by JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:12 P.M. EST

Pyrrhus Takes a Victory Lap
"Today's 58-42 vote to confirm Samuel Alito represents the second-highest number of votes against a confirmed Supreme Court nominee in the nation's history," boasts Ralph Neas, head of the extremist group that styles itself the People for the American Way. Remember how down in the dumps Neas and his crowd were back in 1987, when by an identical margin the Senate rejected the nomination of Robert Bork?

Ha ha, neither do we! That's because you don't get down in the dumps when you win, and only losers boast about how close it was. A statement from Nan Aron of the so-called Alliance for Justice repeats the trope:

Instead of a judge who would garner wide support from both parties, President Bush chose a divisive nominee who was opposed by nearly every Democratic senator. Other than Clarence Thomas, Judge Alito received more no votes than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years.

Yeah, well, instead of dividing the country, the Democrats could have voted for Alito--as 41 Republicans did for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 33 for Stephen Breyer. (Voters rewarded Republicans by handing them control of the Senate at the very next opportunity.)

But who cares? As Neas says, "Moral victories are not sufficient." Actual victories, however, are.

Carroll and Sandra Day
Alito's appointment to the court had to make it over one speed bump. Well, OK, "speed bump" is too strong a term. More like it breezed past an accident scene on the side of the highway and slowed down ever so slightly to gawk. We refer, of course, to the filibuster "attempt" led by the senator from Davos and the senator from Chappaquiddick.

The latter, Ted Kennedy, delivered an apoplectic oration just before the Senate voted for cloture--that is, to allow a confirmation vote--by 72-25. The text (in PDF) begins here, but you have to see Kennedy's performance to believe it, and ExposeTheLeft.com (né The Political Teen) has video of the last four minutes or so.

The Kennedy show had the feel of Archie Bunker losing his temper at the Meathead on "All in the Family"--and as we thought about it, we realized this is an extraordinarily apt analogy. Kennedy, like Archie, is an old bigot who pines for the moral clarity of an earlier time. He kept talking about the "march of progress"--i.e., the civil rights era--as if that march had not long ago reached its destination, as if the moral questions facing the country and the court today were as black-and-white as segregation.

Not that we disagree with every word of what Kennedy said. At the end of his speech, he declared, "I understand my time has expired." Truer words were never spoken.

Nothin' Matters and What if It Did
Before his futile filibuster effort yesterday, John Kerry* wrote the following at the Puffington Host:

Once Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito, there's no turning back the Senate confirmation vote. We don't get to "take a mulligan" when choosing a Supreme Court Justice. . . . Will it matter if we speak up after the Supreme Court has granted the executive the right to use torture, or to eavesdrop without warrants? Will it matter if we speak up only after a woman's right to privacy has been taken away? Will history record what we say after the courthouse door is slammed in the faces of women, minorities, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor? No. History will record what we say and what we do now.

If it no longer matters, will John Kerry please stop talking? Ah, probably not.

* The haughty, French-looking scourge of the American Bar Association, who by the way served in Vietnam.

The Livid Left
The Boston Globe notes that the Davos-Chappaquiddick filibuster effort was not good for the Democratic Party:

In the end yesterday they succeeded only in splitting the Democratic caucus. . . . By using a procedural move to try to block the nomination, which many Democrats opposed, Kerry and Kennedy showed that the party remained divided on how far to go to prevent Alito from joining the court. . . .

By splitting Senate Democrats on the eve of what had been expected to be a resounding vote against Alito, the filibuster prompted frustration among colleagues, said a Democratic aide, speaking on background.

''Some people are asking: 'Did Kerry do this in the best interests of the Democratic Party, or in the best interests of John Kerry?' " the aide said.

What the effort also did was set up, then dash, false hopes among the Angry Left, who are now as livid as we've ever seen them. From the National Organization of Women comes a relatively measured response:

Today's vote is the only Alito vote that really counts. Votes against Alito tomorrow are irrelevant, and no senator who voted "Yes" today [Monday] can hide behind a "No" vote tomorrow. Supporters of women's rights, civil rights and the separation of powers lost this pivotal battle because senators who should have been fighting for their constituents chose not to do so. But in the process we exposed the despicable agenda of the right wing, and their unrelenting determination to undermine our rights and liberties.

And from pro-abortion activist Kate Michelman:

Sixteen years after Roe [v. Wade], its author alerted supporters of this right that its position was tenuous, that a "chill wind" could be felt in the Supreme Court. Today, that chill wind has reached hurricane status.

"That chill wind has reached hurricane status"? Maybe you do have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Over on the Daily Kos, they're much more, uh, animated. "Meteor Blades" writes:

Given what an atrocious job most of the Democrats on the committee did in querying Samuel Alito, particularly bad when it came to follow-up questions, and in framing the issues of concern raised by Alito's extensive judicial record, it is incumbent upon us to try to ensure that Democrats ask tough questions at these hearings [on surveillance of terrorists]. . . .

Many of us are, I know, psychologically exhausted from seeking victory that we knew since November would be a long shot. And I've seen a fat chunk of comments saying: what's the use, the right wing has won, there's no point in fighting anymore. Understandably. But a battle is not a war. And, disappointing as it was, and as devastating as Alito's tenure on the court may turn out to be, giving up is simply not an option.

But "Tranny" does seem to be giving up, more or less (quoting verbatim):

NOT A PENNY FOR THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AND FURTHERMORE, I'LL NOT SACRIFICE ONE SECOND OF MY LIFE TO HELP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY UNTIL THE TRAITORS ARE EXPELLED FROM OUR MIST.

Why? You ask.

Because they have committed an extremely egregious injury against this country's constitution and the people that it protects. I've lived my life under the belief that "An injury to one is an injury to all" When somebody harms my sisters and brothers, I take it VERY PERSONAL.

EXPEL THE TRAITORS FROM OUR PARTY, OR YOU GUYS ARE ON YOUR OWN!.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times reports that "liberal activists--among them graying leftovers from the Vietnam-era antiwar movement--plan to gather near the Capitol tonight, banging pots and pans to drown out President Bush's State of the Union address." The Angry Left seems determined to recast itself as the Noisy Left.

Voice of Reason?
In a post after the cloture vote, Markos Moulitsas, "Kos" himself, attempted to calm the waters by offering some good news--or what passes for such among Angry Leftoids:

While we obsessed over the cloture vote, that was not news to the rest of the country, blissfully unaware.

What was?

Bob Woodruff almost getting killed and Jill Carroll pleading for her life, both in Iraq. Go to the homepages right now (as of 6:20 PT) of CNN, ABC News, Fox News, and CBS News. This, for the real America, was the news today.

This isn't meant to minimize the importance of the Alito vote, but to note that this has not been a glorious day for Dear Leader[**]. In fact, it's one of those days that may very well have turned the public against his presidency once and for all.

Take heart, Angry Left: Journalists are in peril in Iraq.

One of many odd things about this is the assumption that the suffering of journalists is somehow going to turn the American people against the war effort. Actually, this assumption seems widespread among journalists, at least among CNN journalists.

"The war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster and journalists have paid for it," Christiane Amanpour complained last night on "Larry King Live." This morning Soledad O'Brien put the following question to Sen Bill Frist:

Isn't it going to be problematic for the president to say as--and I'm quoting you now--you know, winning with war on terror when, in reality, we have this brand new videotape from Ayman el-Zawahiri. We have an anchorman injured in Iraq. We have a journalist, a young woman, who's been kidnapped and is seen sobbing on national television, taken from the Arab media, as well? Is the public going to buy we're winning the war, it's going well, there's progress, when there's so much evidence to the contrary?

So O'Brien's evidence that we're not "winning the war on terror" is (a) Zarqawi's new videotape and (b) the kidnapping of one journalist and wounding of another.

Don't get us wrong: We view war-zone reporting as a heroic endeavor, and we were acquainted with one journalist, Michael Kelly, who was killed in Iraq, three years ago. But there is something self-absorbed almost to the point of solipsism about journalists insisting that their adversity is the most important thing about the war.

It's worth keeping a few things in perspective: Like soldiers, journalists choose their profession voluntarily. Unlike soldiers, journalists do not have to go to Iraq: They are free to seek other assignments or other jobs. Like many soldiers, many journalists choose to return to Iraq despite the dangers out of a sense of duty. But if journalists don't cut and run, why do they expect the leaders of the military to do so?

As for Kos, it's a measure of just how far gone the Angry Left is that he--who two years ago responded to the murders of four American civilians by saying "Screw 'em"--is now the voice of reason on his own Web site.

** We believe this is a reference to President Bush, not Kim Jong Il.

Nothing Gets Past the Canadian TV Commissioners
"Don Imus has been fingered by Canada's TV watchdog for calling Muslims 'brainwashed' and 'stinking animals' during a 2004 broadcast that aired here on MSNBC Canada," according to the Hollywood Reporter:

"The commission is of the view that comments made during the November 12, 2004, broadcast of 'Imus in the Morning' that Palestinian people are 'brainwashed,' 'stupid to begin with' and 'stinking animals' and that a bomb should be dropped on them and that they should be 'killed right now' were clearly disparaging, insulting and abusive."

It took them 14 months to figure that out? And apparently they have yet to answer the really salient question: Were Imus's remarks funny?

Movers and Shakers
"In the original version of this report, Newsweek misquoted Falwell as referring to 'assault ministry.' In fact, Falwell was referring to 'a salt ministry'--a reference to Matthew 5:13, where Jesus says 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' We regret the error."--Newsweek online, Feb. 6 issue

Seasonal Affective Disorder
"Hurricanes Acquire Weight From Blues"--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 30

We Blame the Republican Culture of Corruption
"Prince of Wales Blames Poor Town Planning for Rise in Obesity"--headline, LeisureOpportunities.co.uk, Jan. 30

That Must Be a Big Lab
"Why put up costly cell phone towers in thinly populated areas, when a few balloons would do? In North Dakota, former Gov. Ed Schafer is backing a plan to loft wireless network repeaters on balloons high above the state to fill gaps in cellular coverage. 'I know it sounds crazy,' said Schafer, who now heads Extend America Inc., a wireless telecommunications company. 'But it works in the lab.' "--Associated Press, Jan. 30

Bottom Story of the Day
"New S.F. Museum Chief Has a Passion for Art"--headline, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 31

Back to the Future
"A local baby made medical history by becoming the first in the world to undergo a unique heart surgery before she was even born," reports Washington's WJLA-TV:

Performing a procedure that had never been done anywhere in the world, doctors sliced a hole in Grace's grape-sized heart and propped it open with a stint [sic]. Then, 13 days later she was born naturally.

Leave it to the local news to focus on the human-interest aspect of the story and miss the scientific breakthrough altogether. They saved a baby before she was born. That must mean they've discovered the secret of time travel!

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Paul Dyck, Patrick Broderick, John Hartness, Allen O'Donnell, Michael Segal, Aaron Cummins, Douglas Noren, Christopher Anderson, Jake Vogelsang, Tom Linehan, Edward Schulze, Ed Lasky, Ruth Papazian, Mark Van Der Molen, Benjamin Siders, Michael Nunnelley, Daniel Bryant, Andrew Robinson, Mark Schulze, John Williamson, Robert Woolley, Donald Walker, Curtis Edmonds, Tom Burson and Mark Rosaaen. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Fred Barnes: President Bush will keep pushing Social Security reform. But not tonight.
• Brendan Miniter: Will the State of the Union influence the House leadership race?
• John McGinnis: Antonin Scalia's judicial philosophy is not just a cover for conservative ideology.