From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Best
of the Tube Tonight
We're scheduled to appear on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" as part of a "political
roundtable." The program airs today at 6 p.m. EDT, with a repeat showing at
4 a.m. tomorrow, and we're told we'll be on in the second half-hour.
A
Failure of Rigor
Yesterday we argued that an Associated Press photo appeared to show a live person
in Qana, Lebanon, masquerading as a dead one. We are now convinced we were wrong.
As it turns out, blogger "RL" at AugeanStables.com had posted a similar item, which he subsequently deleted, writing: "I have now seen several photographs of the scene with the man I thought was getting up. His position is more or less the same in them all, suggesting rigor mortis."
RL's post shows two columns of five photos each. The first photo on the left (we'll call it "1L") is the Associated Press photo we used yesterday; the first on the right ("1R") is the AP photo that appeared in the Washington Post, from which we enlarged the man who appeared to be sitting up. (We had thought they were the same photo, cropped differently; in fact, they are different photos, though taken from almost the same angle.)
The third photo on the right ("3R") shows some of the bodies before they are covered in sheets (or perhaps after they are uncovered). The rightmost body has its arm extended, which would explain the protrusion beneath the sheets in photos 1L and 1R, as well as 2L, 2R and 4R. Photo 5L appears to show the same arm, uncovered, at closer range.
When readers raised the possibility of rigor mortis, we initially wondered how it could have set in only in this body among at least half a dozen, all of whom presumably died at roughly the same time. But the photos show that at least one other body--the rightmost one in photo 3R--also is in rigor mortis. That body's elbow is bent so that its forearm is raised--and a corresponding protrusion is visible under the sheets in photos 1L, 1R, 2L and 2R.
Thus the evidence seems conclusive that the stuff on our face is egg. Please excuse us while we wash it off.
Giving
Hajj the Business
Today's New York Times has an article on the Reuters Adnan Hajj photo-doctoring
scandal, which includes the following acknowledgment:
The Times, which ran a picture of his as recently as Saturday on its front page, has published eight of Mr. Hajj's Associated Press and Reuters photographs since March 2005. Times editors said a review of those pictures found none that appeared to have been changed improperly.
Tellingly, the Times story appears in the business section, not the main news section, suggesting that the paper's editors see this as merely a story about "journalism" rather than about the war in which these photos were meant to serve as propaganda.
Civil
War
In this year's Senate races, things are looking up for the Democrats. Republicans
failed to field serious candidates against several incumbents from red states
(Florida, North Dakota, West Virginia). Most observers give the Dems a better
than even chance of holding seats in Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey and Washington
against serious challenges. Only in Minnesota does the GOP have an even chance
of picking up a Democratic seat.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have a reasonable shot at beating five GOP incumbents--in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island--and an open GOP seat in Tennessee isn't completely out of reach. If everything falls the Democrats' way, their current 45-seat minority will become a 51-seat majority.
Best of all is Connecticut, where the general election match-up features not one but two Democrats against no serious Republican opposition. Ned Lamont, having won yesterday's primary, is nominally the Democratic candidate. His opponent, Joe Lieberman, is the Democratic incumbent. Either way, the Democrats win!
So why do they look as though they've just swallowed something poisonous?
Because the Lamont-Lieberman primary--which the challenger won narrowly, 51.8% to 48.2%, in a high-turnout race--reflects sectarian strife that threatens to break out into all-out civil war. Here is Markos "Kos" Moulitsas, one of Lamont's most vocal backers, being less than magnanimous in victory:
Lieberman just announced that he is running as an independent. . . . Lieberman just announced that he is running as an independent.
Here's what we all need to do the next few days:
1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.
2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.
3. Get all Democrats--including Bill Clinton--to publicly back Ned Lamont.
4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general.
We can think of one very good reason Reid may not want to follow Moulitsas's advice and retaliate against Lieberman. Suppose the Democrats do win all contested Senate races on Nov. 7, and Lieberman beats Lamont in Connecticut. That would, as we said, give Democrats a 51-49 advantage in the Senate. In order to be elected majority leader, Reid would need every single Democratic vote--including Lieberman's.
Can
an Indy Dem Win?
So what are the prospects for Lieberman's independent re-election bid? Winning
the Democratic nomination gives Lamont the advantage of at least nominal support
from the national party. This morning the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
issued a joint statement from Minority Leader Harry Reid and DSCC chairman Chuck
Schumer:
The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont's candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.
Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.
But with 11 other competitive Senate races in which the opponents are Republicans, it would seem unwise for the DSCC to invest heavily in a race that a Democrat is going to win no matter what. But of course wisdom is in extremely short supply among the Angry Left, who ardently desire to see Lieberman driven from the party and the Senate.
In November Lamont will almost certainly do better than yesterday's 52% among registered Democrats, since some who backed Lieberman in the primary will switch to Lamont now that he is the official nominee. But Lamont's great disadvantage is that he must now face a broader electorate, one that includes independents and Republicans as well as Democrats.
Here are some very rough numbers: According to a July 31 Associated Press dispatch, registered Democrats make up roughly 33% of the Connecticut electorate; Republicans are 22% and 45% of registered voters are unaffiliated. Let's make the following assumptions:
- The partisan makeup of the November electorate matches that of the state
as a whole.
- Lamont gets two-thirds of the Democratic vote, with one-third going to Lieberman.
- Lieberman gets half the Republican vote, with the other half going to the GOP candidate and Lamont getting negligible support.
This would give Lamont and Lieberman 22% each of the total electorate, with 11% going to the Republican candidate, before accounting for unaffiliated voters. These numbers are, as we say, very rough, and any number of factors could change the picture. But it does seem reasonable to think this will largely be a battle for the independent vote.
This seems to be how Lieberman sees it. Here's an excerpt from his concession/campaign kickoff speech:
I'm disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let [this] result stand. I expect that my opponent will continue to do in the general election what he has done in the primary: partisan polarizing instead of talking about how we could solve the people's problems. Insults instead of ideas. In other words, more of the same old partisan politics that has stalemated Washington today.
As an analytical matter, this doesn't strike us as quite right: It's the new politics of partisan polarization that won yesterday. Lieberman is a throwback to an earlier era, when both parties had much more room for moderates. Yet having declared his independence, he may be well positioned to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters who increasingly feel at home in neither party.
A hilarious New York Times editorial tries to paint Lieberman as an extremist:
It's hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it's hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution.
The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction.
By this reckoning, the 48% of Connecticut Democrats who voted for Lieberman--not to mention the politicians who endorsed him, from Bill Clinton on down--are right-wing extremists. That doesn't seem quite right. And the paper's characterization of Lamont's backers is belied by its own news story on the primary:
The road ahead for Mr. Lamont is hardly smooth. He now has to make the adjustment from being an insurgent--he gave his victory speech with the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson at his side--to being the official Democratic nominee, the symbol of the party establishment.
Only in the alternate universe of the New York Times are Al Sharpton Democrats more "moderate" than Bill Clinton ones.
The Times news story also includes this jaw-dropping quote:
"This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the leader of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. "This is not about the war. It's blind loyalty to Bush."
For all the talk of "Clinton hating" way back when, we don't remember any Republican referring to Chris Shays, Arlen Specter or any other GOP opponent of impeachment as Bill Clinton's "love child."
Now, it's true that George W. Bush is unpopular. It may be true that he will remain unpopular for the remainder of his term. It is possible that opposition to the president will be sufficient to give the Democrats big victories in this year's election. But even voters who are disillusioned by Bush may be put off by expressions of outright hatred for the man.
And in any case, the road down which the Democrats are going dead-ends in three months. If President Bush were running for re-election today, it's possible a Democrat could beat him--as John Kerry tried in 2004--simply on the strength of not being Bush. In 2008, however, the Republican nominee won't be Bush either.
Freudian
Slip? (Or Honest Reporting?)
" 'They call Connecticut the land of steady habits,' a jubilant Lamont
told cheering reporters. 'Tonight we voted for a big change.' "--Associated
Press, Aug. 9
A Trivia Question
Eighteen years ago, Joe
Lieberman was first elected to the Senate. He was the Democratic nominee;
the Republican nominee was Sen. Lowell
Weicker.
In 1990 Weicker successfully ran for governor of Connecticut as an independent. This year Lieberman is seeking re-election to the Senate as an independent.
Our question: Has this ever happened before? That is, have two candidates, after facing off as the major-party nominees in an election, both gone on to seek office as independent or third-party candidates?
We don't know the answer, so if you can think of a case in which it's happened before, email us.
Sanity
Prevails in Georgia
For the second time in twice as many years, Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia
resoundingly lost a primary runoff for her safely Democratic seat, losing to
former DeKalb County commissioner Hank Johnson, 59% to 41%. At her concession
speech, the Associated Press reports, she made pro-communist statements,
and this is no exaggeration:
Despite her defeat, McKinney was unbowed, unleashing a stemwinder of a concession speech in which she barely mentioned her opponent but praised leftist leaders in Cuba and Venezuela, took aim at the efficacy of electronic voting machines and offered several swipes at the media.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution quotes one voter whose analysis of the result seems spot on:
DeKalb County resident Lonnie Smith, 49, helped propel Johnson to victory Tuesday night.
"Cynthia McKinney doesn't need to win," said Smith, a businesswoman who voted for Johnson at Avondale Middle School. "She is an embarrassment to the law, an embarrassment to being female, an embarrassment to being black and an embarrassment to being a Christian. She's loud and obnoxious and exhibits no sense of class."
It's certainly an encouraging result, though, unlike that in Connecticut, one with few national implications.
One
More Incumbent Loses
"First-term U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz failed in his bid for re-election Tuesday,
losing to former state Rep. Tim Walberg in the Republican primary and becoming
the first Michigan congressman since 1992 ousted by a challenger who was not
already in Congress," reports the Detroit Free Press:
Walberg was endorsed by a bevy of influential conservative groups that bashed the incumbent.
Walberg's endorsements came from Right to Life of Michigan and influential antitax groups, and he received massive support from the Washington, D.C.-based Club For Growth. Club For Growth, backed by wealthy businesspeople who oppose much government spending and taxation, made Schwarz its primary target for replacement in the U.S. House this year.
President Bush won 54% of the vote in 2004, when Schwarz beat Democrat Sharon Renier--the nominee again this year--58% to 36%. So Walberg seems a shoo-in in November.
Homer
Nods
Brett Arends writes for the Boston Herald, not the Globe, as we said in an item
yesterday (since corrected).
This
Seems Like a Step Down
"Ex-Clinton Official May Go to North Korea: Report"--headline, Reuters,
Aug. 8
10,
9, 8, 7 . . . Uh, What Comes After 7?
"Shuttle Crew in Florida for Practice Countdown"--headline, Reuters,
Aug. 7
Life Imitates 'Saturday Night Live'
"Male synchronized swimming is often associated with homosexuality, with no actual grounds for that association. . . . Men appear in synchronized swimming only as a joke, such as in the popular Saturday Night Live sketch from 1984 which features actors Martin Short and Harry Shearer in lifejackets, bathing caps, and nose plugs performing an obviously ridiculous routine. . . . This is the only exposure that many Americans have had to the idea of men participating in synchronized swimming, and it is introduced as a piece of comedy. It is a piece of comedy that comes back to haunt those male athletes who would seek to make men's synchronized swimming a mainstream and socially accepted event."--from "Lords of the Underwater: Men in Synchronized Swimming," a scholarly paper by Rebecca Rouse, 2002
"A men's synchronized swim team has been barred from a meet at Stanford University, reinforcing an International Olympics Committee decision designating the sport as women-only. . . . The synchro team, in its fourth season, has competed at national competitions, the Gay Games and the International Gay & Lesbian Aquatics Championships. San Francisco Tsunami describes itself on its Web site as a gay and lesbian aquatics team that is open to all."--Associated Press, Aug. 8, 2006
They
Can't Afford Growth Hormone
"Report: Number of Uninsured Kids Shrinking"--headline, Associated
Press, Aug. 8
Wouldn't
a Safety Razor Work Better?
"Medicare Payments to Doctors Face Cuts"--headline, New York Times,
Aug. 9
Thanks
for the Tip!--XCIV
"Health Tip: Help a Blister Heal"--headline, HealthDay.com, Aug. 9
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Colorado-Born Lynx Has Twin Kittens"--headline, Associated
Press, Aug. 8
- "Twin Pandas Each Have Twin Cubs in China"--headline, Associated
Press, Aug. 8
- "Cows in Heat"--headline, Chapel Hill (N.C.) News & Advocate, Aug. 8
Stuffed
Shirts
Remember "Sore Loserman," the Republican play on Gore-Lieberman when
the pair were contesting the 2000 election results? Suddenly the term has gained
currency on the other side of the spectrum, as the Angry Left seeks to excommunicate
the onetime vice presidential nominee. A Google search of DailyKos.com this
afternoon turned up 205 pages containing the phrase.
This may mean a new market for the Arizona Shirt Co., whose Web site proclaims, "The Democracts [sic] still can't get over it. So we'll still sell the shirts! . . . These items make great gifts, historical momentos for your grand kids, and they're guaranteed to drive your liberal friends crazy." And now they'll appeal to your liberal friends who are already crazy!
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Tierney, Luba Kmetyk, John Blackburn, Chad Evans, John Longfield, Harrison Colter, Ed Lasky, Michael Segal, Charles Hamilton, Shawn DeMers, John Williamson, Andrew Hill, Pat Rowe, Daniel Goldstein, Mara Gold, Anne McCaughey, David Friedman, Paul Boyer, Scott Wright, Andrew Robinson, Monty Krieger, Dan O'Shea, Jean Forster, Hiawatha Bray, Maria Meylikhova, Peter Lucas, Jeff Dobbs, Mary Freas, Dan Tracy, Ruth Papazian, Samuel Walker, Ethel Fenig, Corodon Fuller and William Katz. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Peter Wehner: Birth pangs of freedom in the Middle East.
- Bret Stephens: Condi's gambit: Hope for the worst.
- Josh Manchester (from the Property and Environment Research Center): Bounty-hunting environmental groups abuse the legal system.
