Best of the Web Today - October 30, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Lieberman's Revenge
It has been less than three months since Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary. The New York Times editorial page hailed an "uprising" by "irate moderates," which, translated into normal political nomenclature, means a victory for the crazy left. It seemed that the Democratic Party was moving left just at a time when the party's fortunes were about to take a turn for the better.
We'll know in eight days whether the party's fortunes have improved, but already there is reason to question whether the move to the left is as pronounced as we thought on Aug. 8. Not only does Lieberman, now an independent, seem a shoo-in against Lamont, but the Times (the news side, that is, not the crazy editorial page) reports that "in their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party":
One such candidate, Heath Shuler, was courted by Republicans to run for office in 2001. Mr. Shuler, 34, is a retired National Football League quarterback who is running in the 11th Congressional District in North Carolina. He is an evangelical Christian and holds fast to many conservative social views, like opposition to abortion rights. . . .
While Democratic leaders have gone to great lengths to promote the views of these candidates, some, like Mr. Shuler, have views on issues like gun control and abortion that are far out of step with the prevailing views of the Democrats who control the party. On some issues, they may even be expected to side with Republicans and the Bush White House.
Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected more moderate views.
This would pose an interesting difficulty for a Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which Dick Armey, an erstwhile GOP majority leader, sums up in a Washington Post op-ed:
In essence, Pelosi will be forced to choose between a vocal base--expecting immediate satisfaction on issues such as withdrawing from Iraq, legalizing same-sex marriage and the impeachment of President Bush--or policies that are tolerable to a majority of Americans. That's quite a dilemma: appeasing a base that has been hungry for political revenge since 2000 and 2004, or alienating moderate and swing voters.
Pelosi has stated that House committee chairmen will be chosen by seniority. This could backfire on the Democrats, because members from the most consistently partisan districts are usually the ones who stick around the longest. Chairmen have the power of the subpoena; Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the would-be judiciary chairman, has already drafted articles of impeachment for Bush, while others are calling for investigations on the war in Iraq and the federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina. A revenge-hungry Democratic majority, substituting political grudge matches for serious policy, will not remain a majority for long.
Perhaps Pelosi has the skills to negotiate this; as the Los Angeles Times notes, she does manage to get re-elected in San Francisco, a district much too liberal even for her:
Even as Republicans across the country vilify Pelosi as the face of the lunatic left, here she faces the enmity of the fire-breathing liberals she supposedly represents. Only in San Francisco would Pelosi be picketed as a right-wing warmonger, as she was at a January town hall meeting overrun by protesters who jeered her refusal to cut off funds for U.S. troops in Iraq.
But it's hard to see how to keep together a slender majority that would include both Heath Shuler and John Conyers. They have no policy agenda like the Contract With America, and while Democrats are united now in their opposition to President Bush, he won't be much of a factor two years hence when the Democrats will have to defend their putative majority. Even if the Democrats win next week, they will face some enormous challenges.
Unenthusiastic Endorsement Watch
On Friday we noted that the New York Times had issued a decidedly unenthusiastic endorsement of Christopher Callaghan, Republican candidate for New York state comptroller. An even less enthusiastic endorsement comes from the Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk:
Thelma Drake, the U.S. representative from Virginia's 2nd District, has grown in her job. She knows what she believes, and knows what she thinks, and impresses with her articulate, genial manner.
She knows that the War in Iraq must be won, no matter the cost. She knows that Virginia's coast must be opened to drilling by oil and gas companies. She knows that America needs a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. She knows that tax cuts to benefit the richest Americans must be extended. She knows these subjects backward, forward and sideways. And on every one, Rep. Drake is wrong. . . .
There is an excellent chance that Republicans will lose control of the House of Representatives on Nov. 7. If Drake were to win re-election, it could leave the 2nd District without a voice in the majority party. In fact, given Drake's positions--she is among the most reliably conservative members of Congress--she would likely be relegated to the farthest reaches of the back benches, her voice unable to carry any influence.
It is precisely those lock-step Republican votes that provide the most compelling case against Drake. . . . A vote for Drake is a vote to directly reward the Republican Party for malfeasance that has cost America peace and democracy in Iraq, as well as our good name in the world. It is a reward for the party's recent record of corruption and incompetence, its spendthrift ways and it's inability to provide meaningful oversight to an overreaching executive branch.
Again, this is from the editorial endorsing Drake!
The Critic Raves
Andrew Sullivan's new book, "The Conservative Sole: How I Lost It and Ended Up With Two Left Feet," has been drawing praise from some surprising quarters:
o "This is a book about ideas, not political prescriptions. . . . It's an attempt to start the long road back to conservative intellectual clarity. . . . If you still care about those first principles, and why they are more relevant today than ever, . . . buy the book."--Andrew Sullivan
o "If the book can prompt the usually level-headed David Brooks to contradict himself in order to criticize it and has sent Hugh Hewitt into conniptions, it might just be on to something about what has gone wrong with American conservativsm [sic]."--Andrew Sullivan
o "They're angry. They wouldn't be if they didn't know this book exposes them in ways few yet have."--Andrew Sullivan
o "These people are truly rattled by this book. I believe it's a depth charge into the degerenacy [sic] of the current conservative movement."--Andrew Sullivan
o "Why are so many contemporary 'conservatives' lying about the contents of this book? The only reason I can come up with is that they are deadly afraid of its arguments. . . . Which is why you should read the book."--Andrew Sullivan
Well, we're certainly convinced. We would buy the book in a New York minute if our name were Andrew Sullivan. Well, unless we were a different Andrew Sullivan with the same name.
The Gift That Keeps On Giving
Somehow this never stops being funny. From the Boston Globe:
NEWTOWN, Pa.--The military record of a Democratic House candidate was under attack. So, Senator John F. Kerry ventured to the Philadelphia suburbs last week to defend Patrick Murphy--and deliver the kind of speech the senator never quite gave when his own wartime service was called into question in 2004.
"Attacking Patrick Murphy for his service is a little bit like Jessica Simpson attacking Albert Einstein's IQ," the Massachusetts Democrat proclaimed Thursday at a chilly outdoor rally at Bucks County Community College.
Kerry's simile is too clever by half. We guess Jessica Simpson, whoever she is, isn't as smart as Einstein was--but then, who is? More to the point, how many people can there be who have heard of both Jessica Simpson and Einstein? Kerry continues:
"A lot of these people in the GOP, the Republican Party--they think somehow that they served because they played with GI dolls when they were little," Kerry said. "The guys who really served understand what it means, and we've had enough of these lies."
He's teasing Republicans for playing with dolls? This phony machismo would be almost cute if Kerry weren't 62 years old. Besides, it turns out the big criticism of Kerry is that he is such a wimp:
Many Democrats remain angry with Kerry over his failure to more aggressively combat Republican smears in 2004. . . .
"My reaction was to go down to Texas and punch those Swift boat guys in the mouth," said Albert Lawler, 58, who runs a tutoring business in Bucks County. "He's too much of a politician for that."
But don't worry--Kerry's mood has changed:
"I'm in a fighting mood," Kerry responded. "We--together--lost to two lies: the lie about the war in Iraq, and the lie about me personally. And if you don't think that puts me in a fighting mood, you don't know John Kerry."
Ooohh, John Kerry's in a fighting mood! Swift Boat Veterans, prepare to be taunted!
He's Alive, Castro Insists
"Photographs of Fidel Castro standing and talking on the phone were published Sunday in Cuba's state-run media, a day after the ailing leader appeared in a video to dispel rumors he was on his deathbed," the Associated Press reports from Havana:
The Communist Youth newspaper Juventud Rebelde dedicated its front page to the Cuban president, printing a blown-up picture of a pensive Castro with the title "Always fighting for something, and fighting with optimism!"
Wow, except for the optimism part, he sounds just like John Kerry. The AP reports that Castro "called rumors of his death ridiculous and insulting, claiming they were the work of his enemies. 'Let's see what they say now,' he said."
Well, look at this photo. We'd say he does not look well.
Cheech and Chong Take On Climate Change
"Climate change is already affecting people across Africa and will wipe out efforts to tackle poverty there unless urgent action is taken, a report says. . . . The report, Up In Smoke 2, updates previous research."--BBC Web site, Oct. 28
With a Cover Price of $47 Million, No Wonder Our Circulation Is Low
"Dow Jones to Sell Six Papers for $283 Million"--headline, MarketWatch.com, Oct. 27
We Almost Felt Sorry for the Lawyers
"An article in Business Day on Thursday about the proposed merger of the law firm Dewey Ballantine with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe misstated the estimated profit per equity partner at Dewey Ballantine last year. It was $1.24 million, not $1.24."--correction (fifth item), New York Times, Oct. 30
Let's Hope She Has Plenty of Crayons
"First Lady Expected to Draw Thousands"--headline, Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times, Oct. 30
Maybe Doctors Shouldn't Be Allowed to Advertise
"U.S. Networks Reject Ads for Dixie Chicks Doc"--headline, CBC.ca, Oct. 28
'Hey, That's My Rat!'
"Cowboys Coach Claims Rat in Salad"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 26
Why Not Use the Net to Catch the Sharks?
"Cyberspace a Shark-Infested Pool, Net Crime Expert Says"--headline, Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune, Oct. 27
News You Can Use
"Conserving Heat Will Lower Bills"--headline, Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 29
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Wis. Halloween Party Ends Peacefully"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 29
o "Americans Snub Invitation to Pay $500,000 for Clinton Birthday Party"--headline, Daily Mail (London), Oct. 28
o "Iwo Jima Survivor to See Film"--headline, Daily Review Atlas (Monmouth, Ill.), Oct. 23
o "Deer Not Trapped on Grassy Knoll at Rt. 1"--headline, Times (Trenton, N.J.), Oct. 29
o "Nanticoke Cracks Down on Skateboarders"--headline, Citizens' Voice (Wilkes-Barre, Pa.), Oct. 30
o "U.N. Expert Criticizes U.S. Terror Law"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 27
All Cats Are Created Equal?
Atramentous feline-Americans are feeling discrimination's sting, the Associated Press reports:
Like many shelters around the country, the Kootenai Humane Society in Coeur d'Alene [Idaho] is prohibiting black cat adoptions from now to November 2, fearing the animals could be mistreated in Halloween pranks--or worse, sacrificed in some satanic ritual. . . .
However, some animal experts say the practice does more to hurt animals than protect them.
"Black cats already suffer a stigma because of their color," said Gail Buchwald, vice president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shelter in New York City. "Why penalize them any more by limiting the times when they can be adopted?"
Meanwhile, Britain's Press Association reports that "a cash-strapped hospital's plans to open its doors to dogs and cats in a bid to raise extra funds have been branded a 'disaster waiting to happen' ":
Ipswich Hospital is proposing to use its state-of-the-art radiotherapy equipment, which lies dormant at weekends, to treat family pets with cancer in special Saturday morning clinics. . . .
The measure was criticised [last night] as a symptom of "financial mismanagement" and potentially dangerous to patients.
Of course, if they want to put a stop to this, all they have to do is extend National Health Service coverage to pets, which will kill the incentive for the hospital to treat them.
And don't worry, we'll spare you the cheap pun about positron-emission tomography. |
