Best of the Web Today - August 23, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
Today's Video on WSJ.com: Dan Henninger on the Deutsche Bank fire and what's wrong with America.
'Wow, Is He Still Alive?' Dept.
Several readers sent us this link with the suggestion that we file it under "Bottom Stories of the Day," but we actually found it oddly interesting. The New York Observer has tracked down Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, and asked him to weigh in on today's politics:
It was around this very moment 20 years ago, the summer when Oliver North told Congress he was "authorized to do everything that I did" and Reagan fatigue took hold, that Mr. Dukakis, then the 53-year-old governor of Massachusetts, emerged at the head of a crowded Democratic presidential pack. By the time he was formally nominated in Atlanta the following July, he'd opened a 17-point lead over Vice President George H.W. Bush.
"I can handle this guy," Mr. Dukakis supposedly replied around that time when John Sasso, his consultant in exile, asked to return to the campaign. "You worry about the first 100 days."
So you can understand why the numerous harbingers of a triumphant 2008 for Democrats--George W. Bush's Nixonian approval ratings, polls that show voters favoring a Democratic White House candidate by double-digit margins, the electorate's historical aversion to three-term rule by one party--haven't prompted Mr. Dukakis to begin planning his trip to the 2009 inaugural celebration.
"We're not going to outspend the other guys," he said during an interview in his modest office in the political science department at Northeastern University, where he was the first to arrive (at 7:30 a.m.) on a recent midsummer morning. "We're probably not going to outstrategize them. And some crazy guy will blow up a building with three weeks to go, you know, and then we'll be back in Bush-land again."
Several points here. First of all, that last quote is really creepy. The thought of a massacre on American soil seems to leave Dukakis unmoved, except that he worries it might be harmful to his party's political prospects. But this is of a piece with his insouciant attitude toward the depredations of Willie Horton (a murderer who brutalized a Maryland couple after his release on a Dukakis-approved prison furlough program) and a hypothetical question in a 1988 debate about how he would feel if his own wife were raped and murdered. An important reason Dukakis lost is that he comes across as freakishly bloodless, unable to convey the normal range of human emotion.
Which brings us to another point: Dukakis misses the obvious lesson of 1988 for the Democrats. In the Observer piece, he goes on, "true to his technocratic roots," to argue that Democrats need better precinct organization. He also faults himself for "fatally ignoring . . . the GOP's success with Willie Horton." But it's hard to see how he could have profited by paying more attention to the Horton question. Apparently Dukakis still believed in the furlough policy, so what was he going to say, that Horton's victims had it coming?
The real lesson from 1988 is that in order to win a presidential election, even against a weak incumbent party, it is usually necessary to nominate a good candidate. If the Dems choose someone as flawed as Dukakis, they are likely to lose, no matter how unpopular President Bush is come next November.
On a related note, the Dukakis story got us to thinking about how Americans seldom end up regretting the decision not to elect a man president. You never hear anyone say that the country would have been better off if Dukakis had been elected in 1988. The same is true of John Kerry in 2004, Bob Dole in 1996, George H.W. Bush in 1992, Walter Mondale in 1984, etc.
An exception is Al Gore, although that is due mainly to the unusual circumstances of the 2000 election, and it may change once the global-warmist fad passes. Also, we're pretty sure we've heard George McGovern say the country would have been better off if George McGovern had beaten Nixon in 1972.
For that matter, it also seems likely that if the 1988, 1992 or 2000 election had gone the other way, no one would be ruing the day we failed to elect George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. There is something about the office of president that elevates the men who hold and have held it--to such an extent that there are actually people who venerate Jimmy Carter.
Ignorance of the Law
Mitt Romney has been justly criticized for politically expedient flip-flopping on abortion: pro in 1994, when he challenged Ted Kennedy for the Senate; anti in 2007, when he decided to run for president; somewhere in between in 2002, when he ran for governor.
But the Washington Post is mistaken in thinking it has found a contemporaneous contradiction in Romney's abortion position:
Romney said this week that as president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, two weeks after telling a national television audience that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure nationwide.
In an interview with a Nevada television station on Tuesday, Romney said Roe. v. Wade should be abolished and vowed to "let states make their own decision in this regard." On Aug. 6, he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he supports a human life amendment to the Constitution that would protect the unborn.
National Review's Kathryn Lopez explains why these positions are reconcilable:
He supports a human life amendment but lives in the incremental real world. If Roe is overturned, states will take up the issue. If Roe is overturned, it would be helpful to have a president who supports a federal ban, and who will presumably support those trying to ban abortion in their states (something worth hearing him make clear he would). Romney's position makes sense to me.
Another point: The Post reporter seems to be ignorant about the Constitution. Whatever Romney's opinion of a constitutional amendment on abortion (or any other amendment), it is irrelevant to anything he could do as president.
Amending the Constitution is a purely legislative function, possibly the only purely legislative function in the American system of government. To propose an amendment requires the assent of two-thirds of each house of Congress; to ratify it requires the approval of the legislatures in three-fourths of the states. Once this happens--which is exceedingly rare--the amendment comes into force regardless of the president, who has no veto power.
If Romney wants to amend the Constitution, he should run for Congress again, or for the state Legislature. Journalists, for their part, should be knowledgeable enough not to take terribly seriously would-be presidents' (or actual presidents') pronouncements about constitutional amendments they'd like to see.
Taking a -Stan for Democracy
Yesterday we noted that blogger Josh Marshall is denying that President Bush has ever had an agenda to promote democracy--even though the same Josh Marshall claimed, 4 1/2 years ago, to have uncovered Bush's dark plot to promote democracy. Reader Mark Conversino takes issue with the 2007 Marshall:
Marshall's lament over the president's "wrecked 'democracy promotion agenda,' " clearly overlooks what the administration has done in Central Asia. For example, we no longer have basing rights at the Karshi-Khanabad (K2) Airbase in Uzbekistan or any significant presence or influence in that country because of the administration's criticism of Uzbek President Islam Karimov's bloody crackdown on unarmed protesters in the Ferghana Valley in the late spring and early summer of 2005.
I have traveled widely in that former Soviet republic (but not since 2005 and our expulsion), and the Uzbeks were keen to have the U.S. presence as a safeguard against renewed Russian imperialism. We gained access to K2 and other facilities in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and used them to support operations in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, when Karimov clearly demonstrated that he remained nothing more than an old-style Soviet thug, we withheld aid and even called for an international investigation into the suppression of the riots I mentioned, sparking our own expulsion from the country.
I suppose Marshall would find this a cause for criticism, but that's not his current complaint; it's that President Bush has cynically abandoned even a pretense of support for democracy abroad and this example undermines Marshall's assertion.
I was in neighboring Kyrgyzstan in 2005 as the situation of the Akayev government grew critical in the wake of the first round of clearly rigged elections and the outcome of events was very much in doubt. I saw firsthand how our ambassador played a pivotal role in keeping the situation from going south, openly calling on Askar Akayev to abide by the country's constitution and his own pledge to step down peacefully.
I maintain that had we abandoned the "democracy promotion agenda," we would have backed Akayev in a bid to keep basing rights and access or at a minimum, just kept quiet. But we let Akayev know that we would neither recognize nor accept the results of any tainted elections. We were willing to risk access to another critical base in the region--at Manas International Airport in the capital, Bishkek--in pursuit of our president's "wrecked 'democracy promotion agenda.' "
Akayev is long gone, and the current Kyrgyz government may not be ideal, but again the point is that this president was and is willing to adhere to his principles--and we're still operating at Manas. Since Marshall included Central Asia in his complaint, I'd think he would at least take the time to bring himself up to date on the political situation there. Maybe that's too much to ask.
We've also backed democratic movements in Ukraine and Georgia, as well as Lebanon and other points around the globe. Singling out a lack of progress with the Saudis and Egyptians merely exposes Marshall as intellectually dishonest or woefully uninformed on the course of political events in many parts of the world over the last four years.
Or at least as more interested in partisanship than facts.
Reliable Sources
The U.S. military is planning to move a secure command center from inside Colorado's Cheyenne Mountain to nearby Peterson Air Force Base, and Reuters reports that "some officials at Cheyenne" oppose the plan:
Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of harm to their careers, they say the new command center at Peterson cannot be protected from nuclear, chemical or biological attack and its systems will not be sufficiently hardened against an electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear blast overhead.
That's the most honest explanation for granting anonymity that we've seen.
A Portrait of the Artist as a Kitten
Some years back, there was a kerfuffle in New York over a Brooklyn museum's exhibition of a painting of the Virgin Mary that used elephant dung in addition to paint. A review in today's New York Times of a Swiss exhibition of art by one Robert Gober, explores other innovative artistic mediums:
Other symbols of repressive cleanliness include bags of cat litter and rat poison in painted plaster, and cast bronze or pewter sink drains, sewer drains and culverts. A huge culvert penetrates the abdomen of a nearly life-size concrete Madonna that was in his controversial installation unveiled at the Los Angeles County Museum of Contemporary Art in 1997. This work, which also has a wood staircase cascading with water, Depression-era suitcases and a subterranean grotto, is now owned by the Schaulager and on permanent view here. It is a masterpiece.
Forms and motifs ricochet through the show. In one gallery, bags of cat litter lean against walls covered with the hanging man/sleeping man wallpaper, while at the center stands a sparkling satin wedding gown, redolent of purity, that Mr. Gober wears in an image in another work.
If animal poop and cat litter are art, how do we go about getting an NEA grant for our cat?
'A 10, a 5 and Five Singles in Every Pot'
"Edwards Embraces Message of 'Change' "--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 23
Sexual Intercourse Began in 1963
"Many Found Sexually Active Into the 70s"--headline, New York Times, Aug. 23
Leaving the Underwear Totally Exposed
"Proposal Would Ban Underwear-Exposing Pants"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug. 22
No Wonder the Lines Were So Long
"Pigeons Took Toll on Minn. Bridge"--headline, Boston Globe, Aug. 23
If Your Book Weighs a Pound, You're Out of Luck
"Warner Brothers to Turn All 15 Oz Books Into Movies"--headline, Slashdot.org, Aug. 22
Yeah, They're Really Neat!
"Powerball, Lotto Jackpots Swell"--headline, Indianapolis Star, Aug. 23
Brrr!
"Japanese Researchers Freeze Ovaries, Put Them Back"--headline, Agence France-Presse, Aug. 23
Global Warming Strikes Again
"Sunshine Requests Rain on City"--headline, Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville), Aug. 23
Someone Set Up Us the Bomb
"Car Crash Clips Assist Shoppers"--headline, Detroit News, Aug. 23
News You Can Use
o "WHO: Infectious Diseases Spread Faster"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 22
o "Study: Men With 'Cavemen' Faces Most Attractive to Women"--headline, LiveScience.com, Aug. 23
o "Chemists Figure Out What Makes Coffee Bitter"--headline, LiveScience.com, Aug. 23
o "Survey: Never Too Old for Sex"--headline, Hartford Courant, Aug. 23
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Chickens Fall to Deaths From Truck on Highway 37"--headline, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 22
o "Swedish Police Stop Bill Murray in Golf Cart"--headline, Reuters, Aug. 22
o "Palo Alto Split Over Protecting Oak Tree on Police Station Site"--headline, San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 23
o "Clinton, Obama Fail to Disagree on Iraq, Taxes in Iowa Fight"--headline, Bloomberg, Aug. 23
Moose's Inhumoosity to Moose
"Global warming is impacting more than the water levels in the Great Lakes," according to a press release from Michigan Technological University:
It could be the beginning of the end for the moose and wolves of Isle Royale. And if it is, a Michigan Technological University scientist places the blame squarely on the human race.
Sorry, Michigan Technological University, but we ain't taking the rap for this one. As we learned yesterday, global warming is caused by moose burping and passing gas. If moose are dying, it's their own fault. They're like lemmings, only bigger, and they commit suicide by belching rather than jumping off cliffs.
URL for this article: opinionjournal.com |
