has been libeled, let's just characterize this as a circumstance in which the facts appear to contradict a company statement. Yesterday word broke that the Department of Homeland Security inspector general's office is investigating Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, over alleged intervention to obtain approval for Gulf Coast Funds Management to expand its operations in Tennessee and Virginia. USCIS initially rejected GCFM's request. "At this point in our investigation, we do not have any findings of criminal misconduct," the e-mail from the Homeland Security inspector general states. The office is investigating "alleged conflicts of interest, misuse of position, mismanagement of the EB-5 program, and an appearance of impropriety by Mayorkas and other USCIS management officials." According to Gulf Coast Funds Management's Form I-924A filed with the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, GreenTech is GCFM's only client. This was the case back in 2009, too. Here's the Gulf Coast company statement: Gulf Coast officials forcefully denied the AP report to an NBC affiliate in Richmond and claimed that they are not a part of any federal investigation. "Gulf Coast Funds Management (GCFM) has not sought assistance from USCIS to resolve a rejected appeal. In fact, we are not aware of any investor visa applications associated with our Regional Center being denied," said Gulf Coast attorney Simone Williams. "GCFM is not part of any investigation by Department of Homeland Security." Notice the careful wording. They may not have sought assistance to resolve a rejected appeal . . . but they did reach out to Mayorkas on those applications, contending that the federal agency was dragging its feet. Here's what WatchDog.org found in its research, FOIA requests, etc. Two years ago a Gulf Coast attorney emailed Mayorkas, asking him to expedite processing of 81 investor applications. "Is there anything we can do to have the (applications) adjudicated and direction provided on the remaining cases?" asked attorney Dawn Lurie in a July 7, 2011 email. Then on Jan. 23, 2013, Mayorkas received another email from a second Gulf Coast lawyer. This time she said 31 petitions were pending, but singled out two applicants for special consideration. "Undue delay by USCIS in reviewing our (petitions) has jeopardized our marketing efforts, as prospective investors are reluctant to invest in GTA without seeing our petition approval record," wrote Simone Williams. Meanwhile, Ryan Nobles of NBC's affiliate in Richmond and a Memphis station teamed up to report on claims that workers in their facilities . . . aren't really building cars. The former employee told us that in his more than a year in a half on the line maybe 30 cars were built and most of them never left the building. "They would take everybody and put them out on the line and we would stand over the car with tools in our hand and look like we were doing something to the car but we wasn't doing anything," he said. The worker claims the company had them put on a show for what he believed to be foreign investors. According to [Greentech spokesperson Marianne] McInerney he simply misunderstood the training process of a complex and new technology. "There's what we would call a training build."
Wealthy Guy Who Golfs Frequently and Hangs Out with Millionaires Laments Income Inequality
The editors of the Wall Street Journal: The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country." Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority." Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times. . . . The core problem has been Mr. Obama's focus on spreading the wealth rather than creating it. ObamaCare will soon hook more Americans on government subsidies, but its mandates and taxes have hurt job creation, especially at small businesses. Mr. Obama's record tax increases have grabbed a bigger chunk of affluent incomes, but they created uncertainty for business throughout 2012 and have dampened growth so far this year. The food stamp and disability rolls have exploded, which reduces inequality but also reduces the incentive to work and rise on the economic ladder. This has contributed to a plunge in the share of Americans who are working—the labor participation rate—to 63.5% in June from 65.7% in June 2009. And don't forget the Fed's extraordinary monetary policy, which has done well by the rich who have assets but left the thrifty middle class and retirees earning pennies on their savings. Mr. Obama would have done far better by the poor, the middle class and the wealthy if he had focused on growing the economy first. The difference between the Obama 2% recovery and the Reagan-Clinton 3%-4% growth rates is rising incomes for nearly everybody. ADDENDUM: Ron Fournier, formerly of AP, now with National Journal: "If leadership was merely about speaking to converted, winning fights & positioning to blame, America would be in great hands."
NRO Digest — July 25, 2013 Today on National Review Online . . . To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com
| Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here. Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital. National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives. Conservatives — stay healthy! Get plenty of Vitamin Sea on the next National Review cruise. Visit www.NRCruise.com for complete information.
| National Review, Inc.
Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016 | 
Comments
Post a Comment