by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, August 21, 2006 3:53 P.M. EDT

Declare Victory, Get Out
They said they would be greeted as liberators for toppling the old regime. Instead, they find themselves caught in a quagmire--a vicious, unwinnable civil war with incalculable costs in both resources and prestige.

We refer, of course, to the Democrats in Connecticut.

An exchange between "TPM reader BM" and Angry Left blogger Steve Gilliard illustrates their predicament going into an intraparty general election race between Sen. Joe Lieberman, now an independent, and Democratic nominee Ned Lamont. Here is BM:

I don't like Joe Lieberman and hope he isn't in the Senate. End of story. Let's all move on and focus on the races where Republicans can be defeated. If Democrats regain the House or the Senate, even if Joe is elected it won't matter as much. As long as liberal blogs devote 20-30% of their time beating on Joe, they are missing out on beating on all of the vulnerable and possibly vulnerable Republican Congressmen. Conservatives understand--make your point then move on to where you can have an effect. The best use of resources is to defeat as many Republicans as possible. Why win the "Sore Loserman" battle and lose the war?

Gilliard's response:

The problem is that Lieberman is the flying wedge for the GOP. He can say the Dems are weak and captive of radicals, and bolster Bush at the same time.

Taking him out is the number one priority because his continued presence hurts all races, especially the Connecticut House races. He is literally their lifesaver. Joe attacking Dems hurt all Dems, in all their races. Ignoring him would be suicidal. Getting him out of the race should be the priority. Not just for Connecticut Dems, but for the entire party.

Lieberman was a horribly divisive character and unless his political career is ended, other Dems will pay.

In a way these two are talking past each other. BM says defeating Lieberman in November shouldn't be the Democrats' top priority. Gilliard doesn't disagree; he says the priority should be "getting him out of the race."

But hope is not a plan, and Gilliard doesn't say how he proposes to get Lieberman out. They went to war without a plan to win the peace!

The only suggestion we've heard is one we noted Thursday: threaten to strip Lieberman of his Senate seniority in the event of his re-election. This is problematic for many reasons.

For one thing, Senate traditions are notoriously obdurate, and it's difficult to imagine Lieberman's colleagues flouting them for the purpose of preventing the re-election of a fellow Democrat. According to the Associated Press, Lieberman claims to have received assurances from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid that he will not lose his seniority if re-elected. A Reid spokesman denied that, but "said those types of decisions will not be made until after the general election."

Deferring the decision until after the election ensures that Lieberman's seniority is as safe as his seat. If he wins re-election, the Democrats gain nothing by punishing him, and they run the risk that he will desert the party à la ex-Republican Jim Jeffords.

Even a credible threat to his seniority would be unlikely to deter Lieberman from seeking re-election, since seniority is of little use to an ex-senator. And it could prompt a backlash among Connecticut voters, who might see it as an effort to intimidate them.

It looks as though Lieberman is in the race to stay--but there is an answer to the Democrats' quandary. For the good of the party, Lamont could throw his support to Lieberman. This would leave the incumbent running essentially unopposed, neutralizing the "flying wedge" and allowing the Democrats to concentrate on beating Republicans.

Lamont could declare that he made his point by winning the primary, but his own ambitions are less important than the party. He could then redeploy, going on the road with Lieberman, campaigning for Democratic House challengers in Connecticut and for Democratic Senate candidates elsewhere. Rather than stay in a race he is likely to lose, Lamont could prove he understands his own dictum: " 'Stay the course' is not a winning strategy."

Two Papers in One!--III

"With a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration."--editorial, New York Times, Aug. 18

"Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge's conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision's reasoning and rhetoric yesterday. They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government's major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions. Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman . . ."--news story, New York Times, Aug. 19

Will Civil Liberties Self-Destruct?
Christopher Caldwell has a fascinating essay in--of all places--the New York Times magazine, in which he ponders the future of civil liberties:

Just hours before the police arrested 24 British-born Muslims suspected of plotting to blow up as many as 10 airliners over the Atlantic, the British home secretary, John Reid, gave a comprehensive description of how Tony Blair's government saw the war on terror. Reid, who probably knew the raids were coming, called international terrorism the gravest threat to Britain since World War II and attacked civil libertarians as people who "just don't get it." He highlighted a speech that Blair had made little more than a week earlier. Global terrorism, Blair said then, "means traditional civil liberty arguments are not so much wrong as just made for another age."

If you wanted to figure out how the airline plot will change the West, Blair's words would be a good place to start. . . . Blair was not trying to buck us up and steel our resolve by saying that we're at war and that we'll have to pitch in and sacrifice our liberties for a while. He was saying that war has shown many of our liberties to be illusory. The "civil liberties" we know do not bubble up from natural law or from something timeless and universal in the human character. They may be significant accomplishments, but they are temporal ones, bound to certain stages of technology or to certain styles of social organization. Maybe there was something like an Age of Civil Liberties, Blair was telling us, but it is over.

We must say, we are highly ambivalent about this. We are quite fond of our civil liberties and would hate to lose them. On the other hand, we're appalled at the fatuousness of today's civil libertarians, who seem to care more about terrorists' rights than national security. That very much includes the New York Times, with its penchant for compromising national secrets.

In an age of terror, society ought to be able to strike a reasonable balance between civil liberties and national security. By insisting that liberty is an all-or-nothing proposition, civil libertarians make it more likely that we will eventually end up with nothing.

Funny Money?--III
Back in July we noted that video footage from southern Lebanon showed what appeared to be uncut sheets of U.S. $100 bills, and we wondered if they were Hezbollah counterfeits. Readers offered a plausible alternative explanation: that they were photocopies of portions of bills, taken for the purpose of recording their serial numbers.

Here's another report that raises similar questions, from the Associated Press:

At a school in south Beirut's Bourj el-Barajneh neighborhood, Hezbollah on Friday started handing out crisp one hundred dollar bills to residents who lost their homes in the Israeli bombing campaign--$12,000 to each claimant.

As we noted in July, Hezbollah does have a history of counterfeiting U.S. currency in South America's tri-border area (Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay). We have no evidence that the wads of Hezbollah cash are fake, but we can't help wondering.

Homelessness Rediscovery Watch

"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000

"Hezbollah Gives Cash to Beirut Homeless"--headline, Gulf Times (Doha, Qatar), Aug. 19

A Trivial Complaint
Everyone seems to be piling on President Bush, even "once-friendly voices in the conservative media," according to the Washington Post. How can we resist joining in? Here's an exchange from the president's press conference this morning:

Q: Would you campaign against Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you, too, on Iraq?

Bush: I'm going to stay out of Connecticut. [Laughter.]

Q: You were born there.

Bush: Shhh. [Laughter.] I may be the only person--the only presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was born. Do you think that's right, Herman? Of course, you would have researched that and dropped it out for everybody to see--particularly since I dissed that just ridiculous looking outfit. [Laughter.]

In fact, by our count 24 major-party presidential nominees have never carried their state of birth (boldface years indicate national winners):

In this regard Bush isn't even unique in his immediate family; his father, born in Milton, Mass., lost the Bay State to both Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. (Bush fils proceeded to lose Connecticut to both Clinton's vice president and Dukakis's lieutenant governor.)

Nor is Bush the first president to be elected and re-elected while losing his state of birth both times. That distinction he must share with Abraham Lincoln. All we can say is, it's a good thing he's only the leader of the free world and not a "Jeopardy!" contestant.

The After Hours
"Diana Newton, 51, of Westminster [Calif.] sued the J.C. Penney Co. last month after she was allegedly thwacked on the head by a department store dummy," the Los Angeles Times reports:

Newton said she was ambushed by a legless female mannequin at the company's Westminster Mall store, a skirmish that left her with a bloodied scalp, a cracked tooth, recurring shoulder pain and numbness in her fingers.

The alleged attack was the latest in a string of mannequin mayhem incidents nationwide.

"There are a slew of lawsuits like this," said mannequin manufacturer Barry Rosenberg, who joked that stores should run background checks on dummies before letting them mingle with shoppers.

And to think, all she wanted was a gold thimble!

He's Lucky He Didn't Get Smothered
"A 21-year-old US man ended up in hospital after spending two hours trapped in a vat of chocolate, police in Wisconsin said on Friday."--BBC, Aug. 18

The Cheese Stands Alone
"All of a Sudden, Dell Looking Vulnerable"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 20

What Would Truck Drivers With Little Sleep Do Without Studies?
"Truck Drivers With Little Sleep Perform Poorly, Study Shows"--headline, Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 21

Shouldn't They Have Kept Him in Jail?
"JonBenet Murder Suspect to Be Sent Home Sunday"--headline, Reuters, Aug. 19

As Phony as a Bill Worth One-Third Less
"Fannie Mae to Sell $4.5 Bills on Wednesday"--headline, Reuters, Aug. 21

That's Why the Back of the Jacket Says 'Kick Me'
"George Says Suit Is Meant to Embarrass"--headline, Centre Daily Times (State College, Pa.), Aug. 18

HealthDay Gets Scooped Again
"Medical Advice: Know Your Shaman"--headline, Houston Chronicle, Aug. 16

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "Clinton to Celebrate 60th Birthday With Family, Friends"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 18
  
  
• "Prosecutors Won't Probe Madonna's Act"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 21
  
  
• "Five Finnish Universities Again Among Top 500 in the World"--headline, Helsingin Sanomat (Helsinki), Aug. 18
  
  
• "No Munitions Found at Site Near Chanute"--headline, News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana, Ill.), Aug. 18
  
  
• "Stolen Banjo Surfaces on eBay, Much to Musician's Delight"--headline, WTOP radio Web site (Washington), Aug. 21
  
  
• "Diana Was Not Pregnant, Says Mortuary Manager"--headline, Times (London), Aug. 19
  
  
• "New Jersey Man Gets Gas Pains on Visit to Area"--headline, Times Herald (Olean, N.Y.), Aug. 17
  
  
• "Hillary Clinton Setting Up for Presidential Run"--headline, Agence France-Presse, Aug. 20

Recycling 'Rubbish'
Back in June, Brian Akre of General Motors Corp. used a corporate blog to air a grievance against the New York Times. Columnist Thomas Friedman had published what Akre called a "rant" accusing GM of "being a corporate 'crack dealer' that posed a serious threat to America's future."

Akre sent a letter defending the company, and the Times demanded major cuts and changes in wording. Akre struck back, posting the entire letter on his blog, along with the version the Times published. Akre described one of the edits:

Our letter opened with a paragraph that accurately summarized the most bizarre elements of Mr. Friedman's attack, then reacted with this one-word sentence: "Rubbish."

That word accurately portrays how we felt about the column. Personally, I felt a stronger word referring to male bovine excrement would have been more appropriate, but my boss tends to express himself more politely than I in these situations.

The Times suggested "rubbish" be changed first to, "We beg to differ." We objected. The Times then suggested it be changed to, "Not so." We stood our ground. In the end, the Times refused to let us call the column "rubbish."

Why? "It's not the tone we use in Letters," wrote Mary Drohan, a letters editor.

So imagine how shocked we were by the third complete letter on this page from yesterday's Times:

Re "More Flexibility and Reality in Explaining Anonymity" (July 30):

Are you saying that it's now a "good" thing for readers that The Times has moved away from specific explanations for granting anonymity (primarily because they sound silly or pompous, it seems) and back to, essentially, "Because we said so"? What utter rubbish.

This is a pathetic defense of an indefensible policy.

Mark Blacknell
Arlington, Va., July 29, 2006

Say "Not so," Joe!

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Segal, Ruth Papazian, C.E. Dobkin, Martin Kennedy, Samuel Walker, Brian O'Rourke, Monty Krieger, Edward Cooney, Frank Hood, Mark Murray, Fran McDonald, David Englet, Dennis Powell, Gerald McOscar, Rhonda Cisneros, Mark Adams, Richard Macialek, Edward Schulze, Brendan Schulman, Gregg Sanderson, Dave Huber, William Katz, Kevin Hisel, Kevin Gowen, Ross Firestone, Jim Chave and Brent Silver. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: The French promise a military force and Condi falls for it.
• John Fund: President Bush just doesn't communicate anymore.
• The Journal Editorial Report: A transcript of the weekend's program on the FOX News Channel.