Reply #2: The WSJ is shocked, shocked to hear politics goes on in politics

[TayTay]

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.