Indians Seek Scalp of the Dartmouth Review

Indian wars have sprung up again on the Dartmouth campus. Today’s Boston Globe covers this only with an AP story on the website. I can’t find this Globe story in the printed edition.

The latest brouhaha was caused by the current issue of the Dartmouth Review (an independent conservative journal) which featured this image on its cover.

The Dartmouth Review is outside the control of the highly PC Dartmouth administration. Read it here.

The AP story quotes one of the Indian radicals as follows:

Speaking for the student group, Native Americans at Dartmouth, Kohn, a member of the Crow tribe, urged administrators to pursue disciplinary action against offenders. "We're not reaching for something that's just a temporary cosmetic fix," he said at the rally. "We're calling for a lasting solution from the Dartmouth administration."

Looking for a “lasting solution” to the Dartmouth Review and their exercise of free speech? Does that mean a solution that lasts a really long time would be called a Final Solution?

A Few Good Stories

A boring Boston Globe is saved by a fine front page article about the US Army’s efforts to develop new counter-insurgency strategies at the Army’s think tank at Fort Leavenworth. Atlantic Monthly subscribers can get some perspective on the role of Fort Leavenworth in the Army from Robert D. Kaplan’s superb 1996 essay about Fort Leavenworth.

Other goodies of the day:

Leftovers from Victor Davis Hanson’s speech at the Claremont Institute Churchill dinner are served today in Opinion Journal. Note:

And we need not only speak of threats to free speech, but also the tangible rewards from a terrified West to the agents of such repression. Note the recent honorary degree given to former Iranian President, Mohammad Khatami, whose regime has killed and silenced so many, and who himself is under investigation by the Argentine government for his role in sponsoring Hezbollah killers to murder dozens of Jewish innocents in Buenos Aires.

Bostonians will recall that during Khatami's recent tour he was met with adulation in Cambridge. Even when he made a statement of support for the execution of homosexuals, it was politely received without any protest at Harvard and without any mention in the Boston Globe, and the impolite conservative who insisted on asking such an awkward question was not allowed to detract from the foolish giddyness of the moment when the best and the brightest had the opportunity to honor a member of George W Bush's Axis of Evil.

Finally Holman Jenkins in the WSJ (subscription) comments on the current troubles of newspapers, including the Globe:

And what was once the local paper's impregnable strength -- owning a printing press, barrels of ink and fleets of delivery trucks -- has become a mere legacy cost. Now the industry's crisis is palpably accelerating. Various straws on the breeze -- from Jack Welch's bid for the deeply ailing Boston Globe, to the firing of the L.A. Times leadership over refusal to make job cuts, to the Chandler family's call to break up Tribune Co. -- whisper that the day will soon be upon us when a significant newspaper abandons newsprint altogether, except perhaps for a commuter edition providing an abbreviated sample of the main product, to be found online.

The [Chicago Tribune] also led in dealing with what is delicately called the culture problem. Less delicately, the self-image of many journalists is wrapped up in writing about subjects that readers aren't interested in, especially national and international news already available elsewhere. Sadly, this may require a generational culling of newsroom personnel -- making way for younger people who are prepared to believe you can write about a local school board or pizza shop with the same intelligence and insight that you can Congress or Enron.

Jenkins is politely saying that certain journalists are insufferably arrogant.

Call Joey Three Sticks for Chavez

With the Venezuelan ‘election’ looming in early December, yesterday’s Boston Globe carried an Op Ed column written by a liberal who warned Globe readers about getting to cozy with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez:

In the '70s and '80s, American liberals established a legacy of opposing right-wing, authoritarian regimes throughout Latin America. They should not stain that legacy by embracing the authoritarian Chávez simply because he comes from the left and joins them in fighting President Bush.

Funny. I thought liberals were all agreed about fighting Al Qaeda!

Rare kudos to the Globe Op Ed cloister for publishing this piece. Perhaps even the Globe’s amazingly flexible editorial logic has been strained to the breaking point by Chavez.

Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page adds a note on a former Massachusetts congressman who remains an unrepentant Chavez supporter – none other than Joseph P. (“Joe-4-Oil”) Kennedy III. In a witty piece entitled ‘Dial Joe-4-Chávez’, the Journal takes Joey Three Sticks down a peg. Joe was interviewed last week in the Washington Post and asked whether Chavez’s cheap oil plan showed that he was really concerned about the American poor or was instead just seeking good publicity. Joe’s response:

“It's not only morally righteous, it's good business,” Kennedy said in a telephone interview yesterday. “When you're selling to the world's largest market a gigantic percentage of your overall sales in crude oil, you take a little percentage and show that you have concerns about how low-income people are going to keep up with the enormous price of keeping warm.”

Apparently this is how Joe explains that Chavez’s cheap oil ploy is NOT a publicity stunt but a show of true compassion. In all fairness, given the family history Kennedy could be unfamiliar with what constitutes the “morally righteous” except in the context of liberal politics. Meditate on the quote above the next time you hear liberal Democrats like Joe explaining their concept of “economic justice”.

In the WSJ piece, Joe K digs in deeper with Hugo:

We dialed Joe-4-Oil ourselves to ask directly whether it is also "righteous" to assist an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people. In between berating our reporter for daring to ask such a thing, Mr. Kennedy said that Mr. Chávez has done "so much more" for the poor than any previous government. As for democracy, he said there was "ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida."

The WaPo story is here, the Globe Op Ed piece here, the WSJ editorial here (subscription), and OpinionJournal here.

UPDATE: I apologize for the error, but although Joe-4-Oil Kennedy is the 3rd Joe Kennedy in the clan (the oligarch-ambassador and his son the WWII bomber pilot being numbers 1 and 2), he goes by Joe Kennedy II. My mistake.

Stupid Magazine Tricks

This month the Atlantic Monthly performs what can only be described as a stupid magazine trick by publishing a list of “the 100 Most Influential Americans of All Time”. As a long-term subscriber and devotee of the Atlantic, this publicity stunt masquerading as a cover story is a sad development. It brings the Atlantic much closer to the values of USA Today. I won’t comment on the list itself except to say that you will not find either Milton Friedman or Barry Goldwater on it. Enough said. How much the Atlantic misses its late editor Mike Kelly.

But aren’t we lucky! Today’s Boston Globe somehow blesses us with not one but two stories about the Atlantic’s top 100 list. First is an Op Ed by Ross Douthat of the Atlantic, who wrote the cover article, noting the many non-politicians on the list. The second is a column by Peter Canellos, Bureau Chief* of the Boston Globe’s Incredibly Shrinking Washington Bureau, entitled 'In pantheon, whither JFK?'. Canellos is also revered on this blog for filing stories in advance of the events they cover and for absurd pseudo-history which the Boston Globe labels as “analysis”.

Canellos notes the absence of JFK on the Atlantic list.

The panelists -- who included Pulitzer Prize winners Doris Kearns Goodwin**, Walter McDougall , Gordon S. Wood , and David M. Kennedy -- clearly viewed JFK as more of a phenomenon than a truly influential figure.

Only 2 of the 10 historians who were polled to develop the list included JFK in their top 100. Of course Canellos interviews one of them, who placed Kennedy at #35 on her list and insists that her judgment is correct. Later in his column, Canellos can’t stop himself from agreeing with her.

Still, the historians may have overcorrected….[the Cuban Missile Crisis] was a textbook example of presidential leadership under perhaps the greatest pressure faced by any chief executive. Johnson and Nixon -- and others of Kennedy's successors -- could have learned from it.

They might have learned not to create world crises through their own foolishness, Peter, but that is a lesson difficult for Presidents to master, as we have too often seen since.

*That term always reminds me of Jimmy Olsen and Perry (“Don’t call me chief!”) White
**and rehabilitant plagiarist

Fisking H.D.S. Greenway

Richard Landes has posted an fine dissection of H.D.S. Greenway's most recent Boston Globe column concerning Muslims in Britain. Excerpt:

To present the choice of the veil as a political choice of young women is a perfect illustration of a Western journalist serving as an unfiltered channel of Muslim propaganda.

Thanks for contributing, Professor Landes.

A Suitor Undeterred

Last Friday the Wall Street Journal carried a story on the Boston Globe takeover moves by Jack Welch and Friends. The Globe website carried a small story about the WSJ story on Friday, but somehow the story did not make it into print editions of the Globe (unless I missed it). The WSJ story can be found here (subscription required). Key points:

The group is pondering its next move after being rebuffed by New York Times Co., the Globe's parent, on its first proposal, which sought exclusive negotiations regarding a sale. Mr. Welch's group hasn't made a final decision about a bid, and several factors could affect what it does...One possible option is for the group to make an overture to restive shareholders circling New York Times as a way of putting pressure on the company, according to a person close to the situation. The most prominent unhappy shareholder is a Morgan Stanley investment fund, which has been pushing for corporate-governance changes at the company…the investors are undeterred in their efforts to acquire the Globe, these people say. At the same time, Mr. Welch and his partners have been approached by a wide array of Bostonians interested in joining the investor group.

It’s nice to be wanted.

Where's the beef? Some fear there isn't any!

In advocacy journalism, the naysayer of last resort is labeled as “some”. If you can’t name an issue or can’t write a specific complaint, then you interview a few perpetual complainers, quote them (perhaps anonymously) and report that “some fear” a perilous and unforeseen consequence of what otherwise seems purely good news.

Sunday’s Boston Globe has a superb example of such unsubstantiated scare-mongering in a front page story ‘School makeovers, fueled by the middle class’, about startling progress in a few of Boston’s elementary schools, yet with the scary sub-headline that:

"As parents raise funds, standards, some fear impact on diversity"

In these schools, groups of parents have organized, done fund-raising, and supported teachers and the school administration to improve their children’s education. The amount of funding is non-trivial – tens of thousands of dollars per year, and it provides direct support to school instructional programs in art and music, among others.

Every person interviewed in the Globe story without exception is effusive in their praise for these groups of parents. Yet the tone of the story, starting with the headline above, is drenched with negativity. For example:

But even as the city heralds the new engagement, it has set off worries and debate about diversity and empowerment. Some fear that the efforts of the overwhelmingly white parents might leave black and Hispanic parents feeling excluded or, worse, alienated. In addition, the schools chosen by the parents for improvement have undergone changes in their racial composition, as word of mouth spreads and other white parents decide to send their children there.

“Some” strikes again. And who does this story include in “some”?

I can find only 3 quotes in the story which could be interpreted as such “fears”. Here is the first in context:

Bridget Fernandes, a fifth-grade bilingual teacher, was initially wary when the parents group formed in 2002. In her eight years at the school, she had never taught a white student; 90 percent of her students are Hispanic, 10 percent are black. She envisioned struggling to balance her energies between pleasing demanding middle-class parents and continuing to meet the needs of at-risk students.

Instead, the parents attended monthly teacher lunches, providing sandwiches from a neighborhood bakery, and surveyed teachers on their needs and the types of after-school programs they would like to see.

Still, Fernandes worries about the voices of black and Hispanic parents becoming weaker.

Devatating criticism, huh? The second concern is expressed by one of the activist parents themselves. Here it is in context:

At the Manning School, too, demographics have shifted dramatically. White students now make up half of the school; they are the majority in regular education classrooms, especially in the younger grades. The number of students from families at or below the poverty level has dropped from more than half in 2002 to less than a third today.

In contrast, 75 percent of Boston public school students are black or Hispanic; three-quarters are classified as poor under federal free and subsidized-lunch standards.

The shift has alarmed some parents, including those responsible for the changes, who say they chose the school in part because they wanted their children to learn in diverse classrooms.

"It's kind of like gentrification of the schools, and now I'm part of this problem," said Kathy Brown, whose son is in the fifth grade at Manning. "On the one hand, people are bringing good resources and have a lot of energy and interests and vision, but are we creating an environment where it's harder for other parents to participate?"

Brown, who works on affordable housing issues as a coordinator of the Boston Tenant Coalition, and her husband, Kevin Whalen , have tried to recruit more black and Hispanic families to the school, with limited success.

The third negative quote comes from another grateful parent. Again, here it is in context:

Teaka Isaac, who is African-American, recently attended a parent council meeting and was surprised to find only one other black parent there. She said she would like the school to be more diverse, but is grateful for the resources middle - class parents bring. Her fifth-grade son has been able to take violin lessons at the school because of a grant.

"I feel blessed to be in a school that can supplement a child's education," said Isaac, a single mother who lives in Dorchester and works in human resources for a healthcare company. "This is almost like the feel of a private school without the tuition.

"I got to give it to these white parents," she said. "They are very passionate about raising money. They move like a wheel. And sometimes minority parents might find it hard to find a way in."

There you have it! And these 3 are the only quotes in the story that match up with the bogey-man paragraph quoted above or the scary headline that “some fear impact on diversity”. The entire story quotes only 3 persons with any complaint about these parent groups and only quotes each of them only in a context of grateful praise for the work of these same parents. So how can you explain this article’s substantially negative tone? It is unsupported by the facts as reported.

Where’s the beef? Is the Globe once again trying to find a cloud to go with this silver lining? The complaints about this group of parents seem to originate more in the Globe newsroom than in the school community, and the primary complaint seems to be that “too many” of the activist parents are persons of pallor. If the Boston Globe wishes to advocate that point on their front page, it would strengthen their case if they could find at least a single person to quote in their story who at least seems to agree with them.

Correspondence

Thanks to reader "fly morgue" for good comments and for sharing my outrage at the pathetically inaccurate article about Dartmouth that appeared on Thanksgiving. Below is some correspondence I've had with the Boston Globe about this article. As usual with email threads, read it from bottom to top.

----------------------

From:
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:53 PM
To:
Cc: 'ombud@globe.com'

Subject: RE: Show some respect for the facts, please

Regarding the mural, I am including an image of part of it below, as well as the lyrics to the song which are also part of the mural. Clearly this mural was designed entirely to be humorous, regardless of whether people find it so today.

I’d like to believe that the inaccuracy of this article was all the result of copy editing, but frankly I don’t. Another Globe reader wrote to me that according to Dartblog:

“one fact left out of the Globe was that the frat boys broke up a drum circle held at an anti-Columbus Day demonstration - clearly intolerant on the part of the frat boys, but why leave the Columbus Day protest out and cast it as an innocent little drum circle?”

Is he right? If so, isn’t it highly relevant that the disrupted drum circle was part of a campus political protest? Why isn’t this reported?

It is also clear from an email written by the Native Americans at Dartmouth (NAD) and later published (see below), that NAD was executing a publicity initiative on Thanksgiving week. It is fine to organize to seek publicity. But when a story shows up right on NAD’s target schedule with multiple errors of omission, and the omissions cause the NAD folks to be portrayed in a more sympathetic light than is justified by the facts, what am I supposed to think?

I think this story was not treated with anything like an appropriate degree of skepticism by the reporter or the editors. I think you and your colleagues were served up an appealing story as part of a publicity campaign by an activist group, and that you didn’t check the story out carefully enough to deliver an accurate article.

Harry

-----Original Message-----

From:
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 11:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Show some respect for the facts, please

Mr. Forbes, I appreciate your feedback. I did originally have a slightly longer description of the mural and did use the word parody or satire in it, it was edited for space by the copy desk without my knowledge. I wish we'd been able to explain it more fully. Sometimes, unfortunately, we lose some nuance in a daily newspaper, but I still think the description was accurate.

Best,
Marcella

-----Original Message-----

The story ‘Show of respect urged at Dartmouth’ (page B1 on November 23) reported concerning the Hovey mural at Dartmouth:

The ad, taken out by the Native American Council, also expressed concern about a dining hall mural painted in the 1930s that depicted Dartmouth's founding. It shows one Native American holding a book upside down and one lapping rum from the ground. The mural has been covered for years and is set to be removed during renovations, but will be preserved by Dartmouth's Hood Museum of Art.

The story did not report that the mural is a satire and includes words from an old Dartmouth college song mocking the college’s founding. You also did not report that the mural shows both the college’s founder and the Native Americans in a state of intoxication. See here and here for more background.

Was the Globe unaware of these facts? If not, why did the Globe decide that these facts should not be reported in a story about allegations that this mural is “racist”?

Harry

Boston Globe provides coverage as requested by the activist left

Last Sunday the Native Americans at Dartmouth, an activist group at Dartmouth college, began an effort to recruit national media organs to publicize a series of “issues and events this term”, that this hyper-sensitive group finds offensive. On Thanksgiving Day the Boston Globe obediently rises and takes their bait by printing a story on page B1 headlined ‘Show of respect urged at Dartmouth’. Here is the entire email announcing the NAD’s media effort (hat tip: Dartmouth Review):

>Date: 18 Nov 2006 17:38:37 -0500
>From: Native Americans at Dartmouth
>Subject: **READ THIS BLITZ**Notifying National Media
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)

Hello everyone,

The idea has been proposed that we notify newspapers and the media across the country about the issues and events this term. One suggestion was to wait a little while to see how the administration will respond to our meeting with President Wright, however another sentiment is that we've been waiting for too long. If we decide to undertake this action, we must do so NOW.

Thanksgiving is next Thursday, and as wrong as it is, newspapers and other media across the country like to highlight Native American issues during this time of year, probably more than any other time of the year. It would be advantageous to submit something to National, local, and regional newspapers by Monday because of the likelihood of having it included before Thanksgiving. To be honest, it does not seem that many newspapers would publish something about Natives in December which is the "Christmas Holiday Season".

Thus, we must meet soon to decide how to go about this. We already have a lot of stuff to work with (past editorials, our own knowledge, etc) so it should not involve a large amount of effort. Tomorrow, Sunday, at noon at the NAD House should be a good time to meet on this issue. Please make every effort to attend and if anyone would like to change the meeting time because of prior commitments, PLEASE BLITZ THE NAD ACCOUNT SOON!!!

**Tomorrow, Sunday, Nov 19, 2006 at the NAD HOUSE**

Best,

-Your NAD Officers

The Globe story obediently reports:

“The Native American Council, a group made up of mostly faculty and staff, with a few students, took out an advertisement in the student newspaper Monday detailing a string of incidents this fall that they described as racist.”

I will leave aside the litany of silly incidents mentioned in the story, but there is one in the story that sounds plausibly offensive:

…the Native American Council also expressed concern about a dining hall mural painted in the 1930s that depicted Dartmouth's founding. It shows one Native American holding a book upside down and one lapping rum from the ground. The mural has been covered for years and is set to be removed during renovations, but will be preserved by Dartmouth's Hood Museum of Art.

What’s the real story? The mural is a satire. It depicts Dartmouth’s founding in the words of an old Dartmouth college drinking song:

Eleazar Wheelock
Oh, Eleazar Wheelock was a very pious man;
He went into the wildernes to teach the Indian,
With a Gradus ad Parnassum, a Bible and a drum,
And five hundred gallons of New England rum.
Fill the bowl up! Fill the bowl up!

Drink to Eleazar,
And his primitive Alcazar,
Where he mixed drinks for the heathen in the
goodness of his soul.
The big chief that met him was the sachem of
the Wah-hoo-wahs;
If he was not a big chief, there was never one you
saw who was;
He had tobacco by the cord, ten squaws, and more to come,
But he never yet had tasted of New England rum.
Fill the bowl up! Fill the bowl up!

Eleazar and the big chief harangued and gesticulated;
They founded Dartmouth College, and the big chief
matriculated.
Eleazar was the faculty, and the whole curriculum
Was five hundred gallons of New England rum.
Fill the Bowl up! Fill the bowl up!

Today the mural remains hidden behind canvas-covered boards and has been so for several years by the squeamish Dartmouth college administration. Again, see the Dartmouth Review for some excellent background on this mural that somehow eluded the Globe’s intrepid reporter.

The Globe story refers to an advertisement in the official campus newspaper. You can see the entire advertisement here. The central point made by the ad is completely illiberal and, of course, is not reported in the Globe story. Here are those key points. I quote:

• As Native people, the right to decide what offends us belongs to us and us alone. It is arrogant for non-Native people to presume that they somehow have this right.
• It is wrong for one race of people to appropriate the cultures and customs of another race of people. Objectification is about power. The commodification of Native people, whether it’s done by the college to raise money or by students for the own personal amusement or profit, is an abuse of power.
• People or institutions that objectify Native Americans with full knowledge that they are causing offense are, by definition, committing racist acts.

Note how utterly central is the concept of race to both their thinking and their argument. Who is being a racist here? Anyone who has read Mein Kampf and is familiar with the racial concepts presented in it will see a startling similarity to the NAD perspective, in that both see one’s race as the central and most important component in the concept of self. This is far closer to Nazi ideology than to the liberal tradition.

I have not problem with any group’s right to declare what offends them, but this group claims further that the fact of their offense gives them the right to unilaterally call an immediate halt to any sort of behaviors which they find offensive, because these behaviors are “by definition” racist. Note that they presume right not to be offended. What could be more illiberal than this?

If there is a ‘show of respect’ needed at Dartmouth, it is a need for all members of that community to respect liberal traditions of tolerance and a willingness to accept some degree of offense as part of the cost of living in and enjoying the benefits of a tolerant culture. Most people absorb the concept that they are not personally sovereign on this planet by the time they reach the age of 3, and are able to abstract this realization from self to groups by the time they get through high school. But folks like the Native Americans at Dartmouth have suffered from so many years of coddling in supposedly liberal institutions seeking to boost their self-esteem that they never absorbed this most basic lesson.

For more accurate and thorough coverage than the Globe, see Dartblog.

A Hack Headline

The Republican Club at Boston University is offering a $250 scholarship for which only white students are eligible. The move is a deliberate provocation in order to raise the question of race-based policies on the BU campus. The Boston Globe story today by James Vaznis, acknowledges this at the beginning:

Boston University's Republican students group has started a scholarship for white students, to spark debate about race-based programs.

“We are trying to convey the absurdity of any race-based scholarship,” said Joseph Mroszczyk, a senior from Danvers who is president of the university's College Republicans. “I don't think race should be part of any scholarship. It should be based on merit or economic need.”

Fair coverage by the Globe, in the story at least. But how does the Globe justify their headline for this piece? It is:

GOP group at BU offers aid to whites

Couldn’t they have simply written ‘BU Republicans challenge affirmative action’? That would have been far more accurate, especially considering that (as the story reports) neither the Massachusetts nor the national Republican party wants anything to do with this cause.

Brian Dodge, executive director of the Massachusetts Republican Party, said the state party did not endorse the scholarship. "Their actions are misguided and offensive," he said.

A national party spokesman called the scholarship "highly inappropriate."

How courageous of them both! A far more accurate headline would have been

GOP rebukes conservative students

And yet these same Republican party apparachiks who flee from a discussion of affirmative action like Cowardly Lions are probably trying to analyze why the last election was such a bust for their party!

Pinch Says No to Welch (and to shareholder equality)

NY Times "A" Share Price vs. S&P 500 Index - 2 year Trend

The NY Times Corporation has rejected an offer from Jack Welch to negotiate the sale of the Boston Globe, according to a front page story in the Globe today. At the same time he story reports that some institutional investors are fed up with being treated like serfs in Pinch Sulzberger’s personal fiefdom:

The Times Co. rejection comes as the company is under pressure from some shareholders. One big shareholder, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, which owns 7.6 percent of the Times Co.'s stock, has submitted a proposal seeking governance changes. Among them: putting the Times Co.'s dual-class share structure, which concentrates control in the hands of the Sulzberger family, to a shareholder vote and separating the jobs of chairman of the company and publisher of The New York Times. Both jobs are now held by Times Co. Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

Putting a system that maintains 2 unequal classes of corporate ownership to a shareholder vote? A novel idea! But it will be coldly received by both the editorial and business sides of the house. As has been illustrated by the Globe’s editorial board, many at the Globe see no problem with disenfranchising voters or ignoring the rule of even constitutional law when these fail to serve the sole progressive world view. This is, I bet, an attitude shared the very top of their organization.

Times Co. stock is down about 8 percent this year in a market that has been hard on newspaper companies.

So sorry, mates. Perhaps it’s Bush’s fault?

As has been the case for months, the Times Co.'s New England group, which includes the Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, was particularly weak. Ad revenue for New England was down 11.8 percent in October and 10.2 percent for the year. Globe circulation also has been weak. Daily circulation fell 7 percent to 386,000 in the six months ended Sept. 30; Sunday circulation fell 10 percent to 587,000.

Daily newspaper circulation in Massachusetts has fallen faster than the national average in the past year, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, as the state's technologically sophisticated population migrated to Internet news sources. Average daily newspaper circulation in Massachusetts fell 6 percent in the past year, while daily circulation nationally fell 2.8 percent.

Advocacy journalism and ideological bias had no bearing on the Globe’s poor performance, mind you. It’s just these darn external factors that are causing all the problems.

What perfectly typical corporate excuse-making!

UPDATE: Today's WSJ has a short story on this topic as well (subscription required). The only news in the Journal story is that it captures a response from the Welch group:

The group isn't deterred by the Times' response, say people close to the group. In fact, "they see 'no' as the first step in the negotiation," according to one person who has spoken to them about their interest.

I guess the Globe reporters didn't follow up with questions to Jack Welch. I can understand that, but it shows why the real story will be reported more thoroughly by a disinterested newspaper.

Scott Lehigh is Nervous Already

In today’s Boston Globe Scott Lehigh begins his column by fretting that Deval Patrick shows signs of Dukakis-like political naiveté:

GOVERNOR-ELECT, do you have a second?

Some of us are getting a little nervous here.

It's nothing big, mind you, but there are some troubling signs.

Horrors. Morrissey Boulevard is getting nervous already and seeing “troubling signs”! Yet it’s more than a month before poor Deval even assumes office!

For treatment of your nervous condition, Scott, slip into one of the Globe’s meditation rooms, dim the lights, breathe deeply, and slowly repeat:

“Together We Can”

If that doesn’t make you feel better, please call us again in 4 years.

An Episcopoke for Bishop Schori

A thoroughly modern Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, the new head of the US Episcopal Church, is yesterday interviewed by the Paper of Record, which publishes this photo of the Bishop looking like a female CEO but sporting a clerical collar. The interview content doesn’t help the lady much either. Here is a beaut:

How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?

About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise[sic], but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.

Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?

No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.

I am clueless concerning what theological reasons Schori thinks Catholics have for “producing lots of children”. Is it because the Church forbids birth control and abortion? If that’s it, then having more children is just a consequence, not a theological reason for having them in the first place. I’m quite sure that Church teaching doesn’t forbid people from regulating their fertility, but is not indifferent to how it is done.

I’m puzzled as to what the Bishop might have meant, but then again I’m just another poorly educated knuckle-dragging Catholic. Schori doesn’t mention the fact that followers of Islam also have higher rates of fertility. Perhaps because such a remark could provoke some of them to violence? Catholics won't get violent over this, but we will dispense a well-deserved dose of ridicule.

The photo of the Bishop reminded me of Melville’s The Cassock (emphasis mine):

The mincer now stands before you invested in the full canonicals of his calling. Immemorial to all his order, this investiture alone will adequately protect him, while employed in the peculiar functions of his office.

That office consists in mincing the horse-pieces of blubber for the pots; an operation which is conducted at a curious wooden horse, planted endwise against the bulwarks, and with a capacious tub beneath it, into which the minced pieces drop, fast as the sheets from a rapt orator's desk. Arrayed in decent black; occupying a conspicuous pulpit; intent on bible leaves; what a candidate for an archbishoprick, what a lad for a Pope were this mincer!

And do take a minute to read Melville’s entire chapter to learn where the mincer’s ‘decent black’ cassock originates.

Finally, the Schori interview inspired pure genius on the part of one entrepreneur, who has outdone our troops by offering to the market a coffee mug with a response to Schori’s silly remarks. I am tempted to buy it (pun intended).

Hat Tips: Dom and Rod

A Study in Contrast

The Legislature’s unconstitutional shunting of its own obligation vote on the voter petition defining marriage makes the Boston Globe today with a story about a rally planned for Sunday. Adding his voice to the chorus is Cardinal Sean O’Malley. Note the contrast between O'Malley and the Bay state's leading gay lobbyist. Here is the accusing, dismissive, and dishonest statement of Arline Issacson:

"This is a Mitt Romney production to enhance his presidential aspirations on the backs of gay people," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. This matter has been voted on countless times by the Legislature and has never passed once. It's time to move on to more important matters like the economy, education, and healthcare," she said. "Romney is wasting the state's time focusing on an issue that most residents don't care about, one way or the other."

She does not mention, of course, that the legislature's inaction is defying the constitution nor mention that the question likely has enough votes to pass the required constitutional test. Now contrast the well chosen words of O’Malley:

"Citizens of this Commonwealth have exercised their right to initiate the petition process afforded to them by our state constitution, and they have complied with the law at every step. Our public servants have no less of an obligation to follow the law by bringing the Marriage Amendment to a legislative vote. We are profoundly disappointed with the conduct of those elected officials who, by voting to recess until the last day of the session, are obstructing the constitutional right of the people to be heard."

Off Topic

Wave Maker has a marvelous post on the condition of the Republican party in Massachusetts. Read it and weep.

A Kodak Moment

Senators Schumer, Reid, Murray, and Durbin (and Kerry, rear left)

Here is a Kodak moment saved for posterity. As recorded by UPI:

An ABC News reporter said the incident occurred Tuesday outside of the Old Senate Chamber as members of the new Democratic leadership, of which Kerry is not a part, left the chamber en route to the Ohio Clock Corridor to discuss leadership elections, the incoming majority's agenda and Iraq.

The ABC reporter said Kerry left the room behind Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Caucus Secretary Patty Murray, D-Wash.; and Caucus Vice-Chair Schumer, D-N.Y. However, when Schumer noticed Kerry, D-N.Y., walking behind him, he turned and said something to the Massachusetts senator that caused him to stop.

Kerry waited for the Democratic leaders to walk ahead and then ducked between two statues. The ABC reporter speculated that Schumer may have told Kerry to stay clear of the leadership shot.

However much I am sickened by this foursome (or fivesome), I am equally sickened by the prospect of the other party being led in the US Senate by the twosome of Trent Lott and Lamar Alexander. What were they thinking??

Is it "substance" yet?

The unusually honest Democrat Joan Vennochi writes of our Governor-elect:

Facing the press after a Monday meeting with [House Speaker] Travaglini and [Senate President] DiMasi, Patrick said, "I'm not going to talk about substance," when asked what the three discussed. In that spirit, he revealed no details of their conversation and stuck with the general kumbaya goals of his campaign, such as team-building.

“Team building”. How touching. Maybe the 3 of them had a little encounter group session. Why are the a-----e Boston Globe reporter questions missing now, I wonder?

But sooner or later, Patrick will have to go beyond the "sweet nothings" that opponent Christy Mihos aptly described during one debate. Sooner or later, his priorities will bump up against legislative priorities. Sooner or later, Travaglini and DiMasi will test the depth of Patrick's popularity against their parallel universe -- the power base that resides in a state Legislature they are used to controlling.

It might have been wise of the Healy campaign to try to draw Patrick to speak on some point of substance before the election (but that is hindsight). Later Joan continues:

A first test involves the $425 million emergency state funding freeze implemented by Governor Mitt Romney. Romney's cuts eliminated money for human service providers as well as for programs for the young, elderly, and homeless. They were blasted by Mayor Thomas Menino, who represents another piece of the political puzzle confronting Patrick.

After the meeting with Travaglini and DiMasi, Patrick said he made no commitments to restore any of the $425 million in spending cuts, saying, "I'm informed not just by the math, but by the impact on real people's lives."

Again, those are nice words -- "poetry" as Grace Ross, the Green-Rainbow party candidate, labeled Patrick's rhetoric during the campaign. But at some point, Patrick must make choices that involve money, not verse.

Indeed, he will have to make some choices, and nobody has any idea what they might be. But when he does, the folks who was elected him Governor on no platform except the slogan “Togther We Can” will find out what the rest of that slogan is. They will have no grounds for complaint, whatever it turns out to be.

Jacoby Criticizes a Newspaper (but not his)

Jeff Jacoby weights in on today’s Boston Globe on the unconstitutional suppression of the marriage initiative. He criticizes the reaction of one Massachusetts newspaper (not the Globe):

When the Massachusetts Legislature corruptly avoided voting on the petitioners' amendment, ducking the vote required by the state constitution, the [Berkshire Eagle] newspaper cheered its lawlessness. "Civil rights should never be determined by a majority of voters," it declared. "Ballot questions are blunt instruments, lacking the delicacy of legislation."

It is hard to say which is sadder: the contempt for ordinary Americans that such comments reflect, or the ignorance of American history underlying them.

I would add the Globe to the list of those behaving contemptibly, Jeff. Your colleagues in the Editorial cloister remain silent while their like minds on Beacon Hill mug the Massachusetts Constitution.

Better Late than Never?

Liberal Globe political columnist Scott Lehigh is repelled by the Legislature's trampling on the Constitution:

Its clear intent is that if a proposed amendment can win the support of one-fourth of the Legislature in two successive sessions, the matter should go to the ballot for citizens to decide.

But in reality, lawmakers have nullified Article 48, the provision that allows the state constitution to be altered that way...

Do citizens really want a Legislature that repeatedly ignores an essential provision of the very constitution it is sworn to uphold?

Further, if lawmakers can disregard the constitution with impunity, who, really, is sovereign?

After last week, it's hard to argue that the real amending power lies with the citizens.

Thanks for the support, Scott, but this outrage wasn't difficult to see in advance. Where was your voice when it might have mattered? A cynic would accuse you of covering your tracks.

WSJ Speaks While the Boston Globe Stays Silent

As I noted below, the Boston Globe editorial page has said absolutely nothing about the treatment of the voter initiative on marriage by the Legislature. The Wall Street Journal Editorial page is not keeping silent about it but rather noting the behavior for the record.

From the editorial page in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required):

Same-Sex Chicanery November 14, 2006; Page A20

One reason so many Americans despise politicians is because of the contempt that many politicians have for their fellow Americans. A case in point is the way the Massachusetts legislature used a procedural ruse to deny the voters even a chance to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Recall that in 2003 four of seven Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justices declared gay marriage a constitutional right. In response, opponents collected 170,000 signatures to support a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to make clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. But to get on the ballot, the amendment must also be voted on by a joint session of the legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions. Under the state constitution, 25% of the legislators must agree to put an amendment on the ballot, provided the proposal has garnered at least 25,000 signatures, which this one easily did.

Last week, the pols denied the voters even that much with a procedural trick that recessed the legislature until just hours before its term expires next January. By the time the lawmakers return, they won't have enough time to vote up or down on the measure, thus dodging a vote on a measure that 170,000 of their constituents decided merited space on the ballot. This leaves intact the judicial same-sex fiat.

"The way I looked at it was that we would kill it with a handgun or a hand grenade," explained Democratic Representative Michael Costello. "It's never been proper to put civil rights on the ballot. So we killed it through procedure, rather than on substance." In the face of such arrogant dismissals of voter preferences, no wonder our cultural debates have become so embittered.

Why are the Boston Globe Editors Silent Now?

The Legislature disposed of the voter initiative on the definition of marriage last Thursday, yet the Boston Globe editorials have said absolutely nothing about it since then (unless my travel has caused me to miss something).

Why have they become so silent? Isn’t the disposal of this matter the final triumph for the Globe’s position?

I try to avoid attributing motive to others, but I have to wonder why the Globe Editorial board has nothing to say about this. Could it be (and here I go off attributing motive) that the manner in which the petition was defeated is both utterly anti-democratic and unconstitutional, so that the only possible support for such action is an “end justifies the means” argument?

Instead, the advocates (militants, I would call them) supporting same-sex marriage posit their own preferences in marriage law as a question of fundamental civil rights. Yet this is patently absurd. Doesn't our law does as it exists today still violate the fundamental civil rights of people whose preference is for plural marriage rather than monogamous marriage? There are as many of these in the world (likely far more) than there are homosexuals. And the reason that their preferred form of marriage is beyond their rights and intolerable to our law is…what?

And how is it obvious that our law of marriage must tolerate the practice of same-sex marriage to avoid a violation of fundamental civil rights, yet can be completely intolerant of plural marriages when plural marriage has been common practice through so much of history and law?

I foolishly hoped the Globe editors would explain their view on this question. I’d enjoy seeing them take a position as awkward as any teenager in game of “Twister”.

James Carroll provides his own answer in his off-the-wall Op Ed column today. Carroll’s answer is exactly the opposite of what the same-sex marriage militants said (at least until last week):

The human race is undergoing a massive cultural mutation. The meaning of sexuality is being transformed as biology revolutionizes reproduction. Women are demanding equality across the globe. Men are being forced to reimagine[sic] their familial and social roles. Gays and lesbians are at the center of these changes. Their refusal to be silent and invisible is one of the era's great resources, a magnificent sign of hope.

To Carroll, legalization of gay marriage is just one step in this “massive cultural mutation”. But where Carroll sees a “magnificent sign of hope”, those who are not as sanguine about humanity’s ability to improve our own reproduction through the haphazard application of contemporary culture see instead a slippery slope that threatens to further disturb a struggling institution that is both socially and biologically crucial. This is reason enough to scrupulously observe the processes of law when making decisions about such a question. Yet sidestepping the requirements of law was exactly what our legislature did last Thursday.

A True Conservative

Andrew Sullivan agrees that the Massachusetts legislature abdicated (emphasis mine):

By denying the voters the chance to have the final decision on marriage rights, the pro-marriage forces have lost a clear chance at democratic legitimacy. Yes, in some respects, civil rights should not be up for a vote. But many opponents of equality in marriage do not accept the premise that civil marriage is a civil right for gays. I think they're wrong; but it's an honest disagreement. And they're not wrong that equality in civil marriage is also a social change that should have democratic input. To prevent such input by parliamentary maneuvers taints the victory. I think we would have won the vote in 2008. I'm sorry we won't now get the chance to prove it.

"An honest disagreement". Thanks, Andrew. I have never heard the Boston Globe editorial page give that much credit to the petitioners.

The "advocates" of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts are not sorry, however. Their concern is with the outcome, not with the democratic process. They are quite unconcerned with following processes of law that threaten their beloved outcome. Because of this the Globe is innaccurate when it calls them advocates. They are not really lawyers at heart. They are actually militants.

A Graphic You Won't See In Today's Boston Globe

Here are two pie charts you won’t find in today’s Boston Globe – one for each political party – showing how the Massachusetts legislators voted by party yesterday on the motion to recess the Constitutional Convention without considering the voter marriage initiative. The fraction of each party voting “yes” to adjourn is colored in light blue and the "no" voters in purple. The Democrats are shown on the left (of course).

Today’s Boston Globe printed the individual votes, but did not make the minimal effort to analyze the votes by party or even to report that Republicans were far more likely to have voted “no” than Democrats. If everyone on the political left is so proud of how they voted yesterday, then why not? Was it too difficult for the Globe to make a single chart? It took me all of 10 minutes.

Defiling the Constitution

The Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature today abdicated its constitutional duty to vote on an initiative brought before them by a fully constitutional process of law. They did so because they would prefer to defile the constitution of the Commonwealth rather than perform a constitutional process whose potential outcome they find distasteful. Thus they willingly trample on the Commonwealth’s highest law to get after the intolerant Devils within it who (in today’s case) have petitioned to restrict legal marriage in the Commonwealth to opposite sex couples.

No doubt Globe Editorials Friday and to follow will sanctimoniously opine that this willful disregard for law represents a higher wisdom by the Legislature, and is saving us all from a far greater evil. Such transparent self-justification reminds me of this short passage from the play “A Man for All Seasons”, where Thomas More’s family urges him to arrest Richard Rich, a plainly evil man whose perjury will eventually send More to his execution. Out of respect for the rule of law, More refuses.

ALICE He is! Arrest him!

MARGARET Father, that man's bad.

MORE There is no law against that.

ROPER There is! God's law!

MORE Then God can arrest him.

ROPER Sophistication upon sophistication!

MORE No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

ROPER Then you set man's law above God's!

MORE No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact-I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God . . .
(He says this last to himself)

ALICE (Exasperated, pointing after RICH) While you talk, he's gone!

MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

ROPER I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god.

MORE (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god . . . . (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle . . . I don't know where he is nor what he wants.

ROPER My god wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else!

MORE (Dryly) Are you sure that's God? He sounds like Mo­loch. But indeed it may be God- And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly!

Our Democratic legislators have today ignored the law and instead hoisted the voters of the Commonwealth onto the wobbly mainmast of their own principles. Their insouciance toward the rule of law will bring us far worse results than could the progress of any single constitutional amendment.

Phyllis Schlafly Was Right

In the post above I mentioned that Massachusetts legislators have “hoisted the voters of the Commonwealth onto the wobbly mainmast of their own principles”. That sounds a bit harsh, doesn’t it? But look at our recent history! The "slippery slope" argument so often mocked by liberals is demonstrating its validity. In 1989 Massachusetts added sexual orientation as a component of its anti-discrimination laws. At the time of the law’s passage in 1989, the Boston Globe editorialists wrote this reassuring editorial concerning the new law (emphasis mine):

A GAY-PROTECTION FORUM

Boston Globe Editorial
October 15, 1989

With the 17-year battle to win passage of a Massachusetts gay rights law apparently only a formality away from victory, it is sobering to realize how bitter a fight had to be waged to win so modest an array of rights.

No broad constitutional rights are conferred. The bill does not legalize "gay marriage" or confer any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to "domestic benefits." Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a "slippery slope" toward such rights.

All the bill does is give gays some protection from being discriminated against in credit, employment, insurance, public accommodation and housing -- and the right to file complaints with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Before the MCAD board, plaintiffs would have to prove the alleged discrimination was because of their sexual preference.

Sexual preference would be added to the list of categories and conditions specifically protected in Massachusetts, such as gender, race, religion, ethnic origin, handicapped persons and persons with AIDS. And, it should be noted, the MCAD provides a forum where complaints of discrimination can be refuted as well as proven.

In past years, some opponents of this legislation felt that to award gays the same legal protections as members of racial or ethnic minorities trivialized the discrimination faced by blacks, Jews, women and other minorities because of the fact of their birth. But in the limited areas of activity addressed by the gay rights bill, there seems little reason not to extend some basic legal protections to them -- as a matter of justice.

As much as anything that it explicitly does, passage of the gay rights bill implicitly recognizes the change in public attitudes that have occurred over the past 17 years -- a change from opposition to acceptance.

Yet this law was later directly cited by the Supreme Judicial Court in the Goodrich decision which imposed the requirement for same-sex marriage. I submit that the above illustrates that the opinions of any faction, whether self-styled “progressives” or not, change too rapidly for anyone to ignore the requirements of our constitution. See how much the liberal stance represented by the Boston Globe has “evolved” since 1989. This is a fine example of the need for rule by process of law rather than by the current sensibilities of our officials.

Read the above editorial again and ask yourself how the Globe can possibly claim that its willingness to dispense with the constitution’s requirement for a legislative vote on the marriage initiative represents anything but adherence to a very wobbly set of principles. As Thomas More said in “A Man for all Seasons”:

“…whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly!”

No better example of principles that “put about too nimbly” is needed than he contrast between the Globe’s view in 1989 versus today – less than 20 years later. Today the Globe and others promoting the liberal conventional wisdom arrogantly assure us that legalization of same-sex marriage is not a step toward legalization of polyamory or further “evolution” of the definition of marriage. Given the record, why should anyone believe them?

Beacon Hill Prepares to Sidestep

The voter initiative on same-sex marriage comes front and center in today’s Globe with the lead local story and the lead editorial on the topic.

Get ready for a politician-like sidestep on Beacon Hill, even if that step requires walking over the Constitution. The Senate President now says he will accept motions to adjourn the constitutional convention without taking a vote on the initiative petition. The Governor did not explicitly threaten to call back the Legislature if they fail to vote, but did say in a statement:

“failure to vote is a violation of the oath of office we all take to uphold the constitution.”

Exactly the point. Choosing its words in a Clintonian manner, the Globe Editorial page now hedges its former stand that a vote should be taken:

Legislators need not fear the wrath of their constituents if they move against advancing the gay marriage ban to the ballot.

Note that the editorial now uses the term “move against” advancing the petition rather than “vote against” it. This will give them a fig leaf to claim consistency, which is not the forte of the Globe’s editorial cloister. Earlier this year when consideration of the initiative was postponed until after the election the same editorialists wrote:

Still, delay is far better than killing the proposal by refusing to take it up, or by other legislative trickery.

I doubt they will say the same thing if “legislative trickery” prevails today. Worse still is the Globe’s whine about the social cost of this constitutional process:

Unfortunately, anyone who has followed the ballot questions to ban gay marriage in other states has a foreboding of what can be expected here: costly, manipulative TV ads; relentless talk show vitriol; a painful divide between neighbors and within families; a coarsening of the public debate. This isn't the kind of state we believe most voters want Massachusetts to be.

Horrors! Is this the kind of state we want to be, a constitutional democracy? Maybe we should just let the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have all powers (if duly advised by the Globe editors, of course). Indeed the Globe has little taste for the democratic process, save when the results are to their liking, as they were last Tuesday. Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. The Globe forgets his exception. Even worse than the Globe is the childish whine of gay lobbyist Arline Isaacson:

“In democracy, a majority is supposed to rule,” Isaacson said. “We have a majority on our side; that should suffice. But it doesn't in this circumstance.”

Her complaint is with the Constitution, then, which specifies this process? This sounds much like the whine of a middle school child, but the Globe compliantly prints it and does not ask a follow-up question.

The Massachusetts Constitution is about to take a hit, but since for a few more weeks we have a Republican governor (and because it is in his political interest to push this point) the question may yet come to a vote.

Summing it up

John Hinderaker at Power Line blog has my favorite summation of this election. Commenting on the passage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (which was opposed by all the 'voices of responsibility' in the state) he says:

Didn't both parties oppose the Michigan initiaive? Conservatives still have winning issues--racial equality, immigration enforcement, limited government--but the Republican Party has largely stopped running on them.

That pretty well sums it up.

Nancy, you may now order the drapes

The Democrats can now order their new drapes. And carpet. And furniture. How about new windows?

Right now CNN shows a net pickup of 27 House seats for the Dems with 16 undecided. The final Democratic gain will probably be 30-40 House seats. By any measure that is an historic shift. See the above plot of net change in House elections, showing that there has not been anything like this size of shift since 1994. In the Senate things may become ironic. Each party now has 49 seats with 2 undecided but both leaning ever so slightly to the Democrats. Seems like the Dems will form a majority of 51 seats with their margin of control in the Senate assured by none other than the fellow the Dems all dumped on 2 just months ago – Senator Joe Lieberman, who won re-election as an “independent Democrat”. Don’t use redundant terms to describe yourself, Joe.

First let’s get the bitterness out:

Hellofa job, W!

Hellofa job, Hastert!

Hellofa job, Frist!

That makes us all feel better, doesn’t it? Now let’s look forward

The next 2 years will be interesting times in Washington. Bush is now the lamest of lame ducks. He will have far more issues managing his own damaged party, let alone his own programs. Frist, too, is damaged goods, and the loss of the Senate will show his presidential aspirations for the pure vanity that they are. Go back to practicing medicine, sire. The focus for Republicans will shift to 2008, and to McCain and Romney. The outcome of this election favors Romney, due to his cross-party appeal, as well as his more abundant natural gifts as a politician I don’t think McCain will beat him.

On the Democratic side Hilary is the inevitable nominee, though John Kerry and a few others are certain to provide comic relief during the primaries. Just imagine Kerry campaigning based on his “electability”! That would appeal, but too Republicans rather than Democrats.

Hillary is the inevitable nominee in 2008. Don’t think so? Read this passage from a recent Atlantic Monthly article on Hillary by Joshua Green.

Bill Clinton’s long tenure as president and the fact that no figure has risen to replace him have given birth to a professional class of Washington Democrats who both reflect the thinking of and feel intensely loyal to the former president—and, by extension, his wife. Al Gore might have been another claimant to such a heritage, but he rejected it, and never engendered anything like the visceral loyalty so many Democrats still feel for Clinton. At least in Washington, it’s Hillary Clinton’s party now.

What this means in practical terms is that she commands almost all the top talent. With rare exceptions, she can lay claim to the best fund-raisers, political operatives, pollsters, and media consultants—often several of each. Clinton’s ascendancy over the party is such that one prominent adviser to her told me that his biggest concern in the near term was “a Noah’s Ark problem”: there are more people loyal to her than her campaign could reasonably employ. Though Clinton faces no serious challenger in her Senate race, she has already raised almost $50 million; should she run for president, insiders say that she could raise $400 million—over $100 million more than George W. Bush raised for his reelection.

This show of strength highlights a disparity between the Democratic Party as it exists in Washington, with Clinton the regnant power, and in the rest of the country, where the party has yet to decide who that power should be. And, oddly, it does not necessarily reflect any confidence, even in Washington, that Clinton can win the presidency. A number of mid-level Democratic operatives—the kind who could expect a good job in any Democratic administration—told me they didn’t believe she could win a general election, especially against a popular Republican like McCain. But at the same time, they did not entertain the possibility of working for another Democratic candidate. “It’s simple, really,” one of them explained to me. “Bill Clinton made my career—I wouldn’t be who I am, in the job I’m in, if he hadn’t made me. There’s no way I could ever work against Hillary.” He was conflicted about this, as are many others. It sounded as though he and his colleagues would rather cede the race than work against Bill Clinton’s wife.

If there is one thing the Clintons can do it is to suck all the oxygen from the room. And the prospect of Bill Clinton campaigning for the job of First Lady means that we are living in interesting times.