BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, November 5, 2003 11:00 a.m. EST
'Vote for the Crook. It's Important.'
Louisiana has an odd system of elections, in which all candidates of all parties run in an open primary. If no one gets 50% of the vote, the top two finishers--sometimes of different parties, sometimes not--face each other in a runoff. In 1991 this produced a horrific outcome: a runoff for governor pitting Democrat Edwin Edwards, a notoriously corrupt former governor, against nominal Republican David Duke, a neo-Nazi whose main political experience was in the Ku Klux Klan.
This match-up gave rise to the legendary political slogan "Vote for the crook, it's important." In retrospect, this might have been confusing, since Duke also turned out to be a crook; as New Orleans magazine noted in May, both men are now in prison. But Louisianans chose Edwards, the far lesser of two evils; Duke lost by a landslide.
Democrats, however, seem to have missed the irony and adopted "Vote for the crook" as a political principle. Remember Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1999? Everyone knew Clinton had committed perjury, yet every single Democratic senator voted to acquit him. "Vote for the crook, it's important"--to defeat the "vast right-wing conspiracy" of Hillary's fevered imagination.
Mayor John Street of Philadelphia may or may not be a crook; he hasn't been charged with or convicted of anything. But a month ago it was discovered that the FBI had a listening device in the mayor's office. You'd think being under investigation by the FBI would hurt a candidate, but not in heavily Democratic Philadelphia. Street took off in the polls as his supporters demonized Attorney General John Ashcroft and threw around accusations that the FBI had targeted Street because he is black. Four years ago Street narrowly defeated Republican Sam Katz; in yesterday's rematch Street won handily.
Voting for the crook has not always worked out well for the Democrats. In Louisiana, David Duke faded into obscurity, and in 1995 the state elected a Republican governor, Mike Foster, who won a second term in 1999. This year Bobby Jindal, a GOP candidate who's about as different from Duke as can be imagined--he's the son of immigrants from India--looks to have a good chance to win. (The runoff is a week from Saturday.)
Letting Clinton off the hook likewise proved costly for Democrats. Had the Senate convicted Clinton, or had fellow Democrats induced him to resign à la Nixon, Al Gore would have become president. In 2000, President Gore would have had the advantage of incumbency, and the taint of Clinton's wrongdoing would have been far less. Given how close that election was, it's a near certainty that had Bill Clinton been ousted in 1999, Al Gore would be president today. If the Democrats do as badly a year from now as some think they will, "Vote for the crook, it's important" may have relegated the party to long-term minority status.
As to what will happen in Philadelphia, we don't dare hazard a guess.
Meanwhile, as the New York Sun reports, New York City voters wisely rejected a measure pushed by Mayor Mike Bloomberg that would have established a Louisiana-style system of "nonpartisan" voting, with a free-for-all primary followed by a runoff between the two top finishers. This makes it a lot less likely that Al Sharpton, the Big Apple's version of David Duke, will ever end up in a general election for mayor.
Lincoln's Party Surges in South
Last month, when California tossed out Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, and elected Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger to take his place, Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, hilariously tried to spin his party's crushing loss as an example of anti-incumbent sentiment that somehow portends defeat for President Bush next year. "George Bush and Karl Rove have got to wish this thing never happened," McAuliffe told The Wall Street Journal at the time.
Voters ousted another Democratic yesterday. Gov. Ronnie Musgrove of Mississippi lost to Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. We searched the Web in vain for comments by McAuliffe attributing Musgrove's defeat to anti-incumbent anger, but McAuliffe has been uncharactistically silent. We did, however, find this Robert Novak column from last week:
No prominent national Democrat dares set foot in the state to help re-elect Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. He would meet Bill Clinton or Al Gore at the state line to keep them out. But that does not mean this election is unimportant for the Democrats. National Chairman Terry McAuliffe has spread the word that defeating so prominent a Republican in the Deep South would "pave the way" for defeating President Bush nationwide next year.
Republicans picked up another governorship, in Kentucky, where Rep. Ernie Fletcher beat Attorney General Ben Chandler for an open seat that had been in Democratic hands since 1971. This means so far this year the GOP has picked up three governorships for a nationwide edge of 28-21, with the Louisiana race still pending.
The GOP's victories in Kentucky and Mississippi bode well for the party's hopes of expanding its Senate majority next year, since a quartet of currently Democratic open seats in the South is the linchpin of that effort. Democrats, on the other hand, will take comfort in John Street's Philadelphia victory and the results in the New Jersey legislative races, which gave the Dems control of both houses (the state Senate had been evenly divided). But it's hard to discern any nationwide trend from an election that involved so few states.
What Would We Do Without Exit Polls?
"Exit Polls Show Some Voting Party Straight-Ticket"--headline, Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger, Nov. 4
No One Beats Bush, Continued
"More than four in 10 voters nationwide say they definitely plan to vote against President Bush next year--more than plan to vote for him, according to a poll released Tuesday," reports the AP. As usual, the AP misses the real story in the Marist College poll. Asked "Do you definitely plan to vote for George Bush for re-election as president in 2004 or do you definitely plan to vote against him?," 44% say they definitely plan to vote against, while only 38% say they definitely plan to vote for. (The remaining 18% say "depends" or "unsure.")
But then the poll pits Bush against the five major Democratic candidates, and not only does Bush beat each one handily, but not one of them manages even the 44% of those polled--and remember, this is the same poll--who said they would definitely vote against Bush. Bush beats Dick Gephardt 48% to 43%, John Kerry 48% to 42%, Howard Dean 49% to 41%, Joe Lieberman 52% to 41%, and Wesley Clark 55% to 36%.
Maybe the Dems should give up on the nominating process altogether and just run slates of uncommitted electors next November.
'We Can Pull the Trigger'
Fox News reports it "has obtained a document believed to have been written by the Democratic staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee that outlines a strategy for exposing what it calls 'the administration's dubious motives' in the lead-up to the war in Iraq":
Among other things, the memo recommends that Democrats "prepare to launch an investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the [Senate] majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time--but we can only do so once. . . . The best time would probably be next year."
Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who serves as the committee's chairman, describes the memo as "a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan, objective review of prewar intelligence." The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, disclaims the memo: "The draft memo was not approved nor was it shared with any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee or anyone else. It was likely taken from a waste basket or through unauthorized computer access."
Dems Gone Wild--III
Reader William Hoyt makes a good point about the Charlie Brown analogy we employed yesterday in regard to Democratic futility:
Charlie Brown was a really nice kid, while the Democrats are nasty bigots. The second and more crucial difference is that Lucy really did have a football. The Democrats may think they see scandal and conspiracy everywhere, but really there is nothing there. The Democrats remind me of a chronic drunk going through delirium tremens. The drunk may see monsters and pink elephants everywhere, but it's just in his head, and purely the result of his own misbehavior.
They're belligerent drunks, too. On the Angry Left Web site Democratic Underground, someone calling herself "Starpass" explains why "I hope the bloodshed continues in Iraq" (quoted verbatim):
I won't be hypocritcal. It is politically correct, particularly in any Dem discussion to hope and pray and feel for our troops and scream "bring them back now". I'm fighting something bigger.
I'm a 58 year old broad and I can tell you that what is going on in our country isn't the usual ebb and flow of politics where one party is in power and then another; where the economy goes through ups and downs.......yawn, yawn--just wait a bit and things will turn out peachy keen. That stupid la-la land is over.
I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot.
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts.
Is it unfair to quote this? Well, then how about this cheery comment, posted Monday at Democrats.org, the Democratic National Committee's official Web site, again quoted verbatim: "Morning all. It occured to me that all the bump that Bush got late last week from the economic figure went up in flames yesterday with that helicopter." That would be the Chinook that was shot down in Baghdad Sunday, killing 15 soldiers. For the Angry Left, it seems, every dark cloud is a silver lining.
The Underpants Debate
For once we have to agree with Teresa Kerry. The Boston Herald quotes the outspoken ketchup heiress and philanthropist, whose haughty, French-looking husband by the way served in Vietnam, as saying that "nine-way Democratic presidential debates are 'silly,' 'unproductive' slugfests that waste voter and candidate time." They're not as silly, though, as last night's eight-way "Rock the Vote" debate that aired on CNN. Dick Gephardt showed a degree of statesmanship just by not showing up for this embarrassing spectacle.
Rather than the usual panel of journalists, the eight remaining candidates took questions directly from an audience made up of under-30 Democrats and independents. Unlike at the "Rock the Vote" event in 1992, where Bill Clinton famously was asked--and answered--what kind of underpants he wore, there were no questions about undergarments.
But the candidates were asked if they have ever smoked marijuana. Actually the big news of the night was that Dennis Kucinich said no, which means he really has no excuse. Kerry, Howard Dean and John Edwards all said they have smoked pot, while Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton said no. Carol Moseley Braun, showing a modicum of dignity, refused to answer.
Then there was this question, which came from a young woman who identified herself as "a fiscal policy analyst for the Massachusetts Senate":
You guys seem to get to know each other fairly well. I'd be curious to find out, if you could pick one of your fellow candidates to party with, which you would choose. But keeping in mind, partying isn't just, you know, who do you think can shake their groove thing. I mean, we're talking, who's going to be loyal to you? Who is going to stand by your side? If you get sick, who's going to hold your hair back? . . . Who's going to be a team player, you know, if you--imagine if you were single again. If you see a cutie across the room, who's going to be your wing man? Who's going to take one for the team?
In case you're wondering, Dennis Kucinich said he'd like to "party" with "my brother," Al Sharpton. Lieberman said, "I'd like to party with the young lady who asked that question." Sharpton said Mrs. Kerry, whereupon Kerry turned to Sharpton and said, "I was going to choose Carol Moseley Braun, but now I'm going to have to choose you so I can keep an eye on my wife."
Not that the candidates didn't discuss anything of substance. On Iraq, for example, Kucinich vowed "no more Halliburton sweetheart deals." Sharpton criticized President Bush for supposedly saying, "We are going to keep our sweetheart deals going with Halliburton." Moseley Braun voted to rebuild Iraq, but said that means "not . . . sweetheart deals for Halliburton." John Edwards, meanwhile, vowed to "put a stop to these sweetheart deals for Halliburton."
Could someone please explain what this pack of protectionists is doing demonizing an American company?
Another weird moment came when someone asked Wesley Clark to describe his "personal comfort level with homosexuals." His answer:
I do have gay friends. And there are gays who serve in the United States armed forces, and they do a very good job. But when they are--when they acknowledge who they are and their sexual preference, they leave. So I've got a very good comfort level with it.
I think everybody deserves the right to serve. And when I'm president, I'm going to make sure that we treat every man, woman and child in America with dignity and respect. And that includes the opportunities to serve in the United States armed forces.
Clark really is as accident-prone as Bob Graham. Asked a throwaway question about whether he likes gay people, he ends up saying that he wants children to serve in the military.
The 'Reagans' Revolution
Blogger Terry Teachout makes a compelling argument that CBS's decision to cancel the slanderous miniseries "The Reagans" marks a real cultural shift:
I've been following Big Media's coverage of the flap over The Reagans, and just two days ago I noted with interest and amusement a wire story claiming that CBS would be pleased by the controversy, since it would inevitably increase the series' ratings. That is soooooo last year. Those of us who blog, whatever our political persuasions, know better. Boycotts of Big Media have always been feasible in theory. . . . In practice, though, they rarely worked, because it was too difficult to mobilize large-scale support quickly enough. No more. Fox News, talk radio, and the conservative-libertarian sector of the blogosphere have combined to create a giant megaphone through which disaffected right-wing consumers who have a bone to pick with Big Media can now make themselves heard. . . .
By relegating The Reagans to Showtime, CBS has publicly acknowledged, albeit implicitly, the growing weakness of Big Media. Now that the common culture is a thing of the past, lowest-common-denominator programming is harder and harder to pull off, as is lowest-common-denominator editing. To do it, you have to keep lowering the denominator further and further. When your overhead is as high as it is at CBS, you can't afford to give offense, nor can you afford to be sophisticated. Above all, you don't dare try to lead the culture anywhere it doesn't care to go--not if your job is to keep your numbers in the black.
The new media [have an] impact on Big Media in two ways. The first is the megaphone effect I spoke about a moment ago. The second, which is of at least equal importance, is that they compete with Big Media. If you're reading these words, you're not watching CBS, or anybody else, nor are you sitting in a movie theater or reading a print magazine. . . .
Five years ago, opponents of The Reagans would have failed to sway CBS because of their inability to make enough noise. The network would have taken the "high road" and stared them down, and been praised for its courage by other Big Media outlets. And if it were only a matter of noise, CBS would have done the same thing today . . . but it isn't. Today, CBS is fighting for its corporate life. So are NBC, ABC, Time, TV Guide, the Reader's Digest, and all the film studios and record labels. They can't afford to ignore the noise anymore, no matter which side of the political fence it comes from. And they won't.
For more on this subject, check out City Journal's Brian Anderson. Delightfully clueless about all this is the New York Times, which has a risible editorial on "The Reagans":
The former president is certainly a suitable subject for public debate. His supporters credit him with forcing down the Iron Curtain, so it is odd that some of them have helped create the Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we, as a nation, will not allow critical portrayals of one of our own recent leaders.
You know times are tough when the New York Times has to resort to red-baiting. And does anyone really believe all this cant about free speech? As reader Wayne Clements notes: "If this had been a hit piece on Martin Luther King, the NAACP would have called for, and gotten, a boycott, and they would have been hailed as heroes by the same people that are today crying censorship."
To which we would add: If a movie on Martin Luther King were as vicious and dishonest as "The Reagans" reportedly is, the NAACP would be right to boycott it.
The Post Office Misdelivers Again
"Wal-Mart Receives Target Letter From U.S."--headline, Associated Press, Nov. 4
Split Decision for Hippies
By a more than 2-to-1 ratio, residents of Bolinas, Calif.--which turns out to be some sort of hippie enclave, according to our readers--approved Measure G, "for Bolinas to be a socially acknowledged nature-loving town because to like to drink the water out of the lakes to like to eat the blueberries to like the bears is not hatred to hotels and motor boats. Dakar. Temporary and way to save life, skunks and foxes (airplanes to go over the ocean) and to make it beautiful." That's actually what the thing says. Bolinasians voted 314 to 152 in favor of this nonsense
Voters in Denver, however, said no to a ballot measure almost as goofy. The Rocky Mountain News reports that by an almost 2-to-1 ratio, Denverites voted down Initiative 101, which would have required "implementation of any systematic, stress-reducing techniques or programs . . . scientifically shown to reduce societywide stress."
"I think the Denver voters and their appreciation for Western history and Western values recognized a snake oil proposal when they saw it," City Councilman Charlie Brown tells the News. "As well-intentioned as it was, I'm delighted that it went down flaming." You're a good man, Charlie Brown. |
