 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Molly Ivins |
|
|
|
This page was created by me, Jeff Opal, on 15-NOV-2003 |
|
|
|
Molly Ivins writes books that criticize US Republican politicians with very sharp criticism. It seems that George W. Bush has been her primary target up until the date that I write this (15-NOV-2003). I've examined two books of hers that are entirely devoted to George W. Bush.
I generally agree with most of her positions, although I usually have many objections to how she argues for her positions. I've read around 20 of her syndicated columns, but I've only skimmed through her books. |
|
|
|
I became motivated to put up a web page about Ivins on 25-OCT-2003, when I read her 22-OCT-2003 editorial titled "Delay takes political audacity to new depths" (about the current US House majority leader Tom Delay), and checked a source article she cited, to see the context of a bizarre claim Ivins made about it, and discovered that the claim is false. Moreover, I can see no way the falsehood was accidential. Hence I'm sure it is a lie by Molly Ivins. I really can't see any plausible way it could be an innocent mistake. The rest of this page describes it. |
|
|
|
The column criticized a remark made by a spokeman for Tom Delay named Jonathan Grella. Ivins quotes Grella as having said these words: "It's wrong and unethical to link legislative activities to campaign contributions.". Ivins bizarrely interpreted Grella's word "link" in this quote as meaning to portray a link between legislation that helps a business and campaign contributions made to the legislator who authored the legislation. In this case, Ivins was saying that Grella was saying that it is wrong for the press (et al) to portray Tom Delay as having had a tit-for-tat motivation when amending the annual defense authorization bill with Section 211, which (according to both Ivins and the article she mentioned) revises U.S. trademark law in a way that helps the company Bacardi Rum to win a trademark dispute with Pernod-Ricard, "...a French company that now sells rum by that name...". The name both companies want exclusive rights to is "Havana Club".
This is a bizarre interpretation of the intended meaning of this word, of course. It is hard for me to imagine any spokesman for any US politician ever saying such a statement and using the word "link" to mean "portray a link" rather than "link, in reality, as a tit-for-tat favor made to a special interest". Such a politician would hence be complaining about the press merely theorizing about possible guilt of a legislator! How could any elected representative have the gall to complain about such a vitally important and legitimate function of the press?
I naturally became suspicious, and decided to investigate. I used the Lexis-Nexis database to find the article Ivins mentioned. Ivins gave incomplete information about the article, saying only that she read the quote "...when reading an Austin American-Statesman article about brother Tom Delay...". I found it by searching the Lexis articles of this newspaper for all articles published in the lastest month containing the words "Jonathan w/2 Grella" and "rum". I discovered that the only article in this newspaper that she could have been reading was printed Sunday, 19-OCT-2003, and was titled, "Delay's attempt to help rum maker draws criticism Watchdog groups protest congressman's efforts to help Bacardi fend off Cuban rivals" (the byline: "by Julia Malone, WASHINGTON BUREAU").
The added context givien by this article makes it obvious that Grella wasn't using the word "link" to mean "portray a link".
Ivins, however, had this to say about the quote: |
|
|
|
...[now that I've described the history of the legislation] I give you the Outrage Moment. One Jonathan Grella, spokesman for Tom Delay, when asked about all this, said "It's wrong and unethical to link legislative activities to campaign contributions."
Let's make sure we all understand what is being said here. Grella asserts that there is no conflict of interest between a public official using his power to change the law in exchange for a hefty campaign contribution -- the immorality occurs when the press and/or public interest groups point out this connection. That's when I went slack-jawed. |
|
|
|
The context given in the original article, however, makes it clear that Grella was not using the word "link" in the way Ivins claimed he was. Here is the context of the quote: |
|
|
|
Several major corporations have joined in asking Congress to repeal Section 211 altogether to avoid possible retaliation by Cuba's President Fidel Castro against their own trademarks.
Citizens Against Government Waste, a conservative watchdog group, also opposes special treatment for Bacardi.
"We think it has an adverse influence on the taxpayers, on consumers and on the economy," said the group's president, Thomas Schatz.
Also objecting is a liberal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose director Melanie Sloan links Bacardi's success in Congress to its donations. The company has spread more than $650,000 to political party committees since 1997, with a little more than half going to Republicans. Bacardi has also been one of Delay's top benefactors, giving a total of $40,000 to political action committees that he formed.
Grella, Delay's spokesman, said, "It's wrong and unethical to link legislative activity to campaign contributions." Grella added of the efforts to help Bacardi: "This is about protecting American companies from predatory French companies that are conspiring with a murderous communist dictator."
A spokeswoman for Bacardi was unavailable for comment. |
|
|
|
The additional words from Grella given in the article (after the words "Grella added...") should have made it obvious to Ivins that Grella was using the word "link" to mean "link in reality, as a motive, as a tit-for-tat exchange of favors". What makes it obvious that "to link in reality" was Grella's intended meaning meaning for "link" is that the additional words describe an alternative motivation for Section 211. Grella was in effect saying the motive for Tom Delay adding Section 211 to the bill was not to reward Bacardi for donations to Delay. It was rather to protect American companies from unfair practices of another company that is allied with a traditional enemy of the USA. |
|