by JAMES TARANTO
Friday, April 22, 2005 3:50 P.M. EDT

Lawmakers Distracted by Lawmaking
Remember all that talk a few days ago about the impending Republican crackup? Neither do we, but that's probably just as well, for it doesn't appear there was much to it. The Washington Times notes that "House Democrats have voted with Republicans on several major bills this year":

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, voted against five major bills this year, but voting for the legislation were at least 40 of her 202 rank-and-file Democrats, or 20 percent, and as many as 122, or 60 percent.

"Republicans say this indicates a lack of vision and agenda coming from Democratic leadership," the Times adds:

"What we're seeing is a pattern of bipartisanship, of Democrats lacking in agenda and their guys jumping over to the Republican vision of how we're running the country," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican.

Democrats call the GOP spin "ridiculous," but check out their spin:

Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi, said these bills "are not party-position bills," and that Democrats are united on the issues important to people, such as health care and Social Security.

She said Republicans are trying to shift attention away from intraparty discord, public scrutiny over abuse of power, and a lack of support for the president's proposed Social Security reform.

"What they're trying to do is distract," Ms. Crider said. "They're choosing to pass legislation that is bipartisan."

In other words, rather than cracking up like they're supposed to, Republicans are trying to "distract" people by actually doing their jobs. Crider might just have surpassed her boss's record for worst political spin ever.

The Fog Thickens
John Kerry* has been awfully visible (or is that visibly awful?) of late, but he's been generating so much fog, it's difficult to see anything else. Blogger Hugh Hewitt quotes from a speech Kerry gave on the Senate floor yesterday (the full speech, in PDF, is here):

Forces outside the mainstream now seem to effortlessly push Republican leaders toward conduct that the American people really don't want in their elected leaders, inserting the government into our private lives, injecting religion into debates about public policy where it doesn't apply. Jumping through hoops to ingratiate themselves to their party's base while step-by-step and day-by-day real problems that keep Americans up at night fall by the wayside here in Washington.

We each have to ask ourselves, Who's going to stop it? Who's going to stand up and say: Are we really going to allow this to continue? Are Republicans in the House going to continue spending the people's time defending Tom DeLay or they going to defend America and defend our democracy?

Will Republican senators let their silence endorse Senator Frist's appeal to religious division, or will they put principle ahead of partisanship and refuse to follow him across that line? Are we really willing to allow the Senate to fall in line with the Majority Leader when he invokes faith, faith, all of our faiths over here? Joe Lieberman's a person of faith. Harry Reid's a person of faith. And they don't believe we should rewrite the rules of the United States Senate, and we certainly shouldn't allow this issue of people who believe in the Constitution somehow challenging the faith of others in our nation.

Are we going to allow the Majority Leader to invoke faith to rewrite Senate rules to put substandard, extremist judges on the bench? Is that where we are now? It is not up to us to tell any one of our colleagues what to believe as a matter of faith.

I can tell you what I do believe though. When you have got tens of thousands of innocent souls perished in Darfur, when 11 million children are without health insurance, when our colossal debt subjects our economic future to the whims of Asian bankers, no one can tell me that faith demands all of a sudden that you put the Senate into a position where it is going to pull itself apart over the question of a few judges. No one with those priorities has a right to use faith to intimidate any one of us.

Wow, this is incoherent. Kerry, of course, is objecting to GOP plans to change Senate rules to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominees, so that 41 senators would no longer be able to block a vote on their confirmation. Kerry is suggesting that this rule change would be some sort of diversion from the business of the Senate, when of course the opposite is true: It is Kerry and his fellow Democrats who are preventing the Senate from doing its job and confirming or rejecting the president's nominees.

And what is all this about Darfur, health insurance and those menacing Asian bankers? These, Kerry suggests, are the things on which government should be focusing its attention. Well, Kerry just ran for president. Did he talk about these things during his campaign? We seem to recall his campaign was devoted mostly to boasting about his purported heroism during a four-month stint in Vietnam.

Kerry also issued an Internet video earlier this week called "Give Voice to Our Values." (The e-mail announcing the video declared hilariously, " I can't literally sit in your living room and talk. . . . So, I've chosen the next best thing.") We sat through all four minutes of it and have no idea what those "values" are. About all we can tell is that Kerry is mad at people who disagree with him and whose views are informed by their religion.

The Boston Herald, in a story amusingly titled "Kerry: Don't Tell Me What God Wants," picks up on the theme further:

"I am sick and tired of (them saying) they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values," Kerry added. "We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich people in this country."

Sure enough, Kerry is right. The Bible never once mentions the United States!

Remember, this guy is the best the Democrats have to offer, the man they chose last year to take on George W. Bush. He thinks he's still running for president, but we suspect he'll be proved wrong. In a piece that appeared on this Web site Monday, Jay Cost argued that Hillary Clinton is "one of the worst politicians in national politics today." He makes a good case, but can she possibly be worse than John Kerry?

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way promised 82 days ago to release his military records.

Filibuster Fickleness
Sean Rushton of the Committee for Justice, a group that favors the confirmation of President Bush's "constitutionalist judicial nominees," offers some interesting history over at National Review Online. In January 1995, by a vote of 76-19, the Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. Tom Harkin that would "permit cloture to be invoked by a decreasing majority vote of Senators down to a majority of all Senators duly chosen and sworn." This would have effectively done away with the filibuster--not just for judicial nominees but for all purposes.

Among the senators who favored the proposal (voting "no" on the motion to table it) were nine who still sit, several of whom are now among the most vigorous filibuster defenders: Harkin plus Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman and Paul Sarbanes. It's hard to take seriously their protestations that the Republicans' far narrower proposal to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominees only amounts to some sort of assault on America's system of checks and balances.

Rushton further notes that there are a variety of limits on the filibuster already in place. Among them:

• You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).
  
  
• You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution).
  
  
• You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002).
  
  
• And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

There's even an argument that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Rushton calls our attention to U.S. v. Ballin, an 1892 ruling in which the Supreme Court held that a House vote of 138-3 was sufficient to enact a law, even though 189 members didn't vote. Justice David Brewer wrote for a unanimous court:

The general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations. As, for instance, in those states where the constitution provides that a majority of all the members elected to either house shall be necessary for the passage of any bill. No such limitation is found in the federal constitution, and therefore the general law of such bodies obtains.

As we noted last week, some liberal commentators have urged Senate Democrats to call the GOP's bluff and revert to the old Harkin proposal of abolishing filibusters altogether, which would (these commentators argue) make it easier in the long run to pass liberal legislation. Unlike the current defense of the status quo for expedience' sake, this would amount to a principled position.

Bolton Can't Win
Actually, that headline is misleading; John Bolton may yet be confirmed as ambassador to the U.N. What we mean is that his critics are holding him to a standard that is impossible to meet--and by impossible, we mean logically impossible. USA Today quotes Michael Dobson, author of "Enlightened Office Politics," who doesn't care for Bolton's management style:

Dobson says one facet of the charges against Bolton that may be building opposition is that his alleged boorish behavior often failed to achieve results. "Part of this story for many people is that Bolton appears to have not been good enough to actually get rid of the people he went after," he says. "If he was a first-rate infighter, they'd be gone. Then people might say that, even if they disagreed with Bolton ideologically, that here's a guy who's tough enough to get the job done."

To complain both that Bolton tried to get bureaucrats fired and that he failed to get them fired seems like a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose proposition. Or is the Democrats' position that no bureaucrat should ever be fired for any reason?

The New York Times, meanwhile, quotes an odd locution from Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut:

"My hope would be that the administration, after yesterday, would say that he's damaged goods," Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut said. "You'd think at some point, they'd wait a few days or whatever and decide this nomination isn't worth it to have a one-vote victory." Mr. Dodd said there must be other "highly qualified, conservative Republicans to get appointed to this position that don't bring the luggage that Mr. Bolton will to this job."

"Luggage"? Doesn't the U.N. have a checkroom?

Red Tide
The U.S. Census Bureau has released new population projections for the next quarter-century, and the political implications are interesting, though not surprising. Based on the first table here (in Microsoft Excel form; USA Today has part of it in HTML), these are the 10 states that are expected to be the biggest in 2030 and the fastest-growing in the 2000-30 period, with the 2000 population rank given in parentheses:

The eight fastest-growing states are all "red," as are the two states, North Carolina and Arizona, that are expected to move up into the top 10 (supplanting Michigan and New Jersey).

The Associated Press says this is bad news for the most liberal region in the country: "New England stands to lose about 20 percent of its congressional seats over the next quarter-century as political power follows population booms in the South and West." The fastest-growing New England state is New Hampshire, at No. 15, followed by Vermont (23), Maine (32), Massachusetts (33), Rhode Island (34) and Connecticut (38).

The second table in the Excel document shows that 52.4% of the nationwide population growth is expected to be in the South, 35.2% in the West, vs. just 7.4% in the Midwest and 5% in the Northeast. The one bright spot for "blue" states is that Pacific Coast states are expected to grow more than those in the Mountain West.

If They're Nice, Maybe the Republicans Will Yield the Floor
"County Democrats Still Without Chair"--headline, Daily News (Galveston County, Texas), April 22

Zero-Tolerance Watch
"Bomb scares at a high school in Schuylkill County mean a new rule for students: leave the bags at home," reports Northeastern Pennsylvania's WNEP-TV:

Starting Friday, students at Tamaqua Area High School can only bring books, notebooks and things to write with to school. Book bags, purses and gym bags are banned. Lunch bags will be inspected.

The district instituted the "no bags" policy after the high school received bomb threats on Wednesday and Thursday. The threats were written on paper. No bombs were found. No one has been arrested.

If the threats were written on paper, why don't they ban paper? After all, you can never be too safe.

Also in the Keystone State, the Allentown Morning Call reports that a judge has reduced the charges against 18-year-old Matthew Pattison, who "scaled his high school in a gorilla mask and sheepskin shawl":

Pattison . . . no longer faces second-degree misdemeanor charges of reckless endangerment and resisting arrest.

But District Judge Ronald C. Mest of Oley Township ordered Pattison to face trial in Berks County Court on two third-degree misdemeanor charges of defiant trespass and disorderly conduct for climbing onto Oley Valley High School's roof and trying to distract students by peering into windows.

We noted the case in February.

This Just In
"Pope Benedict Signals No Quick Changes in Vatican"--headline, Reuters, April 21

It Wasn't Already Clear?
"CLARIFICATION: Sinners Unhappy With New Pope"--headline, Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald, April 22

Unions Unhappy With New Pope
"Pope Gets Right to Work"--headline, Arizona Republic, April 22

Dispatch From the Porn Belt
"Criminal defense attorney Ronald S. Miller does more than file briefs he also takes them off," the Associated Press reports from Los Angeles (L.A. County, Kerry by 27.6%):

Miller has spent days in front of a judge and nights in front of a camera as Don Hollywood, a porn star. His wife, a former accountant, is also a porn star.

"My whole life, I've been one of those people who sees the wet paint sign and has to go up and touch it to see if it's wet," said the 56-year-old Miller. "I want to experience everything, try everything."

But don't worry: "Ethics expert and attorney Arthur Margolis said Miller isn't breaking any rules moonlighting as a porn actor." Which may say more about the legal profession's rules than anything else.

Who Says It Isn't a Serious Newspaper?
" 'Star Wars' Universe Revolves Around Vader"--headline, front page, USA Today, April 22

The Critics Agree!
"The Interpreter," starring Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn, opens today, and here's a sampling of the review headlines:

• "Lost in Translation"--Slate.com
• " 'The Interpreter': Lost in Translation"--MTV
• "Lost in Translation"--Boston Globe
• "Lost in Translation"--Toronto Globe and Mail
• "Lost in Translation"--Asbury Park (N.J.) Press
• " 'Interpreter' Gets Lost in Translation"--Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World
• "Lost in Translation"--Cavalier Daily (University of Virginia)
• "Lost in Translation"--Cleveland Plain Dealer
• "Lost in Translation"--Mail & Guardian (South Africa)
• "Lost in Translation"--Knoxville (Tenn.) News-Sentinel
• "Lost in Translation"--Daily Californian (UC Berkeley)
• "Plot Gets Lost in Translation"--Scotsman
• "Lost in Translation"--East Bay Express (Berkeley, Calif.)

Let's hope they're not criticizing the movie for being cliché.

Fast Food Finger Finder Fingered
"The woman who complained that she had found a finger tip in her bowl of Wendy's chili last month has been arrested, the latest twist in a bizarre case about how the four-centimetre digit ended up in a bowl of fast food," reports the Associated Press:

Anna Ayala was taken into custody late Thursday at her Las Vegas home. She was arrested on a warrant alleging grand larceny and attempted grand larceny, Las Vegas police Sgt. Chris Jones said.

There's still no indication where the finger came from, but that "four-centimetre" detail suggests the owner is a foreigner. The New York Times, meanwhile, reports that the incident has become a "public relations nightmare" for Wendy's, which has seen a drop in sales of 20% to 50% in its stores in Northern California, where Ayala claimed to have found the finger.

The Times adds that the story has become the "butt" of jokes on late-night TV--which just goes to prove the old Chinese proverb: When a finger points at the moon, only an idiot looks at the finger.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ed Lasky, Buddy Larsen, M. Gilbertson, Charlie Gaylord, Matthew McInteer, Jim Orheim, John Gaylord, Marc Tarrasch, Shelley Taylor, Paul Dyck, Dave Vasquez, Morris Heins, Brent Silver, Bob O'Hara, Kevin Littleton, David Bockstanz, David Corcoran, David Haberman, Greg Askins, Dan O'Shea, Chris Field, Greg Nelson, David Shapero, Joshua Weiner, C.E. Dobkin, Michael Segal, Steve Goss, Samuel Walker, John Sanders and John Williamson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: Sens. Dorgan and Kerry try to block a report on Clinton-era IRS abuses.
• Daniel Henninger: Benedict XVI a "hardliner"? Perhaps. But that's what they called Reagan too.
• The Journal Editorial Report: Tune in this weekend for a discussion of Tom DeLay's travails.

And on the Taste page:

• Review & Outlook: Is that an ad you're watching?
• Tony & Tacky: A communion wafer on eBay. Plus a ban on showing underwear in school.
• Barbara Phillips: How to survive a freak wave--and avoid whining.
• Geoffrey Norman: So it's "soil," not "dirt"? A down-to-earth gardener digs into boutique horticulture.
• Philip Lawler: Is the pope Catholic? Yes, of course. And critics are disappointed and annoyed that he is.