Best of the Web Today - June 2, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
No Confidence
There is a curious dissonance in American politics at the moment. On the one hand, we keep hearing, from people who should know, that Republicans are in trouble--headed for huge losses in 2006, and maybe in 2008 too. If so, why aren't Democrats more confident? Why are they still acting like embittered losers, wallowing in fantasies about past persecution?
The latest example: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a nephew of Sen. Ted Kennedy, has reportedly written a long article for Rolling Stone magazine in which he claims that President Bush stole the election--not the election of 2000, but the election of 2004, which wasn't even that close. According to blogger Edward Morrissey, Kennedy claims that exit polls are "exquisitely accurate," and therefore the early, improperly released raw data, which overstated John Kerry's* performance, told the truth and the GOP stole the election.
"I can only hope some of the Big Papers run with this," says a post on DailyKos.com. "I wonder if there is anyway [sic] to reverse the results, and have Pres. Kerry assume his correct place in History." Time travel being logically impossible, the answer is no.
Blogger "Confederate Yankee" speculates that the Kennedy nephew's motives are racial. For it turns out that the villain of his piece is Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state. This year Blackwell is the Republican nominee for governor this year--and oh by the way, he is black:
Kennedy's article was constructed for one reason, and one reason only; to smear a black fiscal and socially conservative candidate [who] has charisma, integrity, and cross-cultural appeal--in short, a real chance of winning. Blackwell . . . has been significantly closing the gap with Democratic frontrunner Ted Strickland in recent weeks. Strickland led Blackwell by 16 points in a Russmussen poll on May 8, but that gap has dramatically to just six points in a May 25 UC-Ohio poll. . . .
Ohio Democrats fear a Strickland loss, but the national Democratic Party fears that Blackwell may be in the vanguard of black conservatives that may cut across racial and party lines, eroding their traditional stranglehold on the black vote.
For lack of information, we neither agree nor disagree with CY's assumption about the young Kennedy's motives. Also, we quibble with his metaphor (wouldn't one loosen a stranglehold rather than "erode" it?). But one thing is undeniable: If Republicans found a way to compete for black voters, it would spell disaster for Democrats.
In 2004, according to exquisitely accurate exit polls, blacks constituted 11% of the electorate and favored Kerry over the president by 88% to 11%. If this split had been 60% to 39%--still leaving blacks as the most Democratic racial group--that would represent a swing of 28% of blacks, or 3.1% of the total electorate, toward Bush. All else being equal, this would have given Bush a popular-vote margin of 5.5%, a very comfortable victory.
Blackwell is one of three black Republican nominees who are serious contenders for statewide office this year; the others are Michael Steele for Senate in Maryland and Lynn Swann for Pennsylvania governor. All three men are underdogs, but none of their opponents are prohibitive favorites.
Reducing the Democrats' huge advantage among blacks has long been a dream of Republicans, and they have never realized it before. They may well fail again this year. But even if the odds are against it, the very possibility has to scare the wits out of Democrats. Divergent black voting patterns are an aftereffect of American racism that the Dems cannot afford to overcome.
* At least he served in Vietnam, unlike Robert F. Kennedy Jr.!
Valerie Who?
Blogress Clarice Feldman offers an odd twist on the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. She quotes from a January 2004 Vanity Fair profile of Plame and her swaggering spouse, Joe Wilson:
[Vice President] Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, visited the C.I.A. several times at Langley and told the staff to make more of an effort to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and to uncover Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear capabilities. One of the people who objected most fervently to what he saw as "intimidation," according to one former C.I.A. case officer, was Alan Foley, then the head of the Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center. He was Valerie Plame's boss. (Foley could not be reached for comment.)
Feldman says she wrote to Foley to inquire about this and received the following reply last week:
I didn't know that Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson existed until after the Novak article [in July 2003]. I have never met nor communicated with either of them. Nor did I have any responsibility or authority relating to them, the reported trip to Niger, or the subsequent leak investigation. . . . Please do not contact me again.
Wow, Valerie Plame's identity was so secret, her own boss didn't know who she was!
Hans Brix? Oh No! Oh, Herro.
"A study led by former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix called Thursday for outlawing nuclear weapons and reviving global cooperation on disarmament including security guarantees to curb the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea," the Associated Press reports from Turtle Bay.
What a great idea! Just outlaw the doggone things! When nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons. And if Iran and North Korea fail to cooperate, why, we will write them a letter, telling them how angry we are!
Those Unilateral Quake Survivors
"Indonesia Quake Survivors Say Food, Medical Care Lacking; UN Praises Efforts"--headline, Associated Press, June 1
Amendment XVIII, Episode II: Attack of the Clowns
Yesterday we noted that the New York Times had published a hysterical editorial on the Marriage Protection Amendment, in which the paper accused MPA proponents (rightly, we suspect) of acting cynically. We asked: "Is the Times not being equally cynical by falsely describing an amendment that has no possibility of even being proposed as 'threatening to the Constitution'?"
Reader Ted Clayton answers:
No. Proposing constitutional amendments that even the people who propose them say cannot be passed teaches people that it's OK to treat the Constitution as just one more thing to score cheap political points with, rather than the nation's foundational social contract. This reduces the stature of the Constitution, which is threatening to the document itself, since people take it less seriously, and national unity, since so much of that is based on shared ideas and values (rather than bloodlines as in many other countries).
Also, the intolerance present in this particular amendment goes against the inclusiveness of the Constitution's values, and if that intolerance spreads it too will threaten the Constitution.
This is a pretty strong case for the Times editorialists' sincerity--they probably really do believe all this stuff--but these arguments are awfully weak.
Do futile efforts at amending the Constitution really weaken either "national unity" or "the document itself"? If so, America should be on the verge of a constitutional crisis. Last November, the liberal blogger Kevin Drum conducted a survey and found that just in the preceding year, 47 constitutional amendments had been introduced, 44 of which dealt with subjects other than same-sex marriage. Illinois's Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. alone introduced nine of them.
Number of the 47 amendments that were actually proposed (i.e., passed by two-thirds votes of House and Senate and sent to the states for ratification): 0.
Even highly popular causes like the prevention of same-sex marriage and the prohibition of flag desecration (also subject of three of the amendments on Drum's list) have failed to generate the political support necessary for an amendment. It seems to us that the "lesson" taught by these futile efforts is precisely the opposite of the one Clayton adduces: namely, that the difficulty of the amendment process renders the Constitution all but impervious to abuse by the popular branches of government.
As for Clayton's point about "intolerance," it strikes us as being in part a case of projection. No doubt some proponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment harbor antigay animus, but there is plenty of intolerance on the other side of the issue as well. That Times editorial, for instance, offers no qualifications to its characterization of proponents as "far-right," "mean-spirited" and driven by "bigotry."
If we were in Congress, we would vote against the amendment; our views on the topic are generally in agreement with those of James Q. Wilson. But surely American democracy is robust enough to withstand vigorous disagreement and even intolerance by those on both extremes of a debate for those on the other side. In any case, it's hard to see how merely putting this amendment up for a vote will promote intolerance of any kind.
A Sorry Spectacle
Here is a story that we find oddly refreshing. Alan Hevesi, New York's Democratic state comptroller, was speaking yesterday at the commencement of Queens College, where he praised another speaker, Sen. Chuck Schumer?. According to WNBC-TV, this is how he described New York's senior senator:
"The man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it. The toughest senator, the best representative. A great, great member of the Congress of the United States."
What's refreshing is what happened later in the day:
Hevesi called a mea culpa press conference hours after putting his foot in his mouth at the Queens College commencement.
"I apologize to the president of the United States" and to the fellow state politician, Sen. Charles Schumer, Hevesi said. "I am not a person of violence.
"I am apologizing as abjectly as I can. There is no excuse for it. It was beyond dumb."
When people in public life give offense, they often follow up with either weaselly nonapologies or apologies so self-abasing that they could not possibly be sincere. It's nice to see an abject apology, without excuses, that is exactly appropriate to the offense given.
? A dagger of the mind, a false creation, proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain.
Weld Done?
Former Massachusetts governor William Weld has run into trouble in his quest for the GOP nomination as governor of New York. The New York Sun reports that John Faso "scored a remarkable come-from-behind victory" at yesterday's state party convention in Hempstead:
Mr. Faso, who served as minority leader in the state Assembly before narrowly losing a race for state comptroller in 2002, won 61.2% of the delegate vote. Mr. Weld claimed 38.8%, more than the 25% that he needed to qualify for a place on the September primary ballot. . . .
For Mr. Weld, it's 1990 all over again. That year, delegates rejected him at the Massachusetts Republican convention, favoring a candidate with more right-wing views on abortion. Conservative party members didn't trust him and the Republican state party chairman urged him to drop out of the race and run for attorney general. He went on to win the primary by a more than 15-point margin.
In a liberal state like New York, Weld, who is liberal on social issues, is probably a better bet in the general election than Faso, an across-the-board conservative. But Faso is likely to win the primary, for reasons reader Michael Segal explained in a 1992 letter to the New York Times:
In "Bush's Choice" (letter, Feb. 6), Barbara Gimbel, secretary of the New York State Republican Family Committee, criticizes President [George H.W.] Bush's claim that his market-based health care plan is rooted in support for choice for consumers. She asserts that conservatives such as the President are inconsistent in being pro-choice on marketplace issues and anti-choice on social issues, such as abortion.
However, the same reasoning would say that liberals are just as inconsistent for being anti-choice on marketplace issues, yet pro-choice on social issues.
Ms. Gimbel seems to yearn for a libertarian such as Gov. William Weld of Massachusetts, who is pro-choice on marketplace and social issues. But she is unlikely to get a libertarian on a state or national level because New York and other states forbid voting by independents in primaries. This practice is allowed in Massachusetts.
Independents provided Governor Weld the support that allowed him to beat his conservative opponent in the 1990 Republican gubernatorial primary. In contrast, he had lost badly to that same conservative at the nonbinding state Republican convention, which was closed to independents.
Until primary voting rules are changed to allow voting by independents in other states, people such as Ms. Gimbel may just have to choose between inconsistent conservatives and liberals.
Ironically, in 1994 New York did elect a Republican governor who favored legal abortion, George Pataki, who is leaving office after three terms. That's unlikely to happen this year, though, for Faso has the endorsement of the Conservative Party, which would make it hard for Weld to prevail in November even if he manages an upset in the GOP primary.
Why Not Just Go Cold Turkey?
"Bush Admin. Wants to Cut Meth Use 15 Pct."--headline, Associated Press, June 1
'These Go to 11'
"Scienitists [sic] also predict that there will be storms of at least force 4, and possibly 6, during the latest hurricane season, which lasts until the end of November."--Times (London), June 2
Next Reuters Exposé: Check Not Always in Mail
"Virginity Pledgers Often Dishonest About Past"--headline, Reuters, June 1
South Vietnam and East Germany Are Back!
"Nations Split at AIDS Meeting"--headline, Thanh Nien News (Vietnam), June 2
'They Don't Take American Express'
"Songwriter Charged With Growing Pot"--headline, Associated Press, June 1
A Good Reason to Move to the Suburbs
"Nicole Kidman's Urban Sex Ban"--headline, BANG Showbiz, June 1
What Would Earth Do Without JAXA?
"JAXA: Small Asteroids Not as Threatening to Earth"--healdine, CNN.com, June 2
Cliff Was Pretty Relieved Too
"Brooklyn Woman Rescued After 24 Hours on Cliff"--headline, WNBC-TV Web site (New York), June 2
Leave Our Mother Out of This!
"Taranto Conspicuously Mum on the Status of His Media Bias Theory"--headline, MediaMatters.org, June 2
Thanks for the Tip!--LXXVII
"Health Tip: Save Your Feet From Blisters"--headline, HealthDayNews, June 2
Bottom Story of the Day
"Kerry Attacks Bush Over Iraq Policies"--headline, Los Angeles Times, June 2
No Shock Here
Mayor Richard Daley's arrogance has been laid bare, argues Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass. At a press conference Wednesday, Daley was confronted by Matt Walberg, whom Kass describes as "the Swede, the reporter who helps me with the column." Walberg asked Daley a question "about the City Hall corruption trial in federal court"--though precisely what he asked remains fuzzy. Kass reports Daley gave Walberg the brush-off:
He avoided the Swede's questions this way:
"It's silly. Baldheaded!" Daley shouted at the Swede. "HA HA HA HA. He's baldheaded! Is that silly. No. C'mon! . . . That is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Next question."
Daley doubtless thought the Swede would recede, parting with a whimper, not a bang. Instead Walberg bristled. As if on cue, he became, in Kass's words, "a minor media star, fielding requests from news organizations wanting to know how he felt about being called bald by the powerful boss of Chicago."
It was his opportunity to shine. He now styles himself "the spokesman for bald guys." (You have to admit, he's smooth.) Kass adds:
The wife of the founder of Bald-Headed Men of America called on Daley to recant his baldophobia and publicly apologize to the Swede.
"I think Mayor Daley needs to look over his constituents a little better," Jane Capps said. "Fifty percent of all men are bald-headed. And, I would assume, they do vote."
Bald-Headed Men of America, based in Morehead, N.C., is the glabrous-American answer to the Club for Growth. (It's sometimes confused with the Tufts Alumni Association.)
All this exposure must be quite heady for Walberg, who previously felt stranded in a fluff job. But the mayor needn't worry. Sure, he needs to mop up after the fallout from his cutting remark, and his re-election is no longer a lock. But whatever waves Walberg makes, they won't be permanent. |
