From the WSJ Opinion Archives
The
Man They Love to Hate
David Boaz of the Cato Institute, writing on the Web site of London's Guardian,
echoes a point we've made about conservative loyalty to President Bush:
As a nominating speech for President Grover Cleveland once put it, "They love him most for the enemies he has made." Conservatives love Bush because the left hates him. If the New York Times would run a front-page story headlined "Bush Delivers the Big Government Clinton Never Did," and the lefty bloggers would pick it up and run with it, maybe conservatives would catch on.
So here's your challenge, lefty bloggers: If you don't like the tree-chopping, Falwell-loving, cowboy president--if you want his presidency fatally wounded for the next three years--then start praising him. One good Paul Krugman column taking off from that USA Today story on the surge in entitlements recipients under Bush, one Daily Kos lead on how Clinton flopped on national health care but Bush twisted every arm in the GOP to get a multi-trillion-dollar prescription drug benefit for the elderly, one cover story in the Nation on how Bush has acknowledged federal responsibility for everything from floods in New Orleans to troubled teenagers, and maybe, just maybe, National Review and the Powerline blog and Fox News would come to their senses. Bush is a Rockefeller Republican in cowboy boots, and it's time conservatives stopped looking at the boots instead of the policies.
We suspect, though, that it'd take a lot more than a few contrarian pro-Bush columns or blog entries to overwhelm the widespread Bush-hatred on the left. Sen. Russ Feingold--whether acting out of that compulsion or pandering to it--is proposing a resolution to "censure" the president for trying to prevent another terrorist attack on America. Feingold apparently has all of two supporters thus far for his initiative, Barbara Boxer of California and Tom Harkin of Iowa, and, as the New York Times reports, the GOP is delighted:
Republicans, worried that their conservative base lacks motivation to turn out for the fall elections, have found a new rallying cry in the dreams of liberals about censuring or impeaching President Bush. . . .
With the Republican base demoralized by continued growth in government spending, undiminished violence in Iraq and intramural disputes over immigration, some conservative leaders had already begun rallying their supporters with speculation about a Democratic rebuke to the president even before Mr. Feingold made his proposal.
The Angry Left is all too eager to cooperate with Feingold's effort at boosting Republican turnout. Markos "Kos" Moulitsas yesterday posted a list of 21 "Democratic senators [who] have come out for censuring the president," then crankily observed, "Unfortunately, the president being censured was Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush. Because, you know, these senators had their priorities straight."
Or consider these exchanges from an online chat with Warren Brown, the Washington Post's car columnist. We'll summarize the questions and give you Brown's answers in full:
Rockville, MD: [Are today's cars too complicated to last a long time?]
Warren Brown: Hello, Rockville. Statistically, today's cars are more reliable, more durable, safer, and more enjoyable....and, yes, substantially more complicated.
So, while your techno-angst certainly is understandable, it's statistically unsupportable.
Many of today's cars, even the economy models, can run 200,000 miles or so with proper service and care. Be not afraid. It's okay to venture forth into the brave new world of technology, as long as you aren't on a hunting trip with the Vice President. He needs a GPS on his gun. . . .
Chicago, Ill.: [You're going to think I'm a dumb blonde, but I accidentally poured oil into the wrong slot and now I have a leak. What should I do?]
Warren Brown: Hello, Chicago. That's nothing dumb about what would [sic] did, blonde or not. You just made a mistake. We all do--like all of those people who lose their electronic keys and then whine about how much it costs to make things right again.
The BMW people know how to handle this. 1. They should thoroughly clean that engine to make sure you have no pools of oil in hot spots. That could cause a fire. (Ask me how I know.)
They can drain the excess oil. You should be okay.
I mean, geez, stop fretting.
Consider that all of those smart people in the White House, Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Department and Congress went merrily marching into Iraq on certain "intelligence" about weapons of mass destruction that weren't there.
How dumb is that? And our President isn't blonde, and our Vice President is bald. See? . . .
Hilsboro [sic], Va.: [Shouldn't there be stricter fuel economy standards for SUVs?]
Warren Brown: Well, Hillsboro:
Why be amused or bemused? The reality is that there are many people out there who want, need, or otherwise prefer a fullsize SUV. The 2007 GMC Yukon Denali happens to be one of the best.
And it's the very dressed Denali that gets 19 mpg on the highway. The SLE and SLT versions get somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 mpg.
That's a big improvement, considering the usual segment performances of 15 miles per gallon and less for the big rigs.
Thus, to answer your policy direction question, America is moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. Those big rigs eventually will have gasoline-electric and diesel-electric engines for even better mileage and lower emissions.
America would be moving in the wrong direction to curb consumer choice. I mean, we already have enough of that don't we--a government that believes it can engender freedom abroad by curbing and abusing it at home.
Boaz's advice is probably impossible to follow, because Bush-hatred is a compulsion, not a strategy.
Which
Was Bush's Fault!
"Russia Blames Global Warming on 1908 Tunguska Event"--headline, ScienceBlog.com,
March 14
Faith-Based
Initiative--II
We got some interesting responses to yesterday's follow-up item on the so-called
National Popular Vote plan, which, in the New
York Times' description, "proposes that states commit to casting their
electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote." Reader Dale
Switzer, a 1996 Oklahoma elector, noted that states do not cast electoral votes;
they select electors, who in turn cast the votes.
Several readers noted that many states have laws "binding" electors to vote in a particular way. Most legal scholars, however, believe that such laws are unconstitutional. Although the issue has never been litigated, it seems to us that they are plainly right.
The Electoral College is established in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and updated in the 12th Amendment. Here are the relevant provisions:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. . . .
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The Constitution empowers the state legislatures to determine the manner of choosing electors, and it empowers the electors to decide how to vote (with the restriction that they cannot vote for home-state candidates for both president and vice president).
Electors are analogous to members of Congress. State legislatures can, within the limits established by federal law, determine the manner in which congressmen are elected. But they cannot order a senator or representative to vote a certain way on issues before Congress.
Cigars
for Assassins
London's Times reports on how the Palestinian Arabs flouted the agreement under
which the alleged assassins of Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi were
being held in a Palestinian prison under U.S. and British monitoring:
Palestinian guards confirmed yesterday that Ahmed Saadat, a leading militant captured by Israeli troops in the raid, kept birds and flowers in his quarters. Western officials said that Saadat in effect used other prisoners as "domestic staff."
An official told The Times that Fuad Shobaki, the alleged moneyman behind a 2002 weapons shipment intercepted by Israel, smoked up to five Cuban cigars a day and was known as "The Brigadier" to inmates and staff. He was also seized.
"Saadat and Shobaki were very much in charge," one prison source said. "These guys were running the prison. They did what they wanted, when they wanted."
Israel raided the prison and seized the terrorists Tuesday after Palestinian chairman Mahomoud Abbas, under pressure from the Hamas government, said he'd release Saadat, and the U.S. and British monitors left. The New York Times weighs in with an editorial bemoaning the outcome. Although the paper faults Abbas for not having "thought hard" before supporting Saadat's release, it mostly faults Israel:
The acting Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, should not have allowed the desire to do some election-season muscle-flexing to push him into storming the prison in Jericho with tanks, bulldozers and helicopters. Israeli Army officials ordered inmates to strip to their underwear, which many did, marching out with clothing on their heads, an embarrassing and completely unnecessary provocation that trampled the dignity of any Palestinian watching that spectacle.
So Israel should have sat still for the release of a man who allegedly murdered a top Israeli official? Are there any limits to the barbarity the Times is willing to accept in the name of indulging the Palestinians?
The
Protest Mirage
Andrew Heller, a columnist for the Flint (Mich.) Journal, has an odd criticism
of Christians. It seems that a local fallen soldier, Sgt. Joshua Youmans, was
buried in Flint the other day, and what Heller describes as a "brutally
insensitive Kansas group" showed up to picket. This presumably is the Westboro
Baptist Church, a tiny group of antigay wackos led by one Fred Phelps. (We wrote
about this outfit back in February
2003, when it put out pamphlets saying that God had blown up the space shuttle
Columbia to punish America for being "controlled by sodomites.")
Anyway, Heller goes beyond the obvious point that these freaks are odious:
Why, in none of the media coverage that I saw and read, did I see any mention of Christian groups waving signs that said, "Christians don't hate!" or "Those fruitcakes don't represent Christians." . . .
But then I've wondered that before. Christians, in my view, have allowed the good name of their faith to be hijacked by the lunatic fringe in this country, just as surely as decent, peace-loving Muslims have lost control of their faith's image worldwide. . . .
Christians have an image problem. Some of it, maybe, is my industry's fault. We gravitate toward the extreme.
Some of the blame, however, lies with the silent majority of Christians.
Speak up, people. The meek may inherit the Earth, but they sure don't get much TV time.
Why didn't Christians protest? Because protesting isn't something that normal people normally do. As The Wall Street Journal observed in an editorial on the Danish cartoon conflagration last month, "mass demonstrations almost never represent mainstream public sentiment." A protest is a man-made mirage, a way of making it appear as though a cause has more support than it does.
Phelps's protests aren't even mass ones; typically it's just a few nuts standing around with nasty signs. Does Heller really think anyone is foolish enough to believe that they somehow speak for Christians?
Why
We Need to Stop the Flow of Cash
"Rice: Terrorists Want 'Ring of Fire' "--headline, Bangkok Post,
March 15
What
Kind of Justice System Do They Have Over There?
"Six Seriously Ill in London Hospital as Drug Trial Goes Wrong"--headline,
Agence France-Presse, March 15
At
His Age, It's a Wonder Anything Is Regular
"Wallace to Stop Being '60 Minutes' Regular"--headline, Associated
Press, March 14
If
He'd Bitten a Dog, This Would Be News
"University Official Allegedly Bites Man"--headline, Associated Press,
March 15
Why
Would a Guy Who Can Walk on Water Need to Part a Sea?
"He's more like Jesus than I thought. Guys would be huddled around talking smack
in the clubhouse and Roger walks in. It's like the parting of the Red Sea."--Chipper
Jones on Roger Clemens, a U.S. teammate in the World Baseball Classic, quoted
in the New York Times, March 16
We
Thought It Was Colonel Mustard in the Library
"Hot Pepper Kills Prostate Cancer Cells in Study"--headline, Reuters,
March 15
Innovative
Solutions to Prison Overcrowding
"Police Seek Sex Offender With Underground Dungeon"--headline, Associated
Press, March 16
Top
Story of the Day
"Building a Better Bra: High-tech features meant to bring new comfort for
women"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 16
Bottom
Story of the Day
"President of Poland Interested in Spelling of Polish Surnames in Lithuania"--headline,
Regnum news agency (Russia), March 15
Here
Comes the Bride. Lock Her Up.
Lisa Clark, a 37-year-old Georgia woman with a month-old son, has been sentenced
to nine months in jail--for having sex with her husband. The problem, as the
Associated Press reports, is that the husband is 15:
Clark was arrested in November on charges of statutory rape, child molestation and enticing a minor. A few days before her arrest, she married the boy under a 1962 Georgia law that allows children of any age to get married if the bride-to-be is pregnant.
This just goes to show that you can't rely on made-up constitutional rights. The so-called right to privacy, established in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), is premised, as Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the court's opinion, on the inviolability of "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms." Apparently this doesn't apply if the marriage is solemnized pursuant to a screwy law.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Allen O'Donnell, John Williamson, Tim Graham, Keith Bernard, Yan Mogilyansky, Thomas Crimmins, Steven Jens, Jerry Skurnik, Michael Segal, Maury Kelman, Joel Goldberg, Dave Forsmark, Daniel Goldstein, Stephen Blair, Peter Nichols, C.E. Dobkin, Edward Schulze, Thomas Dillon, Lawrence Hauch, Daniel Foty and Monty Krieger. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Julia Vitullo-Martin: The continuing battle over the future of Ground Zero.
- Peggy Noonan: Should we have known that President Bush would bust the budget?
- John Fund: Yale suspends the anonymous emailer who blasted Taliban critics.
- Jonathan Gurwitz: The Angry Left takes on a moderate Democrat--and loses.
