Hastert Smears Soros
Eugene Volokh notes that Dennis Hastert smeared George Soros by suggesting that Soros may get his money from drug cartels.
Hastert’s best defense may be: “I don’t know whether he does or not.”
Well, I don’t know whether Dennis Hastert makes a living by sodomizing pigeons for well-heeled onlookers with bizarre and expensive predilections.
I saw that episode of Fox News Sunday, and my mouth was agape, just as Chris Matthews’s was — and just as Eugene Volokh’s apparently was.
Who ever said Hastert was anything but a moron anyway?
P.S. Jay Rosen: this is an example of a true “smear” — a suggestion of extreme wrongdoing by another, with no attempt at anything like factual backup. That is quite a different situation from that of the Swift Boat Vets, who are making specific allegations to support their claims (unlike bonehead Hastert).
Ahem. Hastert didn’t say drug cartels; he said drug groups, presumably meaning political groups agitating to get drugs legalized — which is one of Soros’s big issues (and I support it, too — everything except antibiotics).
It was Chris Wallace who misunderstood and rephrased it as drug cartels; Hastert’s only error was not noticing the rephrasing and immediately correcting Wallace. To be fair to the Speaker, if he’s thinking groups like NORML, I doubt it would register even if he did hear Wallace say “cartels,” as Hastert had a specific example in mind: he’s thinking NORML, not Medillin or Cali.
But there was never any suggestion from Dennis Hastert that George Soros gets money from drug cartels (Volokh changes it again to “illegal drug distributors,” to really make Hastert seem a monster; of course, he no more said “illegal drug distributors” than he said “drug cartels;” both are fabricated quotations).
Eugene Volokh and now you are doing a terrible disservice to a fine man by either deliberately mischaracterizing what he said or by a risible lack of comprehension of what Hastert obviously meant — and said.
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd — 9/2/2004 @ 11:20 pm
Here’s what he said that caused me to come to the conclusion that he meant cartels:
Sorry, but the only fair way to read that is foreign drug traffickers, in my opinion.
I saw the show. I saw the context. I was stunned. Hastert was clearly talking out of his ass. He should apologize.
Comment by Patterico — 9/2/2004 @ 11:32 pm
Soros a penniless refugee winds up one of the world’s richest men. Last time I heard something like this it was Armand Hammer. Now exactly how did Hammer get rich? Perhaps Soros money needs to be examined a bit more closely.
Comment by Thomas J. Jackson — 9/3/2004 @ 12:59 am
I still say he’s implying that Soros is on crack.
Which I’d be willing to accept, from empirical evidence if nothing else.
Comment by Chadster — 9/3/2004 @ 2:23 am
I’ll get upset about Hastert when the media gets upset about the very real, very slanderous smears which Dems have been spouting for the last few years.
“Bush was AWOL” is a much more direct smear and not subject to any interpretation. It was also repeated over and over. Same with “Bush was a deserter”.
Finally, SOROS himself has made even uglier smears against Bush with his talk of nazis, etc. Hastert was tame compared to Soros.
Comment by stan — 9/3/2004 @ 7:40 am
I’m a bit confused; why would anyone who is making money from illegal drugs want those drugs legalized? It would cut off that income.
As to Soros “being on crack;” in the colloquial, you betcha — in the literal, not so much…
Comment by Claire — 9/3/2004 @ 10:02 am
Stan: an interesting point. If Hastert came out tomorrow and said “Psych! I knew you aren’t getting money from drug dealers, I just wanted to see the look on your face when George Soros himself finally got the George Soros treatment,” then I could almost forgive him. Almost.
Comment by Xrlq — 9/3/2004 @ 12:30 pm
The really funny thing about this is that if the Dems had seriously gone for medical marijuana they could have gotten 60 - 70% support on the issue.
Drug prohibition is one of America’s great weaknesses. It doesn’t solve the drug problem and adds a criminal problem to the mix.
I keep telling my lefty friends that Bush is vulnerable on the issue.
Obviously they are much smarter than I am. Proof: they nominated Kerry didn’t they?
–==–
Steal this sig:
Why did John Kerry meet three times with the representatives of the Viet Cong and Communist North Vietnam?
Some times it takes a while to sell out your country.
New Soldier html
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records
Comment by M. Simon — 9/3/2004 @ 1:47 pm
BTW Hastert/Keyes are really out of step in a RINO state.
I voting Bush/Obama come Nov.
Comment by M. Simon — 9/3/2004 @ 1:54 pm
“Here’s what he said that caused me to come to the conclusion that he meant cartels:
“You know, Soros’ money, some of that is coming from overseas. It could be drug money. We don’t know where it comes from.
“Sorry, but the only fair way to read that is foreign drug traffickers, in my opinion.”
To quote Oliver Cromwell from 1650, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken,” Patterico. That is most certainly not “the only fair way to read it.”
You leapt to a conclusion — rather, Volokh led you to the cliff and pushed you over — and instead of honestly reevaluating what Hastert might have meant, in light of his history as an honorable and decent man, you have dug in your heels and hardened your position, possibly in an effort to appear even-handed — though unlike you, I will not insist this is “the only fair way” to read your reponse.
The points arguing against your position have already been made:
1) Nobody of the intellectual calliber of Dennis Hastert could think that drug dealers, who depend upon the price of drugs being kept artificially high due to artificial scarcity due to anti-drug laws, would agitate for drug legalization. For heaven’s sake, it’s the primary reason offered by proponents of drug legalization, from intelligent and worthwhile people like me to dangerous lunatics like George Soros: that legalizing drugs will dry up the illegal drug trade. There is no way that Hastert could have erroneously thought that Soros supported legalizing drugs (as Hastert noted) because he was being paid by the Medellin Cartel (as Hastert never said). Only a dolt could believe that the drug mafia wants to legalize drugs.
2) Alternatively, you might mean that Hastert knows the charge is hopelessly absurd, yet he deliberately and maliciously lied just to smear George Soros… with an accusation so easily disproved that it could not fail to be exposed upon the instant, blowing up in Hastert’s face. In other words, in order to stretch Hastert’s words to suit your absurd meaning, you have to assume that the Speaker of the House is not only a malign thug but is also bone-sick stupid about politics!
So “the only fair way” to rewrite Hastert’s meaning, according to you, is to conclude that he either has the IQ of an eggplant… or that he has been fooling us all these years into believing he’s a decent and honorable man, when he’s really a vicious smear artist — who is also a political nitwit (strangely, his political nitwittery was not apparent when he rose to the position he holds).
Of course, there is another alternative, a “third way,” if you will:
There is the possibliity, faint and remote though it may be, that Eugene Volokh and DDA Patterico were simply wrong to assume that when Dennis Hastert said “drug groups,” he really meant to say “drug cartels” or even “illegal drug distributors.”
In other words, maybe, just maybe, Hastert meant to say what he in fact said. This would introduce a quaint bit of internal consistency, since drug groups — meaning groups pushing for drug legalization, like the execrable NORML — would sort of match up with Hastert’s complaint that Soros was a big proponent of drug legalization. And also with Hastert’s explanation of what he meant, which he enunciated the next day.
But hey, you’re the boss, and you have the power to insist upon “your” reading (Volokh’s, actually; you’re just the accessory after the fact).
After all, goodness knows we have a severe scarcity of people willing to ascribe the basest possible interpretation to anything a Republican says.
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd ab Hugh — 9/3/2004 @ 2:18 pm
Dafydd,
I am an open-minded sort of fellow (sometimes), and I am perfectly happy to consider some reasonable alternate explanation of Hastert’s words. However, any such alternate explanation must address, head-on, Hastert’s quote that I quoted above, which he gave in a separate interview on the same topic:
Nowhere in your long comment do you offer an explanation of how that language could be reasonably read as referring to groups seeking drug legalization. There is a commonly understood meaning of the phrase “drug money” and it’s not “money from NORML.” It’s money obtained from drug trafficking.
Right?
And I will repeat what I said before, since you apparently missed it the first couple of time I said it: my impression of what Hastert said was formed independently of Volokh’s post. I saw the show. I heard Chris Matthews’ surprised tone, which should have tipped off Hastert that he was saying something potentially controversial. I saw Hastert refusing to back off.
Volokh’s post just reminded me about it.
Comment by Patterico — 9/3/2004 @ 2:38 pm
Dafydd, I disagree with your contention that “only a dolt” could believe that at least some illicit drug dealers favor drug legalization. Most drug dealers don’t have advanced degrees in economics, so while a strong case can be made that legalization would put them out of business, it doesn’t exactly follow that every drug dealer will understand that. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if some drug dealers believe that legalization would give them all of today’s profits, with none of the risks.
Comment by Xrlq — 9/3/2004 @ 4:32 pm
Patterico wrote:
I am an open-minded sort of fellow (sometimes), and I am perfectly happy to consider some reasonable alternate explanation of Hastert’s words. However, any such alternate explanation must address, head-on, Hastert’s quote that I quoted above, which he gave in a separate interview on the same topic:
“You know, Soros’ money, some of that is coming from overseas. It could be drug money. We don’t know where it comes from.”
Nowhere in your long comment do you offer an explanation of how that language could be reasonably read as referring to groups seeking drug legalization. There is a commonly understood meaning of the phrase “drug money” and it’s not “money from NORML.” It’s money obtained from drug trafficking.
Oh, we may well agree on that… but that is not what you accused Hastert of charging. You claimed that Hastert was charging Soros with getting money from illegal drug traffickers… “drug cartels,” or as Volokh put it, “illegal drug distributers.”
The key is in the very source you cited, Patterico: it appears from the Slate article that Hastert is in fact charging Soros with taking money from legal drug traffickers… in particular, the Andean Council of Coca-Leaf Producers (ACCLP) — which is a real organization pushing hard for worldwide legalization of drugs. They are not illegal drug dealers; in fact, I suspect they want to legalize the cocaine, marijuana, and opium trade not only to make money but also to drive the cartels out of business (same reason I support legalization of all drugs except antibiotics).
But many conservatives, certainly including Dennis Hastert, consider such groups immoral, despite their legality. Since it was Hastert himself who spoke of this group — along with Soros’s own Landesmith Center, the Drug Policy Foundation, and so forth — I see no reason to doubt Hastert’s word that this was what he meant.
It’s no stretch at all to presume that Hastert believes (possibly from evidence we haven’t seen, possibly from some public source that not everyone finds convincing) that Soros is connected with the ACCLP.
Now, if this were true, which way would the money flow? I think it’s obvious that IF — remember, this is not proven — IF there is a connection between George Soros and the ACCLP, the money would flow from the latter to the former. What conceivable reason would Soros have for giving money to a for-profit group that wants to legalize the drug trade in order to make billions of dollars? It’s much more logical that the ACCLP would give money to Soros to continue fighting within the United States to legalize the drug trade: the ACCLP are the ones with a financial interest, not Soros (not that we know).
(Soros is a billionaire; but he gets his money from very unsavory currency manipulation and may well hope to plunge into the distribution of narcotics if that ever becomes legal.)
In this case, we are, in fact, talking about people who want to distribute drugs… but they only want to do so legally, and they are working hard to legalize the drug trade. On this much, everyone — even Slate — would agree. And we also know that Soros is working hard to legalize drugs in the United States, and again, even Slate would agree with this assessment. So if Hastert has seen some evidence to connect Soros with ACCLP (I have no idea if such a link exists), then everything Hastert said about Soros on Chris Wallace’s show and on the other show you cite would make perfect sense… and it would not be a smear but rather a legitimate charge against George Soros.
Indeed, it would match with the thrust of the rest of Hastert’s statement, chastising Soros for pushing for drug legalization. Nor would it require the obvious absurdity, which your reading requires, of imagining illegal drug dealers want to see the drugs legalized; we’re talking rather about legal groups in South America that want to see drugs legalized so they can legally sell them here, undercutting the Colombian and Peruvian drug cartels and the terrorist organizations (like the Shining Path in Peru or Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan) who use illegal-drug sales to finance murder and revolution at home.
In other words, assuming that Hastert was telling the truth about whom he was accusing Soros of cozying up to makes a heck of a lot more sense than the weird reading you insist is the “only fair way to read” Hastert’s charge.
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd ab Hugh — 9/3/2004 @ 9:22 pm
Let me ask you this, Dafydd:
When Chris Wallace asked Hastert, in what I assure you was an astounded tone, whether Soros was getting his money from drug cartels — why didn’t Hastert say: “NO, NO, NO . . . THAT’S not what I meant. I just meant that he may be getting money from legal groups supporting drug legalization.”
Instead, Hastert seemed perfectly content to leave the “cartel” implication hanging in the air.
You’re telling me that’s an accident?
Comment by Patterico — 9/3/2004 @ 9:42 pm
Because Hastert wasn’t paying attention.
Have you been interviewed on TV much? I’m a writer, and I’ve been interviewed a number of times (mostly on radio). You’re so focused on what you, yourself are saying that you just don’t pay that close attention to what the interviewer is asking… you’re looking for the opening to get to the stuff you prepared in advance.
What Hastert likely “heard” was:
WALLACE: My goodness, are you actually mmph mmph mmph Soros mmph mmph drug mmph mmph mmph money?
At least, that’s the sort of thing I often hear when I have something important to say (or I think it’s important) and I’m looking for a “hook” to say it. Later, when I listen to the broadcast, I get irritated at myself for not picking up on something the host said that would have made my argument stronger… but the fact is, I can’t formulate my point for a radio or TV soundbite and also listen carefully to every idiot question the interviewer asks.
That is a major reason why there so often is a disconnect in an interview, where the subject answers a different question than the one that was asked: he’s often barely listening, just looking for an excuse to say whatever he planned to say from the git-go.
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd ab Hugh — 9/3/2004 @ 11:31 pm
I may be a dolt, but I do study drug trafficking. And while it might seem implausible that a drug cartel would want to promote legalization, that is exactly what happened in the 19th century opium trade. The government of India, which was dependent on the revenues of opium sales to China, along with the country trader firms–effectively smugglers– such as Jardine Matheson, pressured China relentlessly to legalize the importation of opium. Which, with some British arm-twisting after the Second Opium War, they did.
The Indian rationale was quite simple, and quite correct: they controlled enough of the world’s opium production that they could sell all they grew to a wider market. China began their own nationalized industry to keep up, but the public demand was sufficient to accommodate domestic and imported opium.
It seems quite plausible today that cartels may wish to influence US drug policy in the direction of legalization–not because they’re necessary irrational, but because they would rather sell cheap drugs to 100 million Americans than expensive drugs to 20 million, and risk a twenty year stretch to boot. We don’t know their preferences, and we can’t just ask; it’s kind of like asking Saddam whether he has a nuclear program–you couldn’t trust the answer you get.
None of which excuses Mr. Hastert’s remarks about Mr. Soros. In fact, if the charges are baseless, it makes them worse because they are plausible. I just felt I ought to point out that drug dealers’ policy preferences are not a foregone conclusion.
Comment by Clint — 9/3/2004 @ 11:59 pm
Dafydd,
You’re a well-spoken guy, and I’m listening to you with an open mind, I really am. And I hope you keep reading, and commenting on, the blog. I am not continuing to argue with you out of pure stubbornness.
The thing that doesn’t ring true about your argument is the part about Soros likely getting his money from these named organizations. Have you read Jack Shafer’s “back story” on this issue, titled Dennis Hastert on Dope? I don’t know Shafer’s evidence for his claim, but he makes the claim that Soros has given money to these groups:
(Bold emphasis mine.)
I don’t know whether Shafer is right or not, but he is a journalist making that assertion in Slate — for whatever that is worth. If he’s right, that kind of kills your (and Hastert’s) argument, doesn’t it?
I think we can’t know absolutely for sure, but this still looks like a smear to me.
Comment by Patterico — 9/4/2004 @ 10:24 am
Patterico opines:
“And I hope you keep reading, and commenting on, the blog. I am not continuing to argue with you out of pure stubbornness.”
Good heavens, would you think I would stop reading such an excellent blog as this merely because I disagree with the blogger on a single point? As the guys over at Powerline can tell you, I find many occasions to disagree with them, but I still read them three or four times a day — and agree with them 90% of the time!
“The thing that doesn’t ring true about your argument is the part about Soros likely getting his money from these named organizations.”
First of all, I am not arguing that Hastert has any evidence of financial involvement between George Soros and Colombian or Peruvian drug-legalization groups like the ACCLP. I have no idea whether Hastert has anything solid or he’s talking through his hat. That isn’t my point.
Second, in the statement above — and in the Jack Shafer piece in Slate you link — you confuse two very different kinds of groups: political groups within the United States that agitate for drug legalization and commercial groups in South America (and likely elsewhere) that push for drug legalization.
Both types of groups are for legalizing drugs; but they are as different as, say, the Second Amendment Foundation and Colt Firearms. Both these groups oppose gun control; but the former is a political group that needs to be funded, while the latter is a commercial group that has a financial interest and can fund its own fight — it’s a business investment.
Of course Soros wouldn’t be getting his money from the Drug Policy Foundation, the Open Society, or his own group, the Landesmith Center, and Hastert himself has clearly lost focus on what the controversy is about when he, too, lumps them together with the Andean Council of Coca-Leaf Producers.
But the last is in fact a commercial organization (a trade organization, actually) of people with a huge financial stake in the outcome of the debate over drug legalization. And it makes no sense that George Soros would “give money” to the ACCLP, just as it makes no sense that a freedom-loving Republican billionaire like Richard Melon Scaife would “give money” to Colt, Winchester, or Remington: Scaife might well fund the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (I sure hope he does!) But he wouldn’t be forking over big-buck donations to commercial firearms manufacturers, as a moment’s thought would demonstrate.
To the extent that Hastert implied that Soros was receiving money from the Drug Policy Foundation (or from Soros’s own group), he was being illogical. But it’s equally illogical for Shafer to claim that Soros would be funding the ACCLP.
Third, Shafer himself is still stuck in the mode of accepting as read that Hastert meant “drug cartels” when he said “drug groups,” despite Hastert’s explicit denial of such. Shafer writes in the same piece you linked:
“Of course, if there were a shred of truth to the charge that Soros is mobbed up with the drug cartels, Hastert would contact the Drug Enforcement Administration or at the very least hold Hill hearings instead of broadly hinting about it on Fox News Sunday.”
This again assumes that Hastert was trying to claim a criminal involvement for George Soros, when there is no evidence of such except mind reading on the part of various observers. Even Soros himself restricts his oft-referenced denial to that straw-man charge:
“Your recent comments implying that I am receiving funds from drug cartels are not only untrue, but also deeply offensive.”
Note that Soros does not deny receiving political-interest funding from the ACCLP… he only denies receiving from from the Medellin and Cali cartels and their ilk, a charge never explicitly made but only inferred by some readers.
(I also note that Soros carefully avoids accusing Hastert of saying that Soros was “receiving funds from drug cartels” but only says that Hastert implies it — a legal dodge any lawyer should recognize as an attempt to skirt around the libel laws himself… because Hastert said no such thing, and Soros, or his attorney, knows it.)
Fourth, you write, “I don’t know Shafer’s evidence for his claim….”
I agree; you don’t know Shafer’s evidence — because he doesn’t give any! As usual with Slate, he makes a bare-faced pronouncement and leaves it at that.
Finally, as to your conclusion:
“If he’s right, that kind of kills your (and Hastert’s) argument, doesn’t it?”
The answer is no, it does not… because my only arguement is that Hastert did not mean “illegal drug distributors” when he said “drug groups,” not that Hastert is correct about financial links between Soros and various groups and which way they flow. I have no idea about the latter… but I have clearly demonstrated that the less complex reading, that Hastert meant what he in fact said and not the rewrite by you, by Volokh, or by Shafer, is at least as plausible as the other reading; and as any good prosecutor should know, reasonable doubt should lead to acquittal, not conviction.
You have taken a fine man who has no previous history of smearing people, and you have accused him of engaging in slander and smear, of “bearing false witness” against George Soros. Before making such a serious charge yourself, you at least should have evidence that is not entirely based upon mental telepathy, bald and unsupported statements by political enemies, and alteration of quotations. Shouldn’t you?
Dafydd ab Hugh
Comment by Dafydd ab Hugh — 9/4/2004 @ 1:41 pm
Dafydd,
I think you make as good a case as could be made under the circumstances. I remain unconvinced.
Before making such a serious charge yourself, you at least should have evidence that is not entirely based upon mental telepathy, bald and unsupported statements by political enemies, and alteration of quotations. Shouldn’t you?
Absolutely — and I have: Hastert’s own words.
Your accusation that I have engaged in the “[a]lteration of quotations” is a serious charge. What quotation have I altered? Please be specific. If I have indeed altered a quotation, I would naturally want to correct that ASAP. But I don’t think I have.
I think Hastert’s statement:
suggests that Soros got his money from illegal drug traffickers — i.e. cartels. Now, we can disagree on that (and we obviously do), but I think my conclusion is reasonable.
That language (from a different interview), in turn, informs what Hastert meant when he said “drug groups” on Fox News Sunday. I am telling you that Chris Wallace thought that Hastert meant drug cartels, which is why he showed such surprise, and asked the question he asked. Volokh, who is no leftie, interpreted it the same way.
Let’s see if we can agree on this, at a minimum. You posit that Hastert’s best excuse for failing to correct Wallace’s “drug cartel” implication is that he didn’t hear Wallace using the phrase “drug cartels” but rather heard:
Let’s say you’re right. In that case, Hastert screwed up, right? Your argument is that it’s an understandable screw-up, but it’s still a screw-up. He should have corrected any such implication right away.
Well, then I think he should have been a little more forthright about that in his letter to Soros. I don’t think it’s good enough to say:
or even
I think the latter sentence is a good start, but — now that Hastert has fully understood that Wallace took Hastert to be referring to cartels, and Hastert didn’t correct it — I’d prefer to see something more like this:
I think that would be a little more forthright.
Thanks for the kind words about the blog.
Comment by Patterico — 9/4/2004 @ 2:24 pm
Patterico quoth:
Your accusation that I have engaged in the “[a]lteration of quotations” is a serious charge. What quotation have I altered? Please be specific. If I have indeed altered a quotation, I would naturally want to correct that ASAP. But I don’t think I have.
Hurried phrasing on my part. I did not mean you tried to pass off an altered quotation as the original; I meant only that you continually refer to “drug cartels,” as Volokh refers to “illegal drug distributers” — whereas what Hastert said was in fact “drug GROUPS.”
For example, the first sentence of the original post of yours was:
Eugene Volokh notes that Dennis Hastert smeared George Soros by suggesting that Soros may get his money from drug cartels.
This is not what Hastert said… and though you do not put the phrase in quotation marks, you also don’t quote what Hastert did say — leaving the implication to lie like a dead elephant on the tennis court.
I think Hastert’s statement:
It could be drug money.
suggests that Soros got his money from illegal drug traffickers — i.e. cartels. Now, we can disagree on that (and we obviously do), but I think my conclusion is reasonable.
Sure. It’s one reasonable conclusion. Another reasonable conclusion is that Hastert meant what he said and not what you paraphrased him saying.
So we have two “reasonable” conclusions… one which makes Hastert seem like a tough but honorable man, the other which makes him seem like a lying liar. Common decency suggests we assume the former, not the latter.
Let’s say you’re right. In that case, Hastert screwed up, right? Your argument is that it’s an understandable screw-up, but it’s still a screw-up. He should have corrected any such implication right away.
Sure, I’ll go along with that. I would add that it’s not only understandable but darn near inevitable when giving interviews… I’ve even heard the great William F. Buckley mess up!
It now appears that your biggest beef with Hastert is that he has not fully apologized to George Soros, a man he not only detests on a personal level but believes is a borderline thug and dangerous lunatic skirting the edge of the law, for having said something ambiguous that Chris Wallace and some others misunderstood as an accusation of outright criminality on Soros’s part. Instead of apologizing, Hastert has explained what he meant but not in an abject way.
Well, your mileage may vary. Personally, I’m not going to argue whether Denny Hastert has good manners or not, nor whether Soros deserves to be treated with good manners — which really is the only point of real contention now. It is enough that I have shown there is just as reasonable a case to be made (more reasonable, I believe) that Hastert was not lying when he said “drug groups” meant groups like the ACCPL, not the cocaine cartels.
I rest my case.
Dafydd ab Hugh
Comment by Dafydd ab Hugh — 9/4/2004 @ 7:27 pm
Okay, you admit I haven’t altered quotations, and you fail to deal with the “drug money” quote after I have referred to it about a half-dozen times.
My biggest beef with Hastert is his smear of Soros, based on the quotations that I have accurately set forth in the post and in this comment thread. The worst of which (the “drug money” quote) have gone completely unrefuted by an intelligent and articulate defender of Hastert’s, whose eloquence nevertheless fails to obscure his utter failure to refute the most damning evidence against Hastert.
I rest my case.
Comment by Patterico — 9/4/2004 @ 9:30 pm
I dealt directly with it. Perhaps you missed it:
“You know, Soros’ money, some of that is coming from overseas. It could be drug money. We don’t know where it comes from.”
Nowhere in your long comment do you offer an explanation of how that language could be reasonably read as referring to groups seeking drug legalization. There is a commonly understood meaning of the phrase “drug money” and it’s not “money from NORML.” It’s money obtained from drug trafficking.
Oh, we may well agree on that… but that is not what you accused Hastert of charging. You claimed that Hastert was charging Soros with getting money from illegal drug traffickers… “drug cartels,” or as Volokh put it, “illegal drug distributers.”
The key is in the very source you cited, Patterico: it appears from the Slate article that Hastert is in fact charging Soros with taking money from legal drug traffickers… in particular, the Andean Council of Coca-Leaf Producers (ACCLP) — which is a real organization pushing hard for worldwide legalization of drugs.
Money from legal drug traffickers would still legitimately be called “drug money.”
Dafydd ab Hugh
Comment by Dafydd ab Hugh — 9/5/2004 @ 12:48 am
In the 1989 Kerry subcomittee report, there are details of how the Bahamas hired a public relations firm in 1985 to influence US drug policy, and swing it away from interdiction and toward a “demand-side” emphasis. The Bahamian government was at that time corrupt and sheltered traffickers like Carlos Lehder.
Presumably, this PR effort involved lobbying.
I don’t mean to intrude on this debate, gentlemen, but I hope one of you might acknowledge my premise that drug traffickers are not automatically opposed to legalization, and might seek to influence US policy. What Hastert charged was plausible, if not correct.
Comment by clint — 9/5/2004 @ 1:40 am
Dafydd,
Yes, I suppose you did address it — I just don’t buy your explanation.
Here’s my bottom line: I don’t think the Fox News Sunday viewers were splitting the hairs you’re splitting. I think much of the audience took Hastert’s comments the way I did (and Shafer and Volokh and Wallace did). Having made comments that could reasonably be understood to suggest the possibility that Soros gets money from drug kingpins, Hastert does not now clearly and unmistakably say he has no evidence of that. I think it’s deplorable, but I think we’ll have to leave ourselves at this impasse.
Clint,
You may be right. I just don’t know.
Comment by Patterico — 9/5/2004 @ 8:16 am
Sayeth Patterico:
Here’s my bottom line: I don’t think the Fox News Sunday viewers were splitting the hairs you’re splitting. I think much of the audience took Hastert’s comments the way I did (and Shafer and Volokh and Wallace did). Having made comments that could reasonably be understood to suggest the possibility that Soros gets money from drug kingpins, Hastert does not now clearly and unmistakably say he has no evidence of that. I think it’s deplorable, but I think we’ll have to leave ourselves at this impasse.
Oh, I certainly agree with your “bottom line.” Hastert has yet to recognize how poorly he phrased his attack… allowing it to morph by neglect from a harsh but legitimate attack into a completely over-the-line slander. I don’t think that’s what he meant; but you’re absolutely right that that is how many, even most people will parse it.
It’s always critical to monitor every media appearance to see whether something happened you didn’t notice, then move swiftly to counter any misinterpretations. And Hastert has no excuse; he’s not in the hot seat being grilled now, so why isn’t he in damage-control mode?
In the end, what Hastert meant will matter much less than what people infer he meant. It reminds me a lot of Sen. Lott: what he said was stupid and foolish, but it would be absurd to argue that Trent Lott really believed that we’d be better off if a segregationist had won the presidency in 1948. He was just making nice to a doddering, old fart.
But what mattered was not what Lott meant, or even how it sounded to the audience at the birthday bash, but instead the message drawn by listeners in the wider audience… and what killed Lott was his inability to understand that and move swiftly to counter it.
Hastert should be shoehorning himself onto every interview show in the country to answer questions, explain what he meant, and apologize — not to Soros, but to the viewers — for being unclear. If he did this, he could turn a negative into a positive immediately and gain a wider audience for his actual charges.
But he’s arrogant, and he won’t, and it will damage him.
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd ab Hugh — 9/5/2004 @ 12:28 pm
See this post from Professor Bainbridge:
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2004/09/volokh_on_haste.html
Money quote, from Wikipedia:
“Critics point out that Soros plays the currency markets through Quantum Fund, his privately-owned investment fund registered in Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles, a Caribbean tax haven which has repeatedly been cited by the International Task Force on Money Laundering of the OECD as one of the world’s most important centers for laundering the illegal proceeds of the Latin American drug trade.”
Maybe this is what Hastert had in mind. I agree that he needs to do some explaining.
Comment by Sporkadelic — 9/5/2004 @ 12:53 pm
“Critics point out that Soros plays the currency markets through Quantum Fund, his privately-owned investment fund registered in Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles, a Caribbean tax haven which has repeatedly been cited by the International Task Force on Money Laundering of the OECD as one of the world’s most important centers for laundering the illegal proceeds of the Latin American drug trade.”
Maybe this is what Hastert had in mind. I agree that he needs to do some explaining.
Well, maybe; but it’s not what he said. He said “drug groups,” not “drug-money launderers.”
But maybe Hastert or others should say it now…!
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd ab Hugh — 9/5/2004 @ 2:17 pm
Hm… I would have thought our esteemed host would have had some comment on the fact that I willingly admit what he calls his “bottom line,” that Hastert phrased his attack poorly enough that many people will, in fact, think he’s accusing Soros of getting money from illegal drug cartels, and that Hastert has not done enough to make it clear what he really meant. At the very least, I would hope this shows that I neither reflexively disagree with Patterico nor blindly support the Speaker.
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd ab Hugh — 9/6/2004 @ 1:11 pm
I am glad we agree on the bottom line — or at least on what I think is the bottom line.
While I think some of your arguments are a stretch, I appreciate your having aired them. You have made some good points, and your perspective will always be welcome.
Comment by Patterico — 9/6/2004 @ 1:25 pm
Damn! I just scrolled thru all these comments, tho I admit I gave up on your and Daffyd’s exchange about halfway thru, to see Sporkadelic steal my thunder. Remember, Hastert was making his comments on the relative transparency of campaign finance prior to reform. Now, I agree he should not have just thrown out the suggestion/accusation regarding Soros’ funds without backing it up. But regardless of what he said in his letter, my guess is he was referring to the high probability that Soros’ money comes from drug launderers/groups/cartels who are not required to report in Curacao. Presumably, he’s simply investing/managing their money for a fee or % of profits. But is it really too big a leap to believe the drug “groups” might have an interest in who’s in charge of the Justice dept, as well as having an interest in legalizing their product. Go check out Prof Bainbridge.
Of course campaign finance reform doesn’t really enable 527’s to raise $ any more than they already could. But it does castrate the competition, namely the major parties.
Comment by Lloyd — 9/6/2004 @ 10:42 pm
Upon further reflection, I think Hastert is guilty primarily of making a good point, badly. The good point was that campaign finance reform is futile, as there’s no way to regulate all the money that’s going to end up influencing the campaign process. Hedge funds like Soros’s are a good example of this, as they have almost no oversight. No one, outside a very small circle of insiders, really does know where their money is coming from. Hell, for all we know, it could have even come from drug dealers trying to launder political contributions. We just don’t know.
I think that was the point Hastert was trying to make, lack of oversight. Unfortunately, choked on the drug example, and that became the topic instead.
Comment by Xrlq — 9/6/2004 @ 11:16 pm
[...] On September 2, 2004, I got “ahead of the news cycle,” when I said: Who ever said [Denny] Hastert was anything but a moron anyway? [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Patterico: Ahead of the News Cycle — 5/25/2006 @ 10:24 pm
[...] Sounds fine to me. Long-time readers know I am no fan of Hastert’s anyway. Hastert is the guy I called a “moron” for claiming that the raid on William Jefferson’s office was an affront to the Constitution. Because the word fits, I also called him a “moron” for smearing George Soros. [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Captain Ed: Hastert Should Resign (UPDATE: Allah Says Maybe Not) — 9/30/2006 @ 9:24 pm