Does anybody have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal

[Mass]

They have an editorial on Fox's nomination, but I can only read the first lines that are a rant on Kerry and his questionning of Fox.

http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB117323931923229257.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj
Kerry's Swift Retribution

The country long ago moved beyond John Kerry's Presidential ambitions, but the Senator, as he seems never to tire of reminding us, has not. Now Mr. Kerry's throbbing grievances jeopardize President Bush's nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Belgium.

Last week Sam Fox, a 77-year-old St. Louis businessman, sat before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a confirmation hearing widely expected to be uncontroversial. But in the 2004 campaign, Mr. Fox gave $50,000 ...

However, the snippet seems to imply that Fox's nomination may be jeopardized, which is a very different tune from what we read last week.

If somebody can read the full article, could they tell us the substance of the editorial: just a rant after Kerry and poor Sam Fox, or is there something more, like Senators implying they will not vote for Fox?

[beachmom]

1. I think Dr. Ron might have one. You might consider going over

to Liberal Values, and shooting him an e-mail.

[TayTay]

2. The WSJ is shocked, shocked to hear politics goes on in politics

From the Editorial referenced above:

Mr. Fox, a major donor to Republican campaigns, says he gives generously to a
variety of causes, most of them philanthropic, and doesn't recall the reasoning
behind his Swift Boat donation. We can assume it was to defeat Mr. Kerry,
though Mr. Fox also pointed out, sensibly enough, that 527s are creatures of
contemporary politics: "That's the world we live in."

That's an insight Mr. Kerry's Democratic colleagues, who in solidarity may
block Mr. Fox's appointment in a vote on Friday, would do well to remember. The
Democrats are not without their own free-range advocacy groups, such as
MoveOn.org. Before they build the gallows, they might consider what will
constitute a hanging offense when the political composition of the government
shifts.

OMG, can you even imagine this? Politics coming up in a confirmation hearing. And after it was firmly established that Mr. Fox was one of the biggest Republican contributors in Missouri. Why, how unfair to complain that Mr. Fox, who gives so much money to political groups that he claimed he couldn't even remember writing this check to SBVT, should have his nomination denied for (hold me Goldman, Sachs, anyone?) political reasons . Why, surely Mr. Fox was nominated because he is a scholar of long standing of Belgian politics, speaks all three languages prevalent in that country and even knows the speedway or highway system of that small European country.

What, what's that you say? Mr. Fox's appointment was a political payment for services rendered in financing so many Republican candidates? Why that would be base politics. Surely the WSJ would editorialize against such a blatant political move, right? How tawdry, the Bush Administration rewarding a political donor with a ceremonial post. How absolutely low-class and gauche for that John Kerry to catch them at it.

[karynnj]

5. That would be cool if the Democrats did that and even better if some

Republicans joined them. The entire party should have fought the SBVT in 2004 and had Kerry's back - they didn't. This guy gave in October. Kerry is absolutely correct that Fox had to know at that point that he was giving money to liars. As Kerry is NOT running, this could be a way that the party unifies against the RW smear machine. It would also be a way that the party could say that they have some respect for the decent man they know who was the Democratic people's choice in 2004.

[wisteria]

7. Good points!/t

[karynnj]

3. What is ridiculous is that the WSJ seems to think, that

Kerry should simply forgive everyone involved in cheating him out of a win in 2004. After all, he lost by only about 60,000 votes in Ohio.

- Known voter supression and voter error caused by ballots and procedures which made those errors more likely (or in the darker version - unavoidable (if people were given the wrong ballots) would account for more than difference. So, of course Kerry should have asked that Blackwell be held to account.

- Without the SBVT lies and the media proliferation of them, Kerry could possibly have won even with the voter suppression and cheating. All he did in that hearing was to calmly ask questions the media should have asked in fall 2004 of all the SBVT funders. (They also should have NOT given the SBVT any time until they supplied some proof that would counter the official record. When that proof didn't materialize, they should have investigated the SBVT, not Kerry) Kerry's toughest questions were why did he do it, given all Fox said he believed about nasty politics and who asked you to give $50,000.

- Fox in his first answer said the SBVT tried to take Kerry's status as a hero from him - in fact they wanted to take that and his good reputation for integrity, honesty and character. Also, in giving $50,000, it was not "they" but "we". What Fox did not do was acknowledge any personal responsibility or apologize to Kerry in any way.

Amazing that the WSJ has so much concern that Fox could lose an ambassadorship that was a political payoff, not something he earned by hard work, expertise, or qualifications because a nasty political thing he did could cause the party in power in the Senate - hurt by that action - to deny confirmation. But, they don't get that to Kerry, the SBVT hurt not just his campaign but attempted to destroy his well deserved good name for base political purpose. Kerry was held account by the WSJ for everything he said or did (plus somethings he didn't) since the 1960s, but they whine when he holds someone to account for something he did 3 years ago?

[beachmom]

4. Is this today's WSJ? Hell, maybe I'll go buy a copy!

Then they can't complain if I painstakingly handtype a fair use excerpt. I paid after all.

I can't believe it if the Democrats block this!!!!! That is so awesome! I actually was resigned to the guy getting through.

[cadmium]

9. This is hopeful. Ha

If the WSJ is editorializing against blocking Fox maybe the nomination actually is in jeopardy. For people who arent familiar with the wsj the reporting is usually very good and the editorializing is corporate-right biased.

Another quote: "an insight Mr. Kerry's Democratic colleagues, who in solidarity may block Mr. Fox's appointment in a vote on Friday, would do well to remember. The Democrats are not without their own free-range advocacy groups, such as MoveOn.org. Before they build the gallows, they might consider what will constitute a hanging offense when the political composition of the government shifts."

[wisteria]

6. Amazing how they don't bother to bring up that Fox is woefully unfit for

this post. They seemed to miss that line of questioning.
And, they may like to insinuate that the 2004 election was just business as usually, but we all know it was more that that. From the media's complacency towards what the Bush administration was up too, to the color coded reminders that a terrorist attack could come at any time and we needed Bush to protect us all to the out and out lies about Senator Kerry's war record-there are many American's who now realize what a mistake they made in 2004. They haven't forgotten what has come to pass since that time.

[TayTay]

8. And Sam Fox's nomination is political to the core

He is being rewarded for services rendered.

It is rank hypocrisy for the WSJ to editorialize against Kerry for what he did. Sam Fox is no expert on Belgium and there is no earthly reason to appoint this man to this Ambassadorial post save for political payback for services rendered during the recent elections.

It is rank hypocrisy. The WSJ is arguing against something it is itself guilty of in this case.

[wisteria]

10. Exactly. The whole process of Fox's selection was political.

Fox's selection also demonstrates how little this administration cares about our overseas relationships-choosing someone with very little knowledge of Belgium,the people or the government.

[Mass]

11. WSJ Misses the Point with ‘Kerry’s Swift Retribution’ - The Democratic Daily

Nice comment about the editorial.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5426

WSJ Misses the Point with ‘Kerry’s Swift Retribution’
Posted by Pamela Leavey
March 7th, 2007 @ 9:36 am

The WSJ is bemoaning the possibility Democratic Senators blocking the nomination of Bush crony Sam Fox, who donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. “The country,” they say, “beyond John Kerry’s Presidential ambitions,” and they claim that Kerry’s querying of Fox during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing last week, is some attempt to show us that he has not. What a load of B.S.!

Clearly, Fox’s nomination is cronyism at it’s best — it’s a reward from Bush for Sam Fox, who is widely known to be “major donor to Republican campaigns.” But the question is, should that automatically buy Sam Fox a cushy ambassadorship? No, it should not. The time has come to stop rewarding participants in the politics of smear and fear, which Sam Fox knowingly contributed to when he donated to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, after their claims had been debunked.

It wasn’t “desultory questioning about ‘the image of America in Europe,’” that Kerry queried Sam Fox on, as the WSJ claims, but pertinent questioning. Because, it is more than appropriate to question his views of the “the image of America in Europe,” and his experience in the region. Something Mr. Fox is lacking in, as he himself has admitted that he can not speak Dutch or French proficiently.

And after Kerry was done with the pertinent questions on Fox’s opinion on “the image of America in Europe,” Kerry moved on to query “Mr. Fox’s opinions as to “the politics of personal destruction” and “527 committees (the Swift Boaters were one of those)” which were, contrary to the belief of the WSJ, “germane to Mr. Fox’s qualifications to serve.” Because a man who will stoop to donating to proven liars, is not exactly worthy to serve our country in the foreign arena. Which is why, in my opinion Kerry asked Fox, “Do you think it should matter to everybody here, as a Senator?”

...