by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:34 P.M. EDT

The Post's Phony Poll
"Filibuster Rule Change Opposed" is the headline of the lead story in today's Washington Post. The paper reports on a poll of 1,007 "randomly selected adults." The results are here (PDF), and the relevant questions are No. 34 and No. 36, which appear on page 13 (both, for some reason, after No. 35):

34. The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right to block these nominations? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Result: Right 48% (22% strongly, 26% somewhat), wrong 36% (17% strongly, 19% somewhat). Here's the other question:

36. Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?

Results: Support 26%, oppose 66%.

Read these questions carefully and you'll see that the Post's headline is false. The poll not only doesn't use the word filibuster; it doesn't even describe the procedure. The way the question is worded, the Democrats could have "blocked" the nominations by the normal method of voting them down--and there is no reason to think that "randomly selected adults" would have been paying enough attention to know the difference. (Tellingly, the poll asks how closely participants have been following the Tom DeLay kerfuffle--only 36% say even "somewhat" closely--but does not ask the same question about the judge issue.)

The introduction to the question should have been worded: ". . . Senate Democrats have used a procedure called the filibuster to block a vote on 10 others." As it is, this poll is either a very sloppy bit of work or a deliberate attempt to mislead the Post's readers--including members of the U.S. Senate.

Compromising Dems
With a vote expected soon on what the Democrats (borrowing a term from Trent Lott) call the "nuclear option," suddenly they are talking compromise. Today's Washington Post has a roundup:

The first sign of a possible Democratic concession came Sunday. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, told ABC News's "This Week": "I think we should compromise and say to them that we're willing to--of the seven judges--we'll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme not go through, and put off this [rule-change] vote."

[Minority Leader Harry] Reid, speaking yesterday on CNN's "Inside Politics," said Biden's "numbers are a little--not quite right. But I'm happy to look at some of these numbers. We're doing that. We're looking at a number of different things that can be done to change the procedures."

Meanwhile, [Assistant Minority Leader Dick] Durbin told reporters that the possible compromise--in which Democrats would allow a confirmation vote on most of the seven contested nominees--"has been part of the conversation" with Republicans. "We have not reached agreement," he said. A key problem, he said, would be deciding which of the seven to move forward, given that all of them face significant opposition from liberal interest groups, some of which are spending heavily on TV and radio ads to fight them.

Durbin, appearing on PBS's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," also toned down his party's threat of retaliation:

We're not going to shut down the Senate. We're not going to shut down the government. I can tell you we learned our lesson watching Newt Gingrich. That hapless tactic was terrible. It's not going to happen again. But I will tell you this. If they decide on the Republican side to break the rules in order to change the rules, then sadly we have no choice but to enforce the rules and live by them.

It will be a different Senate. Senators will be at their desks more, on the floor more, in session more. The key legislation for the defense of America and our troops and important appropriations bills will still pass, but the agenda of the Senate and the procedure of the Senate will change.

If the Democratic leadership really makes its members work that hard, watch for more of them to retire in 2006.

What's going on here? The Dems obviously hope to win over some wavering Republicans; assuming no Democrat supports the rule change, the GOP can afford to lose no more than five votes. USA Today reports that Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff, rejected the Democratic compromise, saying, "We believe that every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote. The process is not well served by these political games."

If the Dems had offered a compromise earlier, they might have had a good chance of prevailing. But now the stakes are very high for both President Bush and Majority Leader Bill Frist, who plans to run for president in 2008. Rove's comments suggest that the White House is confident it will win the vote, and one may assume there's a lot of arm-twisting and horse-trading going on to secure the votes of those waverers.

"There are sometimes tactical advantages in appearing to be reasonable," says Democratic blogger Josh Marshall in explaining the Democrats' sudden desire to compromise. Of course, there are strategic advantages in actually being reasonable, but it's too late for that now. Just ask former senator Tom Daschle.

Matthew 7:5, Anyone?
From yesterday's Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal:

More than 700 people joined religious leaders and Democratic politicians at two rallies yesterday to denounce Christian conservatives' use of a Louisville church as a platform to advocate prohibiting filibusters against judicial nominees.

Speakers called both the assault on filibusters and the injection of religion into politics "un-American" threats to religious freedom and to constitutional checks and balances.

The larger of the two rallies, designed to counter a telecast from Highview Baptist Church last night, took place at Central Presbyterian Church near downtown Louisville.

If these guys think it's "un-American" to inject religion into politics, what are they doing holding a political rally in a church?

Oh, and Homer nods: Yesterday's item (since corrected) misstated the group that sponsored the conservative "Justice Sunday" event. It is the Family Research Council, not Focus on the Family, though in our defense, Focus's James Dobson was among the speakers, and Tolstoy once observed that happy families are all alike.

Impeach Hammerstein!
The Iowa-based blog State 29 notes another one of those instances of nearly identical letters to the editor showing up in various different newspapers, ostensibly written by different readers. What makes this one especially amusing, though, is that they all urge the continued filibuster of "Janice Rodgers Brown" 's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The correct name is Janice Rogers Brown.

It turns out that the far-left group Mufon misspelled Brown's name in its "talking points" for letter writers. And through the miracle of Astroturf and the curse of gullible and inattentive editors, the mistake has spread far and wide: Along with the three Iowa papers S29 notes, a Google search turns up letters featuring the misspelling in yet another from Iowa, plus papers from Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Several news organizations have made the same misspelling, which leads us to wonder if their reporters also are getting their talking points from Mufon.

Oh sorry, that's MoveOn. Hey, everyone makes misteaks.

Promises, Promises
"Democrats Moving Forward With Promise of America Agenda"--headline, press release, Sen. Harry Reid's office, April 25

Sayonara, Syria
"Syria ended its 29-year military domination of Lebanon on Tuesday as soldiers flashing victory signs completed a withdrawal spurred by intense international pressure and massive Lebanese street protests against a force that once reached 40,000," reports the Associated Press:

At a farewell ceremony at Rayak, a few miles from the their shared border, a Syrian commander told Lebanese troops: "Brothers in arms, so long," and the Lebanese soldiers responded, "So long." . . .

After the ceremony, the Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon, Maj. Gen. Rustom Ghazali joined 10 carloads of intelligence agents and the remaining 250 soldiers in crossing the border, followed by scores of troops guarding the road to the ceremony.

Lebanon should have free elections soon, which will make it the second Arab country, after Iraq, to do so. It's another victory for the Bush doctrine, though you can rest assured that there will be a concerted effort to deny the president any credit. Heck, we might as well just throw in the towel and congratulate Mikhail Gorbachev for his role in liberating Lebanon.

Saddam Nostalgia Watch
"Hussein Mohammed never dreamt that roadside bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad would make him a fortune," Agence France-Presse reports from the Iraqi capital:

"With every victim that falls to an explosion and suicide attack, the demand for coffins increases and my work flourishes," said the coffin-maker in his tiny shop in the heart of the war-torn capital. . . .

"During the days of Saddam (Hussein), I used to make one coffin a day. Now, I make scores of them and the demand increases with every suicide car bomb that explodes," said the 67-year-old Baghdadi.

AFP certainly seems to be implying that things were better off under Saddam--when, as the dispatch does not note, enemies of the state were simply buried in mass graves.

Pat Moynihan, Hothead
MediaMatters.org threw a fit last month: "Media Conservatives Misrepresent Moynihan to support Bolton Nomination." According to MM, John Bolton, the U.N. ambassador-designate, is not similar enough to the late Pat Moynihan, who held that job during the Ford administration. Moynihan later wrote a book about his time at the U.N., "A Dangerous Place," and here's how a review in the Dec. 18, 1978, Time magazine began:

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was the most controversial and explosive U.S. ambassador ever appointed to the U.N. During eight stormy months in the post in 1975-76, he bruised so many feelings that a scandalized delegate said his colleagues were in "positive dread of his manners, his language and his abuse." The delegates will not be any happier with the ex-ambassador's account of his U.N. days.

If it's another Moynihan we want, we'd better find someone who's a real hothead. Any suggestions?

Zero-Tolerance Watch
Bridget O'Neill, a junior at William Blount High in Maryville, Tenn., has been suspended for giving an interview to Knoxville's WATE-TV, WATE reports:

On April 6, police and administrators locked the school down after finding a hit list and racial graffiti on the walls.

On April 18th, Bridget O'Neill, a junior, told 6 News one of her classmates made a racial sign.

Her parents say the next morning, the principal pulled Bridget into the office demanding to know why she talked to the media and who made the sign.

"She was screaming at her she was stupid," says Bridget's mother, Diane O'Neill. "They threatened to expel her for the rest of the year because she wouldn't give the name. Then she threatened to call the police. And she was like, 'why?' She said, 'Well, I'm going to have you arrested for standing in the way of justice.' "

The principal sounds like quite a hothead. If things don't work out for John Bolton, maybe she should be the next U.N. ambassador. (Hat tip: ZeroIntelligence.net.)

I Guess I Need You, Fetus
It seems songstress Britney Spears is pregnant. Well, hooray for her. We just have one question: How come news reports refer to her baby, whereas if she were Jane Doe it would be her fetus?

This Just In
"High School Students Making College Choice"--headline, Associated Press, April 25

Where Would Young Bears Be Without Experts?
"Experts Remove Young Bear From N.J. Tree"--headline, Associated Press, April 25

Did She Waive With All Six Fingers?
"Woman Accused in Wendy's Finger Case Waives Extradition to California"--headline, Associated Press, April 26

It's the Eponymy, Stupid
The Associated Press has this crime report from Trafford, Ala.:

A brother and sister were arrested on felony incest charges after the man's wife called sheriff's deputies, who allegedly caught the siblings having sex.

Ronald Stewart Howze, 44, of Trafford, and Lori Ann Rotton, 41, of Smyrna, Ga., were arrested around midnight on April 7, said Jefferson County sheriff's spokesman Randy Christian.

Those Brilliant Blue-Staters
"A meteor shower Sunday night sparked a flurry of frantic phone calls to police departments across New England from people who saw bright lights moving in the sky," the Associated Press reports from Boston:

The meteor shower was seen as far north as Portland, Maine, and as far south as Long Island. Some witnesses apparently mistook the meteor shower for a plane crashing in Connecticut, the FAA's Holly Baker said. . . .

The bright lights apparently came from the Lyrid meteor shower, which was scheduled to be visible to the naked eye between April 20 and April 25, said Peter Judge, spokesman for the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency.

These people are panicked by a scheduled meteor shower? Boy, those Kerry voters sure are ignorant when it comes to science.

Doubly Negative
VDare.com, the anti-immigrant Web site of immigrant Peter Brimelow, carries a letter from Michael Monastyrskyj that begins: "A couple of days ago I came across a song that might make a good anthem for the immigration reform movement." It's called "America, Red, White and Black" by W.C. Edgar. "Even if honky tonk isn't your kind of music," writes Monastyrskyj (hey, what's with that foreign-sounding name?), "you'll appreciate lyrics like this":

Let's lock these borders down real tight from sea to shining sea,
And make a better tomorrow for you and me
You don't see no white man swimming the Rio Grande
If I want to hear some damn foreign language I'll take the first plane for Mexico or Afghanistan

"You don't see no white man"? The racism is bad enough, but if these nativists refuse to learn proper English, they should go back where they came from.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Royal Dellinger, Michael Segal, Adam Paris, Allen O'Donnell, David Lemire, Paul Dyck, Brian LeStourgeon, David Gilbreath, Brian O'Rourke, Thomas Maguire, Harrison Roberts, Jeffrey Spiegel, Amy Holmes, Peter Rice, Jim Thayer, Shane Hitzeman, Rich Marsh, Edwin Acosta, Brian Azman, Chuck Opramolla, John Sanders, Robert Lundin and Andrew Robinson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Thomas Sowell: Race doesn't hold back America's "black rednecks." Nor does racism.
• William Voegeli: The cynical idealism behind Social Security.
• Paul Friedman: CBS News needs a fresh eye.