Both the Torch and the Democratic Party Flame Out

That Torricelli is bowing out of the New Jersey Senate race is both good news and amazing news. The only reason for doing this is that polls showed he was not going to win. Daschle went to New Jersey to help, and he couldn’t. So what do you do if you are a Democrat and discover that you can’t win an election with your candidate? You push him aside and (ignoring election laws) you try to replace him with someone else. Why not? Only winning counts. There are two possibilities here: 1) The NJ Democrat Party already knows that the NJ Supreme Court (the majority of the judges are Democrats) will instruct the state to re-write the election law in the middle of an election, reprint all the ballots, negate the absentee ballots that have already been cast, etc., in order to get a new guy on; or, 2) This is a sham and what Torricelli will do is to resign his seat (if the Court says no to changing the law) then the Democratic governor of NJ will appoint Lautenberg to replace him and call for a special election a year or so down the line so Forrester can, once again, run against an incumbent. Is it possible that the election could be postponed? I think the Dems will argue, yes. Either way this could be a very interesting precedent: any incumbent running for a US Senate seat who drops in the polls (after having duly won his party’s primary) will quit and let someone else take over (to be determined by party leaders or the governor). This has some interesting possibilities, and it is a reflection of the state of the Democratic Party: they are so desperate, without conscience or principle, that they will do anything to win. I predict that the Dems should lose the Senate next month. They weren’t doing so well anyway and the New Jersey fiasco, combined with their artless attacks on Bush’s Terrorism/Iraq policy—and don’t forget the "Baghdad Three" claiming that they trust Saddam more than they do Bush—will have national repercussions in other Senate races. Furthermore, Democratic politics will be rearranged: Gore will become the nominee for 2004 by default, he will lose to Bush, then someone more principled will take over the party and try to reform it, or, Hillary will take over the party.

For now, pay attention to the Dems rhetoric on the New Jersey gambit: the law shouldn’t be allowed to prevent the voters from having a choice, etc. It is the Republicans who are working against democracy, etc. It will be a kind of re-play of Florida. And be prepared to hear the argument that the GOP is preventing blacks in New Jersey from having a choice, so it will become a civil rights issue. You see my point. Shameful politics, a political party fit only to participate in third-world-pretend-democracy. Is this a natural consequence of Andrew Jackson’s demagoguery, or is this the Clinton legacy everyone has been waiting to see? And "when did we become such an unforgiving people?" asked Torricelli in the most revealing line of his speech. Perfect, blame us. By the way, Andrew Sullivan claims that Torricelli used the word "I" ninety nine (99) times in his speech.

Perhaps it is in this light that what Jonah Goldberg once wrote about Torricelli makes some sense. He said that Torricelli "is the greasy gunk that accumulates in the garbage disposal of democracy." Oh, boy. I wish I could be both so circumspect and write so well! John Podhoretz puts this in the broader context of the Democratic Party’s drop into chaos just five weeks before the midterm elections. Andrew Busch explains why the gains the Democrats had hoped for in July are not going to materialize (and he wrote this before the Torricelli burn out).

Here is a pretty good wrap-up on the Torricelli gig by Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post. And this is a liberal’s take on Torricelli’s character. Here is Fred Barnes’ take on the New Jersey switch-and-bait scheme. And The Weekly Standard chastises the Dems for their tantrum on Iraq. Thomas Bray in The Wall Street Journal also chides the Democrats for their inability to address the Iraq issue. And Frank Gafney explains why the San Francisco Democrats (as Jeanne Kirkpatrick called them) are back.

More Politics

That the Senate should confirm Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. District goes without saying. Yet it must be said considering how the Demos have politicized these things. Robert Alt, Alberto Gonzales and Byron York say it well. James Pinkerton compares the 1970 midterm elections (the GOP won two Senate seats, the first time a party holding the White House gained any seats in forty years) with the 2002 midterm elections, and the Democrats dilemma.

Virginia Postrel has some harsh (but just) comments on the Gore speech in San Francisco last week. She focuses on his call to avenge the 9/11 murders. Although it is an understandable temptation, the reason we want to get these guys is to prevent other attacks. Gore is confused. Charles Krauthammer calls Gore’s speech "a pudding with no theme but much poison." Michael Barone explains the Demos dilemma with the 2002 elections, and, more importantly, with the 2004 presidential elections. Walter Shapiro (in USA Today) points out how this is playing out in the Minnesota Senate race. Wellstone could be in trouble.

Middle East and Foreign Policy

There is much high diplomacy at the U.N. (and around the world) and serious politics on the Hill regarding Iraq. It is too fluid as of this writing to say anything concrete save this: the Administration has handled the Iraq issue with aplomb, thus far. Once Congress gives its blessings (by a vast majority) to the agreed upon resolution, the U.N. diplomatic activity will truly be secondary. Bush will be able to do—both diplomatically and militarily—what we need to do with even more authority. Those who now are fence-sitters will fall in our direction and Saddam’s regime will become more afraid. I mention in passing some reports of Iran’s association with our side (bottom left) in some of these matters. Not everything is meeting the public eye.

George Will says all that needs to be said about the Bonior/McDermott trip to Baghdad. The title of the piece is "Innocents Abroad" although it could with equal justice be entitled "Useful Idiots." Jonah Goldberg debunks all the anti-Iraq war arguments. Longer piece, but worth it. Here is a report from the Jerusalem Post (using Jane’s Foreign Report) claiming that Israeli commandoes are operating in Western Iraq. Robert D. Kaplan writes in The Atlantic why liberating Iraq will have a good effect on Iran.

David Gelernter argues that the European are behaving the way they did in the 1920s. Long piece, but worth the read. And Christopher Caldwell claims to understand what is going on in Germany, "the angry adolescent of Europe." It is also lengthy, but good.

Etcetera

Steve Hayward writes about the deadly serious study published in Nature that proves that there are more suicides when a conservative government is in power (in Australia and Britain). If you don't think Hayward makes fun of all this, you are not a witty fool!

Smallest ozone hole since 1988 is being reported, but somehow, the scientists are still pessimistic.

Nicotine is good for old people. It appears that it may slow the cognitive decline. This is good news, I have a chance!

This is a good review of Harry Jaffa’s New Birth of Freedom, originally published in Society by Diana Schaub.

More and more students at the University of California, Berkeley, are considering military/intelligence careers. I bet their profs are unhappy.

It turns out that for habitual web surfers, news headlines are better than sex. And this short article explains what the Romans meant by cum mula peperit (when a mule foals). Parents are protesting the killing of a chicken for a lesson on where we get food. Arctic pollution is causing polar bears to change into the opposite sex.