Urbin Report

Tuesday, August 26, 2003

From Viking Pundit


Free Speech for me, but not for thee

This past weekend, Robert Novak offered up this “Outrage of the Week” on the Capital Gang:

NOVAK: In South Dakota, the Rushmore Policy Council is running newspaper ads against Senator Tom Daschle calling on the Senate Democratic leader to permit votes on President Bush's judicial nominations and contending that Tom Daschle won't let America drill for oil at home.

That's permissible criticism under the First Amendment, isn't it? Not in the opinion of Senator Max Baucus, the Finance Committee's top Democrat. He has written the IRS commissioner attacking the Rushmore Policy Council's tax-exempt status. Will the senator demand the same of labor unions? Don't be silly.

But, according to this AP story, Max Baucus has a risible explanation: the Rushmore Policy Council is engaging in (*gasp!*) “overtly political activity.”
Puh-leeze. Where were Baucus and all the other Democrats (with the laudable exception of Bob Kerrey) when the tax-exempt NAACP was running ads during the 2000 Presidential campaign equating Bush with hate crimes in Texas? That kind of invidious speech is fine for the Democrats; it’s only the speech directed against them that should be banned.


and


The High Cost of Hillary

From today's New York Post Page Six:

August 25, 2003 -- HILLARY Clinton's memoir "Living History" earned the junior Senator an $8 million advance, but some say it cost 75 employees at Simon & Schuster their jobs. Just weeks after S&S published Clinton's autobio, the publisher laid off 75 employees. A company rep says "there's no connection" between Clinton's fat payday and the mass layoffs, but the New York Press begs to differ. The paper points out that even if Clinton manages to sell 1.5 million copies - 1.2 million have been sold since June 9 and sales are slipping rapidly - the publisher can't possibly make back the money it lavished on her. Of course, S&S can dole out whatever obscene sums it wants, but, the paper notes, it "should be known that the result of the overpayment . . . is that 75 men and women no longer have jobs."

It might be unfair to blame the job losses at S&S on Hillary, but isn't it an axiom of liberal thought that if somebody gets rich, somebody else must be made poor?