"further evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism"
Best of the Web Today - January 19, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
A Little Help for Dean?
Judge Charles Pickering, target of a Democratic smear campaign and filibuster, has accepted a recess appointment from President Bush. That means Pickering will serve on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until the 109th Congress convenes next January.
Democrats predictably voiced outrage. "It is now clear that the White House will exploit any procedural tactic in order to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues," the Washington Times quotes Minority Leader Tom Daschle as saying. Daschle's Dems, of course, have used a procedural tactic, the filibuster, to keep Pickering off the circuit court even though, in the latest Senate vote, 54 senators voted in his favor.
Daschle is a politician, so you expect this sort of disingenuousness from him. But is it too much to expect that the editorial board of a major newspaper rise above such vacuous partisanship and at least try to cobble together an intellectually respectable argument? Apparently so, if the newspaper is the New York Times. A Times editorial, although acknowledging that the recess appointment is "perfectly legal," calls it "lamentable" because it "avoids the confirmation process." The Times doesn't mention that the reason a recess appointment is necessary is because of the Dems' lamentable efforts to avoid the confirmation process.
The Times' substantive reasons for opposing Pickering are rather eyebrow-raising as well: "Over the years, Mr. Pickering has displayed skepticism toward cases involving civil rights and expressed doubts about well-settled principles like one person one vote."
He's expressed skepticism! And doubt! Why, he must be stopped! <font size=4>This is further evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism. We don't need to muster an argument, the Times seems to be saying. It's enough to declare Pickering a heretic. And these people accuse the right of stifling dissent?<font size=3>
The Times also observes that Pickering "seems outside the mainstream on abortion rights"--which presumably means that he agrees with the late Justice Byron White, an appointee of President Kennedy, that Roe v. Wade is bad law.
The politics of the Pickering appointment seem likely to redound to President Bush's advantage (though also giving a boost to Democratic fund-raising efforts). Karl Rove has argued that in 2000 Bush suffered from weak turnout among evangelical Christians, and there's no better way of bringing this constituency to the polls than by confronting Democratic judicial obstructionism. If Rove is right, and more evangelicals can be induced to vote in November, it will not only boost Bush's re-election prospects, but also those of Republican Senate candidates in such states as Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina--and South Dakota.
Pickering's appointment was brilliantly timed, too. The White House made the announcement on Friday, just three days before the Iowa caucuses. Polls have shown two of the more plausible Democratic candidates, Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, rapidly gaining in the Hawkeye state. Could it be that the recess appointment for Pickering is an effort to get out the Angry Left vote, thus improving the chances that Bush's opponent in November will be hotheaded Howard Dean?
Losers for Clark
Wesley Clark has now emerged as the candidate of acid, amnesty and abortion, breaking Howard Dean's loser streak by picking up the endorsement of George McGovern. "There are a lot of good Democrats in this race, but Wes Clark is the best Democrat," Reuters quotes McGovern as saying. "He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat."
At least McGovern isn't a complete loser; he won Massachusetts. So far as we know Walter Mondale, the only major-party candidate in history to lose all 50 states (Minnesota in the 2002 Senate race, the other 49 in 1984) has yet to issue an endorsement. An anxious nation holds its breath . . .
Candy Is Dandy?
"Welcome to the Clark Bar Association!" announces Wesley Clark's campaign Web site. "By joining us here, you're joining a local chapter and national network of like-minded legal professionals who recognize that Wes Clark represents the best hope for America."
"The Clark Bar Association"? That name is sure to draw snickers when crunch time arrives. Clark will face mounds of mockery, which may prove to be the kiss of death for his candidacy and, if he's the nominee, ensure the re-election of the jolly rancher now in the White House. If Clark is smart, he'll make sure that whatever staffer thought of this doesn't see another payday. Such a decision could be a lifesaver for the campaign.
Peculiar Polls
More Wesley weirdness: ForClark.com, an official campaign Web site, features a series of very strange online surveys. "What is the best Democratic ticket for '04? asks one--and of the 10 choices offered, Clark heads the ticket in only four of them. Four more have Clark as No. 2 on the ticket, and two of them (Dean/Edwards and Edwards/Dean) shut out Clark entirely. The most popular ticket, garnering more than a third of the votes, is Kucinich for president, Clark for veep.
Another poll asks "Would Lyndon LaRouche make a good Treasury secretary?" Only 40% say no, though the results are perhaps inconclusive, since only five people have cast votes in the poll.
Yet another question is "Where do you consider yourself to be on the political ideology spectrum?" Here the answers rather than the questions are what's weird. Only 34% of Clark supporters describe themselves as Democrats, and fully 10% say they're Socialists.
What Would We Do Without Strategists From Several Campaigns?
"The candidate who closes the most deals with undecided voters this weekend and most successfully pulls diehard backers to the caucuses will win, strategists from several campaigns say."--Washington Post, Jan. 17
The Stupid Party
"Four-fifths of registered voters who want to take part in Democratic primaries or caucuses say they don't know enough about the presidential candidates to make an informed choice, according to a poll."--Associated Press, Jan. 18
Monsieur Malaprop
The New York Times has an article on verbal miscues by the Democratic presidential candidates--which, unlike President Bush's errors, the Times attributes to fatigue rather than stupidity. But one of them we don't quite get: "In a particularly run-down moment for Senator John Kerry, the Wahhabi Muslim fundamentalists he frequently mentions in speeches came out as 'wasabi.' "
As far as we know, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, is right. Wasabi Islam is a particularly harsh form of Sushi Islam, a religious movement that has its origins in Japan and foments raw hatred--and combating this scourge is crucial to winning the war on teriyaki.
Scribble Fight!
Howard Dean isn't the only angry man on the campaign trail. The Des Moines Register reports a pair of journalists nearly came to blows during a Dean campaign stop at a Dairy Queen in Osceola, Iowa:
New York Post reporter Vince Morris grabbed hold of Fortune free-lance photographer Christopher Anderson and began to shove him backward.
The scuffle ended when a Register reporter separated the two.
"I had a reason!" Morris yelled. "This guy had his hand on me! So I took care of it!" Then he stomped off.
Anderson said Morris had stepped between a group of photographers and Dean a moment earlier. Anderson said he asked the reporter to move, and when Morris refused, Anderson said, "Don't be a jerk."
"He said, "Do you want to step outside?" And I said, "No, I don't want to step outside," " Anderson recalled.
The shoving began later, when Anderson left the Dairy Queen, he and other photographers said.
When it was over, we didn't know what exactly had happened, but we knew this: Neither journalist got any ice cream.
If it happens again, let's hope Dean sends them to study hall.
And Here We Thought He Was in Pretty Good Shape
"Bush Accused of Failing to Act Over Obesity"--headline, Financial Times, Jan. 17
Cosmic, Dude
Our Friday item on Al Gore's "global warming" speech--delivered, hilariously enough, in New York on the coldest day in recent memory--included a long quote from the speech in which Gore went on in hippy-dippy fashion about the insignificance of Earth amid the vastness of the universe. It turns out the words were not Gore's but the late pop scientist Carl Sagan's. Gore did credit Sagan, but the MoveOn.org transcript made it difficult to determine where the quote ended; as it turns out, it was the entire last four paragraphs of the speech.
The Sagan quote comes from "Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space," published in 1994, so it's still possible that Sagan took his inspiration from Monty Python's 1983 "The Galaxy Song."
A reader forwarded us a link to the Oregon Petition:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Several thousand scientists have endorsed this statement, proving that Gore's thuggish statement--"there is any longer a credible basis for doubting that the earth's atmosphere is heating up because of global warming"--is a lie. Once again, we have to ask: Who is trying to stifle dissent?
An 'Antiwar' Jihadi
"A key member of an alleged Virginia jihad network pleaded guilty to federal weapons and explosives charges [Friday], denying that he intended to harm Americans but acknowledging that he and his co-defendants had sought to fight on behalf of Muslim causes abroad," the Washington Post reports:
Randall Todd Royer, 30, of Falls Church, entered his surprise plea in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. He faces at least 20 years in prison when he is sentenced April 9. Another of the 11 men originally charged in the case, Ibrahim Ahmed al-Hamdi, 26, of Alexandria, pleaded guilty to similar charges and faces at least 15 years in prison.
Royer also goes by the name Ismail, and in September 2002 he penned an article for the crackpot libertarian site Antiwar.com titled " 'Pro-Democracy' Think Tank Is Front for Israeli Lobby." As Glenn Reynolds would say, are these guys antiwar, or just on the other side?
Weasel Watch
Saddam Hussein isn't the only Arab dictator the French government is eager to protect. In the Jerusalem Post, Nir Boms and Erick Stakelbeck report on the case of Nizar Nayouf, a Syrian dissident who won political asylum in France, only to find himself in a bureaucratic nightmare:
Despite repeated requests by Nayouf during the last 18 months, the French government has refused to grant him access to official documents that would allow him to travel freely and continue his human rights work. Moreover, upon asking French authorities last month for the political refugee passport he was legally granted in 2002 (and is due to him by French law), Nayouf was denied yet again and told, much to his surprise, that he "already had" a Syrian passport.
Agnes Vondermull, an official at the French Embassy in Washington, DC, said last month that Nayouf had been asked to turn his Syrian passport over to French authorities in 2002 but refused to do so. But Vondermull admitted that a refugee does not need such a passport to begin with, and that the two issues should not be connected.
In any case, Nayouf has an official document issued by French police stating that his Syrian passport has been missing since December 2002.
Because the French refuse to issue a passport, "Nayouf remains confined to Paris, denied permission to attend Syrian human rights conferences, where he has often been invited as a featured speaker." He wanted to attend such a conference in Washington in November, but he "says he was 'advised' by French police not to attend the conference and speak out against the Ba'ath Party." Boms and Stakelbeck note that the situation "raises concerns about France's close relations with Middle Eastern dictatorships."
And remember, most of the Democratic presidential candidates insist that we should have waited for French permission before liberating Iraq.
This Just In
"France Has No Plans to Send Troops to Iraq"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 16
When It Rains, It Pours
Doing their best impression of Capt. Renault, U.N. nuclear inspectors proclaim themselves shocked with Libya's nuclear-weapons program:
The ease with which the complex bomb-making equipment was acquired has stunned experienced international inspectors. The scale and the sophistication of the networks supplying so-called rogue states seeking nuclear weapons are considerably more extensive than previously believed.
Fortunately, Libya's dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, was smart enough to give up his nukes after seeing what happened to Saddam Hussein. Another possible sign of good behavior from Tripoli: Ha'aretz picks up a report from a newspaper in Nazareth that "an official Libyan delegation visited Jerusalem . . . last week, meeting with a government official" from Israel.
You Don't Say
"Cameras, Not Phones, Seen as Photography Mainstay"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 17
What Was the First Clue? |
