Best of the Web Today - February 5, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
Out of Africa
Now this is weird. Dozens of readers wrote us yesterday to question or dispute our description, in an item yesterday, of John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as African-American. But she is! As her bio on Kerry's Web site notes, she was born in Mozambique (for the geographically challenged, Mozambique is a country on the southern Indian coast of Africa). And this 1996 article from the Standard-Times of New Bedford, Mass., reports that the outspoken ketchup heiress and philanthropist is a naturalized American citizen.
Born in Africa, citizen of America--that's the definition of an African-American, right? Apparently not, by some people's lights. Writes one correspondent: "Is James Taranto ignorant and/or confused, or do we have to postulate a conscious effort to give people the subconscious impression that Teresa Kerry (born Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira, and unless I'm seriously mistaken of entirely European stock) is black, and thereby lose Kerry some of the important 'Democratic bigot' vote?"
We can assure everyone that we are not trying to influence Democratic bigots. In fact, we're not sure we agree that Democrats are bigots. Anyway, we didn't say "black"; we said "African-American." Yet somehow people seem to use the latter term as if it's a synonym for the former, as in this Defense Department biography of Colin Powell, which describes the secretary of state as "the first African-American to hold this high office in the United States Government." Powell is indeed the first black secretary of state, but he would more accurately be described as a West Indian-American, since, as the Pentagon bio notes, he is the son of Jamaican immigrants.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines African-American as a synonym of Afro-American, which in turn means "an American of African and especially of black African descent." So apparently under common usage an American who was born and raised in Africa is less of an African-American than one whose family has been here for centuries. Even so, we have a dream that African-Americans will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the continent of their origin.
Not as Dumb as Dukakis
In some ways, it seems like 1988 all over again. The Republican nominee is a man named George Bush, and his presumptive opponent is a Massachusetts liberal. Here's a more obscure similarity: Once again, an "advisory" opinion of the ultraliberal Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may play a role in the campaign. Yet there are early indications that suggest Kerry is probably not going to be as hapless as Dukakis was.
In 1988 the issue was the Pledge of Allegiance. The Massachusetts Legislature had passed a bill that would require teachers in the state's government schools to lead their classes in the pledge each day. Dukakis invited the state's high court to opine, and it told him the bill was unconstitutional because it violated the teachers' right to free expression. Dukakis obediently vetoed the bill. When Vice President Bush criticized him for it, Dukakis responded in the dumbest way imaginable: by raising questions about his own patriotism.
Yesterday the Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion that the Legislature was obliged, under a provision of the state's two-century-old Constitution that four of the seven justices discovered just last November, to allow pairs of men or pairs of women to marry. Howard Dean-style "civil unions," the court said, are inadequate.
"Regardless of your personal views on the subject of gay marriage," writes blogger Darren Kaplan, "it's impossible to view this as anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the Kerry campaign. How ironic that in the face of liberal claims that George W. Bush was 'selected' as President by a court, the Massachusetts Supreme Court may have just decided the election for Bush."
Then again, maybe not. The New York Times reports that Kerry says he rejects the ruling:
In a statement on Wednesday night, Mr. Kerry clearly sought a middle ground. He said he believed in protecting the "fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples, from inheritance to health benefits," but added that he believed the answer was civil unions.
"I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision," he said.
To be sure, Kerry has tried to have it both ways on the issue of same-sex marriage, as Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman, notes in the Times:
Mr. Gillespie . . . noted that Mr. Kerry voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, a measure that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Kerry said at the time that while he opposed same-sex marriage, he was voting against the bill because "I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political, and it is fundamentally flawed."
As a substantive matter, that's a pretty ridiculous dodge--but as a political matter, it shows Kerry to be a lot more deft than Mike Dukakis ever was.
What, (D.) Worry?
Less than 2 1/2 years after Sept. 11, Democrats are blasé about terrorism, argues National Review's Byron York, citing exit poll data:
Pollsters asked voters the following question: "Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted today?" Voters were given six choices: taxes, education, health care/Medicare, the war in Iraq, national security/terrorism, and the economy/jobs.
In four of the five states for which exit polls are available--Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina--Democratic voters placed national security/terrorism at the bottom of the list. Only in tiny Delaware, on the east coast and not far from Ground Zero, did Democrats place more emphasis on the issue--and even then, it was in next-to-last place.
Little wonder that, at least now that Joe Lieberman is out of the race, none of the Democrats have anything serious to say about national security. Indeed, they seem to think Americans are more interested in refighting the last war than in winning this one. Thus Dems like Wesley Clark and Terry McAuliffe (and, to a lesser extent, John Kerry) have been disparaging President Bush for serving in the Texas Air National Guard, in contrast to Kerry and Clark, who were in the regular military and saw combat in Vietnam.
Not to take anything away from Kerry and Clark, for whose service to the country we should all be grateful, but it strikes us that President Bush's experience as a commander in chief who's led the military in two victories is a more relevant qualification than service in combat a third of a century ago.
You Don't Say--I
"Kerry May Be Overdoing the War-Hero Shtick"--headline, Seattle Times, Feb. 5
Talk About Quagmires
"Robert McNamara Wins Hearts and Minds at Berkeley"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 5
It's Hard to Be Humble
John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat who by the way served in Vietnam, has been styling himself as a "populist," reprising Al Gore's "people vs. the powerful" campaign of 2000. (If you want to know how successful that was, just ask Vice President Lieberman.)
But even more so than Gore, Kerry makes an unlikely tribune of the proletariat. He's very rich, an Ivy League graduate and even, like both Presidents Bush, a member of Yale's Skull and Bones society. And unlike George W. Bush, who genuinely seems to have risen below his privileged upbringing to exude regular guy-ness, Kerry gives the feeling that he regards himself as a cut above.
According to Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr (a conservative and longtime Kerry critic), Kerry has an unpleasant habit of "pulling rank" on ordinary citizens, "breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives":
Many of his constituents see him in person only when he is cutting them in line--at an airport, a clam shack or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. One talk-show caller a few weeks back recalled standing behind a police barricade in 2002 as the Rolling Stones played the Orpheum Theater, a short limousine ride from Kerry's Louisburg Square mansion.
The caller, Jay, said he began heckling Kerry and his wife as they attempted to enter the theater. Finally, he said, the senator turned to him and asked him the eternal question.
"Do you know who I am?"
Last week we were waiting in a slow-moving taxi line after a dinner in Manhattan, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, an Upper West Side Democrat, got in line behind us. The woman in front of us invited the congressman to the front of the line. We were about to yell at her for presuming to let him cut in front of us, but we didn't need to: Nadler declined her offer. Jerrold Nadler's politics are way left for our taste, but we had to admire his class. A man of the people doesn't ask, "Do you know who I am?"
Another problem for Kerry is that as a member of the Senate for nearly two decades, he's bound to have done things that can be made to look corrupt, whether they actually are or not. Here's an Associated Press dispatch from yesterday:
A Senate colleague was trying to close a loophole that allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the nation's most expensive construction project. John Kerry stepped in and blocked the legislation.
Over the next two years, the insurer, American International Group, paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns.
Were the two connected? Kerry says not.
But to some government watchdogs, the tale of the Massachusetts senator's 2000 intervention, detailed in documents obtained by The Associated Press, is a textbook case of the special interest politicking that Kerry rails against on the presidential trail.
Granted, this sort of thing probably isn't that important to voters--but it does have the potential to distract from the things that are.
Metaphor Alert
"This is a great team we have, and they're on the front burner; they're in high cylinder, high gear, and we're going to stay in high gear. As far as I'm concerned, it's full speed ahead, and we're not playing cautious here."--John Kerry, quoted in the Washington Post, Feb. 4
What Would Kerry Do Without Experts?
"For Kerry, Only Foe to Fear Is Himself, Experts Say"--headline, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Feb. 5
In Dean-ial
The sadistic Jonathan Last of The Weekly Standard checks out Howard Dean's Blog for America and finds it filled with poor deluded souls:
"Cool down," explained "John Morgan" late Tuesday afternoon, "this is a marathon, not a sprint. Kerry is running low on money and has no grassroots base. Where is he going to get the money?"
"Charlie Grapski," a longtime supporter, wrote that "in the end, what will win this thing for US (and for our future), is our DETERMINATION and LONGEVITY in this race. As long as we stay focused--WE CAN WIN. WE WILL WIN. WE ARE DEAN." Mr. Grapski is a political science instructor at the University of Florida.
As the final races were being called late Tuesday night, "Katherine" wrote:
The way I read it, the attrition strategy is working. Kerry isn't getting over 50% anywhere except Missouri and Delaware, and just barely 50% in those places. . . . As the field thins, the anti-Kerry vote will be split among fewer candidates.
For Dean, delegates in two states (AZ and NM) and almost a third (ND), with nothing but grassroots efforts, is *fantastic.* Also bodes well for CA . . .
Yeah, winning NM would have been nice, but I'm happy with the way this is turning out.
As if these quotes aren't cruel enough, Last likens Dean's followers to a Bob Dole supporter who on the eve of the 1996 election assured Last that a Dole victory was "In. The. Bag."
Dole lost.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports Dean himself "has told supporters that a failure to win the Wisconsin primary on Feb. 17 will put him 'out of the race.' " The good news is this would free him from the need to campaign and raise money, allowing him to focus on winning the subsequent contests.
Homer Nods
Howard Dean finished second in New Hampshire and has had five third-place showings in the nine primaries and caucuses so far. Our item yesterday (since corrected) had counted New Hampshire among the third-place finishes.
If It's Wednesday, He Must Be Pro-Life
We guess Wesley Clark is pretty much irrelevant, but he annoys us, so we're going to keep writing about him. The New York Times reports that Clark made a full retreat on abortion:
"Well, I'm against abortion," he said in response to a question from a voter at the Catfish Place, hard by the highway in the hills of West Tennessee. "But there is a law of the land that comes from the Supreme Court, and that law is called Roe v. Wade. And I support the Supreme Court. I have to support the law."
Last month, when General Clark spoke to a Planned Parenthood forum in New Hampshire on the anniversary of the Roe decision, he said: "I want to thank Planned Parenthood for all that you do every day to protect the right to choose." He added, "These are your values. They are my values. And they are the values I defended for 34 years in the United States Army."
Not only did Clark say abortion on demand embodies "my values"; last month, as we noted, he said he favored abortion right up until the moment of birth.
Our Friends the Pakistanis
Pakistan's dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, "pardoned the father of Pakistan's nuclear program Thursday for giving technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, heading off a showdown with hard-liners," reports the Associated Press:
Musharraf also lashed out at fellow Muslim nations Iran and Libya for cooperating with international inspectors and turning over documents on their nuclear programs. "Muslim brothers did not ask us before giving our names," he said. . . .
He said Pakistan would not submit to any U.N. supervision of its weapons program, and that no documents would be handed over to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. He also ruled out an independent investigation of the military's role in proliferation.
It's a dangerous game this guy is playing.
Our Friends the Saudis
"At least 160 of the 650 detainees acknowledged by the Pentagon being held at the United States military base at Guantanamo, Cuba--almost a quarter of the total--are from Saudi Arabia," United Press International reports. There are 85 Yemenis, 82 Pakistanis, 80 Afghans, 30 Jordanians, 30 Egyptians and seven Frenchmen, among others.
They'll Just Have to Tear Him a New One
"US Army to Seal Off Saddam Hole"--headline, News.com.au, Feb. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We Get Results
BackSpin, HonestReporting.com's blog, reports that the Minneapolis Star Tribune has apologized for referring to "Zionist terrorists" whereas it has a strict policy of using euphemisms when referring to Palestinian Arab terrorists. We noted this outrage yesterday.
Meanwhile, the New York Times' Thomas Friedman has uncovered a new Jewish conspiracy: "Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year--all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing."
Guard Your Hoover
"Islamic Radicals Can Seize Power Vacuums"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb. 5
You Don't Say--II
"Office Romances Can Be Problematic"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 5
You're Supposed to Deep-Fry Them
"Poaching Rare Beetles Is a No-No"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 4
Zero-Tolerance Watch
Seven-year-old Brandy McKenith, a second-grader at Pittsburgh's Sunnyside Elementary School, got suspended for a day for "profanity," reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
Brandy said she used the word "hell" in art class after a classmate said "I swear to God."
"You're going to go to hell for swearing to God," she said she told the classmate. . . .
The district's Code of Student Conduct has one reference to profanity but does not define it.
Of course, it was actually the classmate, not Brandy, who was using profanity. Then again, it's not as though a government school is allowed to teach kids the Ten Commandments, so they'd know not to take the Lord's name in vain.
The Post-Gazette quotes Witold Walczak of the Pittsburgh ACLU, who describes himself as "flabbergasted" by the school's action: "It's hard to imagine that the school could make the word 'hell' illegal under all circumstances. Certainly, as used by Brandy in this case, that's not profanity." Besides, it's not as if she was praying or anything.
Those Sophisticated Europeans
Speaking of hell, is America going there in a handbasket? Our Peggy Noonan says it may be, and cites the kerfuffle-sparking Super Bowl halftime show. She asks readers to suggest ways of preventing American culture from sinking into ever deeper depravity.
Here's one idea: Keep Norwegians out. The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reports on what happened when Gorgoroth, a "Norwegian black metal band," gave a nationally televised concert in Poland:
"On stage there was blood everywhere. About ten decapitated sheep heads and naked people, alive, on large crosses. Everyone was painted with 100 liters of sheep blood. Also there were Satanist symbols everywhere. One of the hanging female models fainted and an ambulance had to be called," TVP director Andrzej Jeziorek told VG [another newspaper].
Jeziorek said that the TVP staff were terrified and reported the show to police.
"This kind of thing should not happen on state TV and especially not in Krakow, which is the Pope's city," Jeziorek said. Jeziorek wanted to halt the concert but feared a riot from enthusiastic, bloodied fans who had paid for tickets.
Eat your heart out, Janet Jackson. On second thought, don't. We're afraid you might take us literally. |
