BEST OF THE WEB
BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 4:06 p.m.
WSJ.com OpinionJournal
Hillary the Moderate
We've just passed President's Day weekend three years before a presidential election, marking the traditional start of the campaign season. It's early yet, but at this point we'd say the most likely next president of the United States is Hillary Clinton. We're not saying the odds of a Clinton presidency are higher than 50%, just that they're higher than for any other individual.
In part this reflects the weakness of the Democratic Party. Whereas the GOP has a surfeit of plausible candidates, Hillary stands tall because her party is almost entirely populated by vertically challenged diminutive-Americans. She's charismatic when compared with Nancy Reid and Harry Pelosi. She's charming when compared with Barbara Boxer and Howard Dean. And her views are sensible, moderate and patriotic when compared with the cynical defeatism of John Kerry* and the borderline anti-Americanism of Ted Kennedy.
Over the weekend she showed up alongside Sen. John McCain on "Meet the Press." Both were visiting Baghdad, and her comments on Iraq were entirely sensible. Host Tim Russert asked her about proposals (by Kennedy, among others) for withdrawing U.S. troops, and she nixed the idea:
I understand the feelings behind that call. I mean, there is a lot of reason when we're back at home to argue about this policy. But at this point in time, I think that would be a mistake. I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government. Now obviously, as this government has stood up and takes responsibility, there may come a time when it decides for its own internal reasons that we should set such a deadline and withdrawal agenda. But right now I think it would be a mistake.
We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain. I think that would be like a green light to go ahead and just bide your time. We want to send a message of solidarity.
When Clinton was predictably coy about her presidential aspirations, Russert joked with the duo about a "fusion ticket." It occurred to us that being a "moderate" is a much better electoral strategy for a Democrat than for a Republican. If recent history is a guide, moderates are the only Democrats who can be elected, whereas Republicans can win elections despite being conservative or even (in the eyes of the Angry Left) "radical."
Hillary has another advantage: Republicans loathe her. That would help her in the primaries by giving her party's Angry Left base a reason to look past her views, which they would otherwise find objectionably reasonable. It's difficult to imagine how the Dems can ever win an election unless they can get a moderate past the Angry Left gauntlet, and hard to see how anyone is more likely to meet that challenge than Mrs. Clinton.
Republican loathing could well help her in the general election too. As we argued throughout last year's campaign, partisan loathing for President Bush was a hindrance to Democrats. They mistook their emotions for facts, which made them overconfident. They thought running a totally negative campaign would be sufficient; it didn't occur to them that doing so reflected badly on them, not on Bush. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2008, Republicans run the risk of repeating these mistakes.
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way claims to have committed war crimes in Vietnam.
The Arab Berlin Wall?
"Tens of thousands of protesters--Muslims, Christians and Druze--flooded Beirut yesterday in an anti-government demonstration unprecedented in the Middle East but reminiscent of the human waves that toppled governments throughout Eastern Europe," the Washington Times reports from Lebanon's capital:
"Syria out. Syria out," they shouted as Arabic pop music blared, amid calls for a "peaceful intifada" or "uprising" against a government that was put into place and remains controlled by neighboring Syria.
"We are with the Muslims, the Druze, together for a free Lebanon," said one member of a Christian militia. "Tell America we are waiting for them to invade, all of us."
The assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, widely blamed on the Syrian regime, was the proximate cause of the Beirut demos, but these aren't the only Arabs taking to the street to protest a dictatorship. Agence France-Presse reports that "more than 500 people rallied in Cairo to protest against a new term in office for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and against moves to enable his son Gamal to succeed him afterwards":
"That's enough" and "Down with Hosni Mubarak" shouted protestors who gathered in front of Cairo University, while around 50 trucks packed with police were deployed nearby. . . .
Organised by the Egyptian Movement for Change, the demonstrators also included Marxists, Nasserites, liberals and Islamic dissidents from the Muslim Brotherhood.
One is tempted to view the Iraqi election as the equivalent of the Berlin Wall's fall and hope that freedom spreads rapidly in its wake. Of course, in the same year the wall fell, the Red Chinese government crushed a freedom movement at Tiananmen Square, and today it remains one of the few remaining communist regimes. Except in Iraq and the Palestinian areas--liberated from dictators by America and God, respectively--the Middle East has regimes that presumably will fight back to maintain their power, something Mikhail Gorbachev decided not to do in 1989.
One difference between China in 1989 and the Middle East today, though, has to do with the George Bushes. The administration of "41" took a conciliatory approach to China's bloodstained octogenarians, whereas "43" is giving moral support to Middle Eastern democrats. Bucking up dissidents may or may not prove sufficient to topple dictators, but it will certainly make their lives more difficult.
Bottom Story of the Day
"Many Canadians Don't Think U.S. Should Promote Democracy: Poll"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 22
Spot the Idiot
Usually "Spot the Idiot" is an easy game to play, because the idiot is the one saying something stupid. This story is different. The New York Post reports that sixth-graders from Brooklyn's ultraliberal Park Slope neighborhood wrote letters to a soldier in Korea, Pfc. Rob Jacobs, as part of a social studies project. Many of them turned out to be hateful screeds:
One girl wrote that she believes Jacobs is "being forced to kill innocent people" and challenged him to name an Iraqi terrorist, concluding, "I know I can't."
Another girl wrote, "I strongly feel this war is pointless," while a classmate predicted that because Bush was re-elected, "only 50 or 100 [soldiers] will survive."
A boy accused soldiers of "destroying holy places like mosques."
Sixth-graders are around 12 years old, if we remember correctly; clearly they did not come up with this stuff on their own. "I want to think these letters were coached by the teacher or the parents of these children," says Pfc. Jacobs, and it seems clear they were--though the teacher, Alex Kunhardt, won't say if he read the letters before sending them. In any case, we hope everyone in Park Slope is ashamed of their bigoted neighbors.
Some Blacks Are More Equal Than Others
Buried in a New York Times story on the massive increase in black immigration to America may lie the undoing of racial preferences in higher education:
"African-born and Caribbean-born brothers and sisters have realized that the police don't discriminate on the basis of nationality--ask Amadou Diallo [an immigrant from Guinea who was accidentally shot by police in 1999]," said Professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr., who teaches at Harvard Law School and has warned colleges and universities that admitting mostly foreign-born blacks to meet the goals of affirmative action is insufficient.
"Whether you are from Brazil or from Cuba, you are still products of slavery," he continued. "But the threshold is that people of African descent who were born and raised and suffered in America have to be the first among equals."
Ogletree seems to be arguing that American-born blacks deserve preferential treatment vis-à-vis foreign-born ones, at least if the latter do better than the former absent such preferences. In other words, in the name of "affirmative action," he is calling for discrimination against black people who were born outside the U.S.
The trouble with this is that the argument the Supreme Court has used to justify racial preferences in university admissions is "diversity." Favoring someone from the Bronx over an African-American from Burkina Faso is hardly a way to achieve that goal.
What Would We Do Without Scholars?
"African-American History Is U.S. History, Scholar Says"--headline, Newark Star-Ledger, Feb. 20
Dems Take a Holiday
Several readers disagreed with our assumption, in an item Friday, that making Election Day a national holiday would help the Democrats win more votes. Here's blogger "Robert Musil's" reasoning:
One of the more peculiar aspects of Sen. Clinton's proposal is that it might actually reduce voter turnout on election day--and especially might reduce Democratic voter turnout.
It is unlikely that the need to report to one's job now causes many voters not to vote. Polls are now open very early and stay open very late. Most employers (especially the government employers you mention) are very tolerant on Election Day.
However, the need to stay close to one's place of employment on election day probably does increase voter turnout. If election day were made a federal holiday, it is altogether possible that many voters would take advantage of the holiday to create a nice four-day weekend for themselves--out of town. So they wouldn't vote.
Bruce Bartlett has a different argument:
I don't agree that giving people the day off on election day will benefit Democrats. Think about it. Most of their constituency doesn't work that day anyway. They are either retired, on welfare, or union members who have already negotiated that as a day off. Republicans mainly get votes from people who are working and paying taxes. That's why they are Republicans. On balance, making it easier for those people to vote would probably help the Republicans more than the Democrats, in my opinion. I think there is even some academic literature supporting this proposition.
Meanwhile, reader Jay Hubbard asks a good question:
All of our county, local town, and state government offices are closed on federal holidays along with all of the federal offices. If the government were to make election day a holiday, who will be left to administer the elections? All of the election officials would have the day off, right?
The answer, of course, is that they would be on the job--and they'd be paid double. Your tax dollars at work.
Zero-Tolerance Watch
"When Austin High School administrators removed candy from campus vending machines last year, the move was hailed as a step toward fighting obesity," reports the Austin American-Statesman. Instead, the enterprising students created a black market in sweets:
The candy removal plan, according to students at Austin High, was thwarted by classmates who created an underground candy market, turning the hallways of the high school into Willy-Wonka-meets-Casablanca.
Soon after candy was removed from vending machines, enterprising students armed with gym bags full of M&M's, Skittles, Snickers and Twix became roving vendors, serving classmates in need of an in-school sugar fix. Regular-size candy bars like the ones sold in vending machines routinely sold in the halls for $1.50.
"There was no sugar in the vending machines, so (student vendors) could make a lot of money," said Hayden Starkey, an Austin High junior who said he was not one of the candy sellers. "I heard kids were making $200 a week just selling candy."
In response, the school has restored some candy to the vending machines by declaring it nutritious: "According to the state, milk chocolate, for example, meets minimal nutritional standards because it does have milk in it. Candy with peanuts contains protein. The vending machines still don't carry Starburst, Skittles and other so-called pure sugar products."
Useless but Newsworthy
"Study: Consumer-Confidence Data Useless"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 20
"Consumer Confidence Slips in February"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 22
The Fetus Is Father to the Man?
"An ex-boyfriend was arrested and charged with murder in the disappearance of a pregnant woman and her 7-year-old son," the Associated Press reports from Fort Worth, Texas:
Bagel shop owner Lisa Underwood, seven months pregnant, and her son, Jayden, were reported missing after she failed to show up at her baby shower Saturday. A pool of blood was found in her home.
Stephen Barbee, 37, of Fort Worth, was arrested Monday night in Tyler and was being brought back to Tarrant County by Fort Worth police. . . . Authorities believe the family is dead, Fort Worth police Lt. Gene Jones said in a news conference. . . .
Jones said he didn't know who was the father of Underwood's fetus.
Something in this story doesn't add up. If Lisa Underwood was the mother of a fetus and a 7-year-old, why in the world would she be having a baby shower?
Even Educated Fleas Do It
" 'Animal Clue' to Teen Pregnancies"--headline, BBC Web site, Feb. 21
Next Time, Try Dinner and a Movie
"Anthropologist Resigns in 'Dating Disaster': Panel says professor of human origins made up data, plagiarized works"--headline and subheadline, WorldNetDaily, Feb. 19
The Wild Boys of Epsilon Rho Alpha
"Court Finds Fault With EPA Haze Program"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 18
Gravy Expected to Weigh In Too
"Rice Asks Japan About Lifting Beef Ban"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 19
Betcha Can't Eat Just One
"Toshiba's New Chip Plant to Make 40,000 Wafers/Month"--headline, Reuters, Feb. 21
Better Hurry--the Statute of Limitations Is 4,008 Years
"Case of Man Charged With Starting 2003 B.C. Forest Fires Put Over to March 7"--headline, Canadian Press, Feb. 21
I Smell a Rat
"Organic food can help you sleep, keep you slim and boost your immune system--if you are a rat," reports London's Guardian:
Scientists at the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences experimented with 36 rats, feeding one group organic food, another group food grown conventionally with high levels of fertiliser and some pesticide, and a third group minimally fertilised food. They say the rats fed organic food were measurably healthier, in that they slept better, had stronger immune systems and were less obese.
How much money did these geniuses spend on a study proving pesticides are bad for pests? |
