Best of the Web Today - June 23, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
On Any Other Day
We're still on the road promoting our new book, "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," which by the way is available from the OpinionJournal bookstore. We managed to write a column today, but tomorrow we will be oversubscribed, so you'll get a special surprise in place of the usual Best of the Web Today.
Fritz Hollings's Jihad
"In the war against terrorism, we've given the terrorists a cause and created more terrorism. Even though Saddam is gone, the majority of the Iraqi people want us gone. We have proven ourselves 'infidels.' "--Sen. Fritz Hollings (D., S.C.), the State (Columbia, S.C.), June 23
Have You Gone Crazy, Calabresi?
A few months ago the New York Times was among those who tried to brew up a kerfuffle over Justice Antonin Scalia's decision not to recuse himself from considering a case involving the office of the vice president. The argument was that because Scalia is a personal friend of the man who currently holds that office, his opinion would somehow create a conflict of interest, or at least the "appearance" of same--never mind that whatever precedent the court sets would apply to all future vice presidents, regardless of party.
Now a New York-based federal judge is openly campaigning against George W. Bush, the New York Sun reported Monday:
"In a way that occurred before but is rare in the United States . . . somebody came to power as a result of the illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution that had the right to put somebody in power. That is what the Supreme Court did in Bush versus Gore. It put somebody in power," said Guido Calabresi, a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in Manhattan.
"The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy," Judge Calabresi continued, as the allusion drew audible gasps from some in the luncheon crowd Saturday at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society.
According to the Sun, Calabresi "declared that members of the public should, without regard to their political views, expel Mr. Bush from office in order to cleanse the democratic system."
Well, that'll be the day. Whatever the merits of Calabresi's argument--and, of course, they are totally lacking--it's not going to persuade anyone, for the simple reason that the notion that Bush's presidency is "illegitimate" is confined to the left-wing fringe and hyperpartisan Democrats, the sort of people who aren't going to vote for Bush anyway. (As an aside, Calabresi was appointed to the bench in 1994 by Bill Clinton, who two years earlier was elected president even though 57% of voters cast ballots against him.)
But while Calabresi's remarks themselves are inconsequential, his position as a federal judge makes them highly improper. Blogger Eugene Volokh notes that the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges stipulates that "a judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."
Well, fortunately, the vigilant defenders of judicial propriety and independence are on the case. The New York Times has an editorial denounc--oh wait, sorry, actually it doesn't have an editorial. Two days after the Sun's scoop, the Old Gray Lady, which supporters call a newspaper, hasn't even bothered wading in with a news story. As we write, a search for "Calabresi" on the Times Web site turns up zilch during the past 30 days. We'll keep you posted.
But gee, you don't suppose all that complaining about Cheney and Scalia was partisan, do you?
9/11 Commission Jumps the Shark
Al Gore may have abandoned the quest for elective office, but he still plays a valuable public role as a negative indicator. When Gore takes up an issue, you can be sure it's "jumped the shark." Indeed, you could almost say that when Al Gore says "jump," the shark asks "how high?"
Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean is widely blamed for John Kerry's winning the Democratic nomination. Gore gave a speech on "global warming" on the coldest day in recent history. Gore called Abu Ghraib America's "gulag" just as the press's obsession with the story was reaching ludicrous proportions. And now the 9/11 commission has jumped the shark.
"In a major Washington policy address this Thursday, former Vice President Al Gore will accuse the Bush Administration of intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to falsely claim a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda," reports Matt Drudge. "Gore will also urge the broadcast media to further resist Administration efforts to manipulate and intimidate them, to fearlessly report the fact that there is no Al Qaeda/Saddam collaborative relationship, as the 9/11 Commission staff report has concluded."
We especially love the Drudgian irony of describing Gore as planning to deliver a "major policy address." It reminds us of the issues briefing we received the other day from the guy on the subway carrying a cup.
Welcome to Reuterville, Non Sequitur Capital of the World
Reuters reports that President Bush plans to designate Vietnam, where by the way John Kerry briefly served, "as a new focus for his $15 billion plan to combat AIDS globally." But if you believe Reuters--and we must admit, few do--not everyone is happy about this:
The choice of Vietnam could upset religious conservatives, an important political base for the Republican president.
If you are a religious conservative, could you please explain why you're upset about this? Reuters doesn't.
Clinton Was No Reagan
In the wake of Ronald Reagan's death and Bill Clinton's memoir debut, it's interesting to reflect on how different the two presidents were, though both had extraordinary political skill. After Reagan died, we heard touching stories about his love affair with his wife. Clinton's book has rekindled memories of his tawdry affair with a woman half his age. (Does anyone even remember who Clinton's wife is?) Reagan's biggest badge of honor was winning the Cold War; Clinton's is getting away with perjury and obstruction of justice.
The Washington Post reports that Clinton's book contradicts his sworn testimony on one key point:
In his August 1998 grand jury testimony, Clinton said he began an inappropriate sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in "early 1996." His testimony, as was widely noted at the time, was in conflict with Lewinsky's story: She testified the relationship began on Nov. 15, 1995, in the midst of a government shutdown.
Starr's prosecutors, in their report to Congress, accused Clinton of lying about the date of their relationship in order to avoid admitting that he had sexual relations with an intern, as Lewinsky still was in the fall of 1995 before being hired for a paying job in the winter.
Without explanation, in his memoir Clinton departs from his grand jury testimony and corroborates her version: "During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House, and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon."
Clinton aides yesterday said they could not explain the discrepancy.
CNN has a hilariously euphemistic headline on the story: "Clinton Revises Timeline of Lewinsky Affair." For our part, we suspect that Clinton might have lied.
What Would AP Polls Do Without Most?
"AP Poll: Most Rate Reagan Over Clinton"--headline, Associated Press, June 21
Here's the highlight of this dispatch:
Andrea Parron, of Harmony, R.I., a self-described "bleeding-heart Democrat," said given the choice of Clinton or Bush, "I'd take Clinton back in a heartbeat. But I would kick him in the groin so he could keep his mind on business."
Andrea Parron doesn't understand men, does she?
You Don't Say
"Clinton's Return Could Help Kerry, or Not"--headline, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 21
Something to Fall Back On
So let's say John Kerry loses the election. What is he going to do with the rest of his life? He could go back to the Senate, but he's been spinning his wheels there for 20 years and must be getting tired of it. But the Boston Herald reports his wife has an idea:
Trying to erase the image of her husband as aloof, Teresa Heinz Kerry [Friday] insisted Sen. John F. Kerry "likes people" and went so far as to say he would make a great nursery school teacher.
"He actually does feel at ease in the world," Heinz Kerry said.
"He likes people, in spite of whatever people might think. He'd make the best nursery school teacher in the world, bar none."
He should go for it. Why would he risk becoming a mediocre president when he could be the best nursery school teacher in the world? (Hat tip: Russ Smith.)
Kerry Campaigns in Splitsville
A John Kerry campaign paper on the economy observes: "The impact of the weakened economy on the American family has been profound. Lower and rising costs together have driven up debt and family bankruptcy to record levels." Bolstering the claim is this peculiar observation (link in PDF, quote is on page 5):
638,000 More Children Saw Their Parents Go Bankrupt than Get Divorced. In the United States last year, 638,000 more children went through their parents' bankruptcy than divorce. 1,690,000 saw their parents go bankrupt while 1,053,000 saw their parents divorce.
If Kerry favors a lower bankruptcy-to-divorce ratio, then it follows logically that he is pro-divorce. He's already done his part to bring the ratio down, splitting from his first wife, Julia Thorne, in the early 1980s.
Does This Mean He's Divorcing Teresa Too?
"DNC Chairman Favors Edwards for Kerry Mate"--headline, Drudge Report, June 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krugman Gets Even Weirder
Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman is waging a crusade against Attorney General John Ashcroft, who he calls the "worst attorney general in history." In a column we noted last week, Krugman said Ashcroft is bad because he hasn't undertaken any "major successful prosecutions" of terrorists or made "any major captures," and because he too often makes "a dramatic announcement of a terrorist threat."
This week, however, Krugman says Ashcroft is bad because he did arrest a terror suspect and didn't make a dramatic announcement about it.
"Writing about John Ashcroft poses the same difficulties as writing about the Bush administration in general, only more so," Krugman writes: "the truth about his malfeasance is so extreme that it's hard to avoid sounding shrill." Whatever, dude.
Homer Nods
An item Monday cited a Jerusalem Post report according to which Saudi officials blamed recent terror attacks on "Zionists." Elliot Zweig of the Middle East Media Research Center writes to tell us that the quote is actually from early May and refers to an earlier set of terror attacks. We noted the quotes, originally published by the Saudi Press Agency (and also picked up by Memri), back then.
Fighting the Law
"Irish Outlaw Muslim Second Wives," reads a headline in London's Daily Telegraph. Of course, if Muslim second wives are outlawed, only outlaws will have Muslim second wives. Or should that be only Muslim outlaws will have second wives?
On the other hand, not only outlaws will have in-laws, but they'll have more of them.
This Just In
"Smokers Die Early, Study Finds"--headline, WNEP-TV Web site (Scranton, Pa.), June 22
The Frog Who Cried Panther
"The southern French city of Marseille called off a three-week hunt for a black panther on Tuesday after the animal sighted by several residents turned out to be a large house cat," Reuters reports:
Police deployed dozens of searchers this month after reports that a blank panther was roaming around the nearby Calanques area, popular with tourists for its creeks, rocks and beaches.
Wow, the French aren't just scaredy-cats, they're scared of cats. |
