Best of the Web Today - October 27, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
How to Keep Your Base at Home
"Despite a generally buoyant Democratic Party nationally," the New York Times reports, "there are worries among Democratic strategists in some states that blacks may not turn up at the polls in big enough numbers because of disillusionment over past shenanigans." What shenanigans would those be? The paper explains:
"This notion that elections are stolen and that elections are rigged is so common in the public sphere that we're having to go out of our way to counter them this year," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist. . . .
Democrats' worries are backed up by a Pew Research Center report that found that blacks were twice as likely now than they were in 2004 to say they had little or no confidence in the voting system, rising to 29 percent from 15 percent.
And more than three times as many blacks as whites--29 percent versus 8 percent--say they do not believe that their vote will be accurately tallied.
Voting experts say the disillusionment is the cumulative effect of election problems in 2000 and 2004, and a reaction to new identification and voter registration laws.
Who exactly made the notion that elections are stolen or rigged "so common in the public sphere"? Wouldn't that be the Democrats, who never got over their grudge over Al Gore's photo-finish loss in 2000, who preposterously claimed Ohio was stolen in 2004, and who are already warning that if they don't do as well as they expect this year, it will be because of Republican dirty tricks?
Given that many of the Dems' complaints are made in expressly racial terms--e.g., blacks were disfranchised in Florida, or a requirement to show ID to vote is racist--why should it be surprising that blacks are more "disillusioned" than whites?
Furthermore, isn't there something patronizing about the whole complaint? Many Republicans in Washington state believe that the Democrats stole the razor-thin 2004 governor's race there, but does anyone think a New York Times reporter will go to Walla Walla and write a sympathetic piece about white conservative voters who are so disillusioned that they plan to stay away from the polls?
It seems to us that the real problem here is that the Democrats have outsmarted themselves. By creating the false impression that black voters are victims, they have discouraged blacks from going to the polls.
Stupid Like a Fox
Slate's Timothy Noah has a very odd column. Mostly it concerns a kerfuffle now under way involving Rush Limbaugh and the actor turned political activist Michael J. Fox. In brief, Limbaugh criticized Fox in ways Noah thinks are stupid, but Noah's contention is that Limbaugh isn't really stupid:
It's a classic trap, right out of the right-wing playbook.
Ever since the resignation of Richard Nixon, a very smart man who got caught abusing his executive power, the GOP has deliberately avoided nominating conspicuously intelligent people for president. Gerald Ford was smarter than he looked, but he was unable to dispel his buffoonish image. Ronald Reagan was famously checked out and ill-informed. George H.W. Bush, though clearly smarter than Dubya, is not exactly imposing in the brains department, and he's demonstrated almost as much difficulty as his son in formulating a coherent sentence. And George W. Bush? Let's just say the guy is either mentally lazy, not very bright, or some combination of these two. I've never felt it necessary to refine that diagnosis; the term I favor is "functionally dumb."
Two things must be said about my assertions in the previous paragraph. One is that they are all unmistakably true. The other is that whenever a liberal repeats any one of them out loud, that liberal--and contemporary liberalism generally--come under attack, along with the Democratic party, the New York Times, Harvard, the AFL-CIO, the Council on Foreign Relations, the three major TV networks, and the Sierra Club. If a liberal is deciding whom to hire to answer phones and return papers neatly to a metal filing cabinet, it's considered legitimate for that liberal to formulate a judgment as to the candidates' intelligence. If a liberal is deciding whom to vote for in a presidential election, it is not. Merely to raise the issue is seen as conclusive evidence that one is snobbish and effete, and that the subject of one's skeptical inquiry is an authentic man of the people.
Noah then switches topic back to Limbaugh. He seems to be saying--although he's a bit unclear about this--that Presidents Ford, Reagan and Bushes, like Limbaugh (in his view), although not "conspicuously intelligent," are actually smarter than they look. Smart enough, in fact, to fool liberals like Noah into thinking that they're not that bright.
"Take it from me," Noah concludes his article. "Rush Limbaugh wants you to think he's a dumbass, a pea-brain, an absolute yutz. It's a con job. Don't fall for it." But Noah seems to say he and his fellow liberals routinely "fall for it" when Republican presidents do the same. If this is true, isn't the problem here really that they are not very good judges of intelligence?
Vote Against the Crook, It's Important
The New York Times is endorsing Christopher Callaghan, the Republican candidate for New York state comptroller, against Democratic incumbent Alan Hevesi, who may soon face impeachment for acts that, according to the State Ethics Commission, "violated the public trust":
If the Republican Party had known Mr. Hevesi's candidacy was going to implode, it would undoubtedly have looked harder for a nominee to challenge him. As it was, Mr. Callaghan, the former Saratoga County treasurer, appeared to have been the only person to raise his hand. Until a few weeks ago, he had been such a phantom candidate that even some of his fellow Republicans were scrambling to find out who he was.
As treasurer, Mr. Callaghan ran a tiny office of about a dozen people where he was, in effect, Saratoga County's accountant. He is known as a penny pincher when it comes to public funds, which is good. He is also a conservative on nonfiscal matters, whose political views would put him at odds with many New Yorkers. In interviews and in this week's debate, he has been extremely unimpressive, hardly the man whom voters would normally want to hire as the state's chief fiscal officer and sole trustee of New York's $140 billion pension fund.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it? In fact, if it were a little less harsh on Callaghan, it could be characterized as praising with faint damnation.
Saddam Nostalgia
Hans Blix, the erstwhile U.N. weapons inspector who makes us ashamed of our Swedish heritage, is opening his trap again, the South African Press Association reports:
"Iraq is a pure failure," Blix was quoted as saying. "If the Americans pull out, there is a risk that they will leave a country in civil war. At the same time, it doesn't seem that the United States can help to stabilise the situation by staying there. . . .
Blix said the situation would have been better if the war had not taken place.
"Saddam would still have been sitting in office. Okay, that is negative and it would not have been joyful for the Iraqi people. But what we have gotten is undoubtedly worse," he was quoted as saying.
Blix is not the first to say that things would be better if Saddam Hussein still ruled Iraq. But if he and others really believe this, why don't they advocate restoring Saddam to power, or at least employing Saddam-like methods to bring the situation closer to the supposedly preferable status quo ante?
Because they don't care about Iraq. They care only about being right.
Still Dead?
Hey, we haven't heard anything from Fidel Castro lately. Otto Reich, a former assistant secretary of state, suggests on National Review Online that this may be because Castro no longer exists:
This time the rumors are real: Castro is dying of stomach cancer. He may have already died, even before the funeral preparations were finished, so the news is not out. Confirmation of the terminal illness comes from the usual sources but in a non-conventional manner. The Cuban government has been summoning to Havana representatives of the major international media to negotiate the best seats, camera angles, and interviews with the despot's political survivors, and to inform them of the ground rules for coverage of the state funeral.
The foreign media are being told that the model for Castro's funeral is that of Pope John Paul II a year ago. The Cubans actually believe--or pretend--that the death of a tyrant deserves the same attention as that of the world's great men of peace.
Well, we wouldn't say it deserves the same attention exactly, but it certainly deserves attention. When Castro dies--or rather, when the world comes to know of his death--we plan to lift a glass and smoke a Cuban cigar in celebration. The tyrant is dead, long may he rot!
Commies for Life
"Nicaragua's Congress voted [yesterday] to ban all abortions, including those that could save a mother's life," the Associated Press reports from Managua. If the president signs the bill, it will "eliminate a century-old exception to Nicaragua's abortion ban that permits the procedure if three doctors certify that the woman's health is at risk."
What got our attention about the story was this:
Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, who was a supporter of abortion rights as a young revolutionary, has said he has become a devout Roman Catholic and now opposes abortion.
Ortega's socialist government of the 1980s had a contentious relationship with the Catholic church, but Ortega recently has established warm ties with leading church figures in Nicaragua.
Wow. We remember being in college in the 1980s, when Ortega was a hero of the campus left (especially the faculty). The news that they were lionizing a future antiabortion extremist must have some of them turning in their graves.
What Would We Do Without Experts?
"Modern Buildings Are Complex--Experts"--headline, Tide (Port Harcourt, Nigeria), Oct. 27
What Would We Forgo Without Mental Health Experts?
"Forgo 'Psycho' Killers, Mental Health Experts Say"--headline, Portsmouth (N.H.) Herald, Oct. 26
What Would We Do Without UCF Professors?
"UCF Professor Says No Such Thing as Ghosts"--headline, WDBO-AM Web site (Orlando, Fla.), Oct. 26
Radical Memory Loss
"Recall Wipes Out Sony's Profits for Latest Quarter"--headline, New York Times, Oct. 26
Do Police Chases Normally Cheer People Up?
"Police Chase Depressed Driver"--headline, Indianapolis Star, Oct. 27
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Fire Breaks Out at Salt Lake Crematorium"--headline, KTVX-TV Web site (Salt Lake City), Oct. 25
o "Vegetarians Happy With IU Dining Halls"--headline, Indianapolis Star, Oct. 27
o "Canada Post to Review 800,000 Rural Mailboxes"--headline, CBC.ca, Oct. 27
o "LA Times Editor Says He Considered Resigning After Publisher's Ouster"--headline, MSNBC.com, Oct. 26
Pacifist Hires Gunman
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham, blogging on the center's NewsBusters.org, is unhappy with an Iraq-based reporter:
Thursday's Howard Kurtz profile of NBC Baghdad correspondent Richard Engel in the Washington Post has a real clash of perspectives. First, NBC anchor Brian Williams claimed Engel "is the most agenda-less person I've met in our business." Then Engel declared "I think war should be illegal. . . . I'm basically a pacifist."
Graham has a point inasmuch as being a "pacifist" and being "agendaless" would seem to be mutually incompatible. But check out this March 2006 report by Engel:
Reporting trips are now military-style missions. We're escorted by private, armed guards. But even after taking every precaution, sometimes we're caught in the violence, as I was during an IED attack in Mosul in January 2005.
Someone who hires armed mercenaries to do violence to others should the need arise can hardly be called a pacifist. So maybe Engel is agendaless after all. |
