Best of the Web
BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:22 p.m.
It's Inevitable
"This is a long process," Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado said yesterday, after the Senate rejected his proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited states or the federal government from defining legal marriage to include same-sex couples. "Nobody on our side, I think, ever felt for a minute that this was going to be a one-shot deal and it was going to be over with at that particular point in time."
Well, it looks to us as though it's over with. Not only did the amendment fail to win the 67 votes required for ratification; it never even came to an actual vote. Rather, the Senate rejected a motion for "cloture," which required the assent of 60 members and would have allowed a vote on the amendment itself. Of great symbolic importance, the vote to allow a vote didn't even command the support of a majority of senators. The vote was 50-48 against cloture. (The two absentee senators, Kedwards, said they would have voted "no.")
This means that supporters of same-sex marriage can claim for the first time to have prevailed in a democratic process, which will lend political legitimacy to the inevitable court decisions awarding gay couples the right to marry--already in Massachusetts, later in a few other states, and ultimately throughout the country. The question is no longer whether America will allow men to marry men and women women, but how soon, in how many states, and when the federal courts will start turning this into national policy.
Foes of President Bush and the GOP have accused them of pushing a doomed amendment during an election year in a cynical effort to win votes in November. From the standpoint of actually passing an amendment, it's clear that this was a strategic error. Part of the idea of holding a Senate vote was to force John Kerry, whose public views on same-sex marriage have been muddled, to take a position. Although he couldn't be troubled to vote, he did take a position--and virtually his entire party went along with it.
Only three Democrats--Zell Miller of Georgia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Robert Byrd of West Virginia--voted in favor of allowing a vote on the amendment. Even if Republican senators had unanimously supported the amendment (six voted "no" on cloture), it would have required at least 16 Democratic votes to pass. Getting to a two-thirds majority in the Senate is hard but not impossible. In 1996, 85 senators voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (Kerry was among the 14 noes), so it's hard to believe the Democrats' near-unanimous opposition reflected only an enthusiasm for gay marriage.
Most likely one major factor was a desire to spare their party's presidential nominee the embarrassment that would have attended a substantial Democratic vote in favor of the president's position. This goes the other way too, albeit to a lesser extent. Pennsylvania's Sen. Arlen Specter, seeking re-election after narrowly surviving a primary challenge from the right, voted "yes." Does anyone think this was a vote of conscience?
This may in fact prove a political winner for the GOP this November, especially with several closely contested Senate races in culturally conservative states (Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota). But the failure of the marriage amendment means the future of marriage is up to the courts, where traditionalists are unlikely to prevail in the long run.
Why Can't Johnny Read?
"Did anyone in the White House read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?" demanded an e-mail from the Kerry campaign yesterday, Reuters reports. Whoops. Aides were forced to acknowledge that Kerry never read the document. "Along with other senators, he was briefed on the contents of the NIE by George Tenet and other administration intelligence officials," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.
The Associated Press, meanwhile, reports from Marquette, Mich., where President Bush slammed Kerry Tuesday for his ever-changing views on Iraq:
Bush . . . took issue with Kerry's pronouncement this week that he and running mate John Edwards were proud of the fact that they opposed in the Senate the $87 billion aid package for Afghanistan and Iraq. Kerry said they had done so because "we knew the policy had to be changed."
"He's entitled to his view," Bush said. "But members of Congress should not vote to send troops into battle and then vote against funding them, and then brag about it."
Kerry's campaign responded that Kerry had served in the Vietnam War and questions linger about Bush's wartime service in the Texas Air National Guard.
There you have it: Kerry spent four months in Vietnam, so why should he care about the soldiers whose lives are on the line now? You just can't make this stuff up.
The Aides Epidemic
William F. Buckley famously said he'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 people listed in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. John Kerry seems to prefer the entire phone book. "John F. Kerry's presidential campaign has grown exponentially in recent months to include a cast literally of thousands, making it difficult to manage an increasingly unwieldy policy apparatus," reports the Washington Post, which provides some hilarious details:
Kerry's expanding universe has opened the campaign to a torrent of suggestions and second-guessing, useful or not. George A. Akerlof, a Nobel prize-winning economist and Kerry adviser, recently became so agitated about what he considered Kerry's muddled campaign message that he crafted an entire speech for him, straying far from his economic expertise to pit what he calls the Democratic Party's moral view of human nature against the sinister forces that Republicans see driving humanity. The campaign politely declined.
"I thought it would be useful to see if I could write a speech," the University of California at Berkeley economist mused. "It was just in me." . . .
One campaign aide, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he feared angering task force members, said even the team names have developed "their own microdynamics." One task force is still arguing whether it should be titled the council on babies, children and youth or just children and youth.
Republicans, naturally, contend that this all shows how indecisive Kerry is, but Lael Brainard, who advises Kerry from a Brookings Institution perch, defends the candidate: "The mark of too many cooks would be drift. I don't see drift. I see decisions. That leads me to believe the big tent is bringing in a broad range of opinions and is bringing about well-crafted decisions."
Brainard's statement no doubt was developed by the Kerry campaign's council on metaphors, or is it the council on metaphors and similes?
Class Act?
John Edwards is accusing Dick Cheney of elitism, Reuters reports:
In an interview with NBC's "Today" show, Edwards said he did not think Vice President Cheney, a former oil executive, had any idea of the daily struggles faced by most people.
"I think he is out of touch with the lives of most Americans," said Edwards, a North Carolina senator. "I think as a result of that, it's very hard for him going forward to provide the kind of vision of hope and opportunity that this country is entitled to and needs."
Now, ponder this quote from Edwards's wife, in the "60 Minutes" interview with Messrs. and Mmes. Kedwards:
"I just want to say one thing and this is that these two men voted against tax cuts that would have benefited them," adds Elizabeth Edwards.
"Isn't that what we want? A leader who looks at the greater good instead of what simply what benefits the people [like] himself, or the people in his own class for their donors or whatever else you're looking at? These men did what was right for all Americans and it seems to me that's an enormous test of character--whether you're willing to step out and do something against your own self interest."
"People in his own class"? Has anyone in the "real America" ever used language like that?
Hill Sparks Dem Con Catfight!
We won't dignify this tempest in a teapot by calling it a kerfuffle; we mention it only because it's fun. "The former chairwoman of the New York State Democratic Party on Wednesday called it 'a total outrage' and 'very stupid' that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has not been offered a prominent speaking role at the Democratic National Convention," reports the Associated Press:
"It's a slap in the face, not personally for Hillary Clinton, but for every woman in the Democratic Party and every woman in America," said Judith Hope, a major party fund-raiser. . . . "To include the wife of the governor of Iowa, who I'm sure is a wonderful woman, and to not include Hillary Clinton is just such a glaring injustice," Hope said.
Relax, says one prominent Democratic pol: "Asked about Clinton's role Tuesday, Arizona Gov. Bill Richardson, the convention chairman, said, 'Senator Clinton will speak also. She's a major star in the party.' "
We're sure Richardson is right; the Dems will work this one out. But talk about sexist outrages! The AP calls Richardson the governor of Arizona, a position that is in fact held by Janet Napolitano, who by the way is female.
Your Tax Dollars at Work
A U.S. magistrate has ruled that ex-Rep. Bill Janklow, a South Dakota Republican, "was on duty when he caused a fatal accident last summer, so taxpayers should pay any civil damages in a wrongful death lawsuit," the Associated Press reports. Janklow, who has resigned from Congress, was convicted of speeding, reckless driving, running a stop sign and second-degree manslaughter in the death of Randy Scott. But apparently he was representing his constituents at the time.
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
This Really Takes the Quake
A U.S. News & World Report article about the Abu Ghraib prison abuses is headlined "Hell on Earth" and carries the subheadline: "Life in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, newly available documents show, would have made Satan quake." Perhaps the magazine means this as some sort of subtle "South Park" reference; otherwise, it's a ridiculous bit of hype. (The article itself makes no reference to the lord of the underworld, and we tend to doubt that the Pentagon documents on which it's based do either.)
Here's the headline and subhead from another article in the same U.S. News issue: "When Saddam Ruled the Day; Twenty-five years ago, he showed his secrets for survival: Be crafty--and be ruthless."
So in U.S. News's estimation, taking humiliating pictures of prisoners is enough to make "Satan quake," whereas the systemic murder of political opponents is merely "crafty."
Nós Não Existimos
José Manuel Barroso, who is nearing the end of his term as Portugal's prime minister and is hoping to become president of the European Commission, is distancing himself from America, the Financial Times reports:
Questioned on Portugal's involvement in the US-led war coalition in Iraq, on the first day of hearings before the European parliament, Mr Barroso said that, while he was a long-standing admirer of the US, he also hated what he described as American "arrogance" and "unilateralism."
Not only is Portugal a member of the coalition that toppled Saddam Hussein; Barroso hosted the preliberation summit with President Bush and Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar. For him to accuse America of "unilateralism" is tantamount to denying the existence of his own country.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that the Philippines, a "key ally," is withdrawing from Iraq so as to appease kidnappers holding a Filipino truck driver. "A full withdrawal before its scheduled departure date by one of the U.S.' biggest backers in the war on terror would be a major blow to unity of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq," the AP claims.
If the U.S. liberated Iraq "unilaterally," how can the withdrawal of a "key ally" be a "major blow" to the effort?
Gobble Gobble
The New York Times ran this correction on Sunday:
An article last Sunday about surprises in politics referred incorrectly to the turkey carried by President Bush during his unannounced visit to American troops in Baghdad over Thanksgiving. It was real, not fake.
Richard Berke, the Times reporter who wrote that article, comes across looking like a real turkey too. Maybe he thought the president's bird was an uncle tom.
Homer Noshes
Many readers took issue with our statement yesterday that Joe Wilson's sudden camera-shyness is "like Homer Simpson turning down a cheeseburger." Here's reader Greg Vojnovic:
You got your cartoons and characters wrong. You're thinking of Wimpy from "Popeye" when you have a cartoon character contemplate turning down a cheeseburger. I believe that the logical twist you were attempting was that of a simplistic buffoon turning down something he couldn't readily live without. If that was the case, then the correct comparison would be "That's like Homer Simpson turning down a doughnut." Homer would not turn down a cheeseburger, but he could live without one. Homer living without doughnuts on the other hand, well, that's like Joe Wilson without a TV camera aimed at him. After all, how would Wilson be able to prove his existence if he didn't see himself on TV?
If you feel my observation is worthy of your attention, I'm sure that you will have a tightly written, logical premise behind your decision that Homer prefers cheeseburgers. If so, I look forward to reading it. Just make sure you recognize that I'm not saying your logic is incorrect, I'm just saying that it was not the best comparison available.
Point taken. Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg echoes our point about Josh Marshall: "Since Wilson lied to Marshall himself, why isn't Marshall leading the charge for Wilson to clear the air?" A reader signing his e-mail only as "John"--a covert spook, perhaps?--offers this theory:
Right in the middle of watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" it came to me: Boing! Josh Marshall is a Bush sleeper agent. Bush used Saudi money laundered by Halliburton to hire Marshall.
Marshall's charge: Lure liberals to his blog; gain their trust; and then, at a critical time in the presidential campaign, "surface" in a way that would damage Marshall's credibility. Confused and demoralized, his followers would stay home on election day.
When and on what issue to "surface" was up to Marshall. Bloggers who praised him and referred visitors to his site were not in on the plot. Only Marshall knew.
So now we can understand why Marshall put so much of his credibility on Joe Wilson. It would be so easy for people to see Wilson was a fraud and lose confidence in Marshall.
Isn't that just the way a "sleeper" works?
Marshall isn't the only one to have staked his credibility on Wilson's story. Robert Novak, whose column a year ago reporting the Plame-Wilson nepotism, now reports that Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee feels that "Wilson had been such a 'cause celebre' for Democrats that they could not face the facts about him." Thus Democrats refused to endorse the committee's finding that "rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided."
The credibility-impaired Wilson is an adviser to the Kedwards campaign, whose Web site features a transcript of an October online chat with him. Ann Coulter draws our attention to a Web site ironically called RestoreHonesty.com, on which Wilson sings the praises of John Kerry. Scroll to the bottom of the screen, and you see the notice "Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc."
That Sounds Awfully Painful
"Lockyer May Have to Cut 118 Lawyers"--headline, Sacramento Bee, July 14
Look Out, Killer, Lockyer's Got a Knife!
"Killer Gets OK to Be Lawyer"--headline, San Jose Mercury News, July 14
What Would We Do Without Experts?
Blogger Scott Burgess notes (fourth item) this quote from the unlinkable Times of London: "Finding water, shelter and food are the three keys to survival on a desert island, according to experts."
It reminds us of that old New Yorker Cartoon with the caption "Thank God! A panel of experts!"
Something About This Story Bugs Us
"Man Finds Rare Beatle Recordings at Flea Market"--headline, Associated Press, July 14
So That's What Happened to Blitzen
"Site May Yield Proof of Donner Cannibalism"--headline, Associated Press, July 15
Not Too Brite--CLII
"Thieves dug up a Frenchwoman's grave and stripped her corpse of thousands of euros (dollars) worth of jewelry she had asked to be buried with to avoid arguments between her five children," Reuters reports from Lille, France:
Oddly Enough!
(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)
Lawyers Make the Disabled Pay
On the new RedState.org blog, Sebastian Holsclaw notes the Web site for Dollywood, country star Dolly Parton's theme park in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., carried this announcement (it's since been removed, but still appears on the site of Dollywood's Splash Country Water Adventure Park):
For many years Dollywood has been privileged to offer free admission to individuals who had a total and permanent vision or hearing loss, and/or who have a medical or physical condition which made them permanently dependent on a wheelchair. However, due to recent civil litigation filed against Dollywood regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), we have been advised that legally our disability policy must be changed.
Effective January 01, 2004, we will not be able to offer free or discounted admission to anyone based on their disability or level of disability. From a legal standpoint, our staff is not qualified to make decisions on who should or should not be given free admission to the park based on their level of disability. For those reasons we regret to inform you that individuals who have been admitted under our previous disability policy will no longer be allowed to enter free of charge.
"I think we can safely infer what happened," writes Holsclaw. "Dollywood had a policy which allowed certain extremely disabled people get in for free. Someone with a disability less severe than that threshold didn't get in for free. [He] got angry and sued. Rather than spending tens of thousands of dollars on future lawsuits they decided to drop the policy which was once helpful to certain disabled people in favor of a policy which doesn't help any disabled people."
The plaintiff may not be confined to a wheelchair, but he does sound pretty lame.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
