|
|
|
The
Jews have been wrongly blamed these 2,000 years for
killing Jesus, so you might well want to ask me
this: Paul, what does it matter if Jews, albeit
indirectly, are wrongly blamed for ending the
political career of one lousy congressman?
It
matters for a very good reason: Because Jews get
wrongly blamed for so much, we should be the first
to be concerned if someone would be hurt by an
unsubstantiated charge of anti-Semitism. We can not
allow the suffering of Jews to be trivialized as it
has been in the pages of The Washington Post this
past month.
I refer, of course, to the latest charge of
anti-Semitism directed at U.S. Rep. James Moran,
D-8th. The Post has featured charges hurled
by a former pollster, who resigned May 25, in
several stories during the closing days of the
primary campaign. Voting takes place tomorrow.
If Moran loses the Democratic nomination, he'll owe
his defeat to the Post's blatantly anti-Moran
campaign in these final hours.
Was it fair, was it right, was it
responsible journalism?
My conclusion: The Post was not trying to
protect Jews from anti-Semitism but was using the
suffering of Jews to defeat a Congressman it thinks
is unfit for the job.
Justice Holmes said that the First Amendment did not
give you the right to cry "fire" in a
crowded movie theater. But it does give a newspaper
the right to cry "Moran May Hate Jews After
all" in the closing days of a political
campaign.... in such a way that makes this former
campaign manager truly outraged by a violation of
the political process.
Last year, I was the first, and only, former or
current Democratic Party chairman to have properly
criticized U.S. Rep. Jim Moran for his comments,
which were anti-Semitic. He apologized and said he
understood his mistake.
But that is a separate issue than the one having
developed in these last few days.
Having been called a few names for being the only
white person willing to be Doug Wilder's campaign
manager in his historic campaign, and then last year
being called a racist for wanting to give
African-Americans the right to directly elect their
own mayor here in Richmond -- now the politicians
pick the mayor from among their friends on city
council -- this probably makes me a little more
sensitive to the latest Moran stories than most.
After several days of lengthy Washington Post
stories accusing the congressman of making an
anti-Semitic remark at a March meeting, this fact is
clear: The former pollster making the charge
has never told The Washington Post what Moran
is alleged to have said. Even today the pollster,
Alan Secrest, refuses to tell anyone what Moran
supposedly said.
No, I am not making that up. The charge is contained
in a May 25 resignation letter from Secrest to
Moran, a letter conveniently leaked, by the pollster
or his allies, we must presume, to the Post.
Here is what the Post wrote about the charge
from Mr. Secrest, who was Mr. Moran's pollster in
his many campaigns for the Congress before resigning
last month in a letter alleging the anti-Semitic
comment.
Secrest
yesterday stood by his allegation that Moran used
anti-Semitic language in the meeting, which both
men acknowledge erupted into an angry exchange
that led to Secrest's resignation last week. But
the Alexandria-based pollster refused for a second
day to disclose exactly what Moran said, beyond
calling it "pejorative and disrespectful to a
group of individuals in an anti-Semitic
fashion."
How
can we have a fair political process if, in the last
week of the campaign, someone can leak a resignation
letter to the virtual 800-pound media presence in
order to get that media giant to print a damning
charge -- remember, Secrest knows Moran's internal
campaign polling data, so he knows what can hurt
Moran the most -- without even knowing what the
alleged anti-Semitic words were exactly?
It is fundamentally unfair to ask someone to defend
himself against words the accuser refuses to reveal.
Or am I just too old-fashioned here?
As I have said before, the original congressional
district that allowed Mr. Moran to get elected to
Congress was drafted under my watch as party chair.
We also created districts that helped elect the
first female member of Congress and also the first
African-American.
It was about time.
Given
the demographic make-up of the 8th congressional
district, it would take utter political stupidity
for the Democrats to lose it. Had it been anything
other than a safe district, Mr. Moran would have
been defeated for re-election long ago for past
actions that need not be listed here.
But these and other factors are not the controlling
ones right now. Rather, we have a case where The
Washington Post is clearly raising fundamental
questions about our ability to have a fair political
process.
The Post admits it doesn't know precisely
what Mr. Moran is alleged to have said. It admits to
knowing that Mr. Secrest, the former pollster, sent
an e-mail to Mr. Moran demanding money he said was
owed (eventually paid), or else telling Mr. Moran
things would get very uncomfortable for him real
fast, meaning before the primary next Tuesday.
Now, even after getting the money, Secrest has made
good on this threat -- or promise, if you prefer --
leading to two huge anti-Moran stories on the Friday
and Saturday before the Tuesday election.
Does this seem fair to you?
Of course not, and for good reason: It isn't.
Granted, one could say -- as Mr. Secrest has said --
that the former pollster has no obvious reason to
want to hurt Mr. Moran since he has been paid in
full and claims to speaks for no anti-Moran group.
But I ask you: Mr. Secrest says he was morally
offended by the alleged comments when they were made
in March. But according to an e-mail he sent on
April 30, he only threatened to go public with some
unstated things unless he got paid.
So I ask you: Why, after getting paid, this sudden
twinge of conscious in late May?
If you really were offended by something, why wait
until you get paid, why not quit right in March,
after the alleged anti-Semitic smear was uttered?
Did Mr. Secrest seek advice from religious and other
advisors, did he agonize over it, was his soul
tortured for weeks before deciding he just had to
come forward? Or was it purely coincidence that he
made his decision after Moran's checks cleared?
Come on, I didn't just get off the boat from Tel
Aviv looking for a Kosher Deli.
Call it for what it is: This is a vindictive act by
Mr. Secrest based on some personal motivation, some
personal thing between him and Moran, not some
high-minded defense of Jews from their alleged
enemies.
Yes, minority groups need defense, as do all people,
more times than we care to admit. But not this way,
for it uses the suffering of Jews throughout history
in so cheap and insincere way.
The Washington Post has done its work well
here, as Mr. Secrest knew it would. Mr. Secrest was
Mr. Moran's pollster, so his leaking the resignation
letter to the media, with the charges contained
therein, sets up what Bob Woodward called plausible
deniability in the Nixon Era.
The Post can say it was just reporting news -
Moran's pollster quitting over such comments -- and
thus hide the real motivation.
This is not about protecting Jews; it is about
getting Moran.
I don't believe a newspaper of such power as the Post
should, in the final weekend of a campaign, make
huge stories with such potentially damning content
based on a claim of anti-Semitism unless the accuser
at least tells precisely what was said so people can
make up their own minds.
But you say: What if the words were so bad they
shouldn't be reprinted?
To this I say: I cannot imagine what such words
could be, given what has been printed about Jews
over the years. Even then, the reporter and the
newspaper could say they knew what the words were,
but they were so bad, they refused to print them in
a family newspaper.
At least then the reader - and voter - would have to
judge how much they trusted the Post in such
a situation. But in the instant case, the Post
says the accuser has not told them what Moran is
alleged to have said.
Stories like these from the Post turns people
from politics, which in the end only benefits those
who rely on manipulating our fears, not our hopes.
So, please, don't use the likes of Alan Secrest to
do your dirty work. And please, please, keep us Jews
out of it; we get blamed for enough things in life,
we don't need to be the villains here, too.
-- June 7, 2004
|
