The Review
November 15, 2002
Time for a brief vacation
Blogging wiil be non-existent until Thursday, 21 Nov 02. I'm taking the next week off and heading out. I'll miss you all terribly, but will be back soon.
Bye.
Getting snowed by the UN?
(Review) Frank Gaffney asks whether we are getting rolled by the UN on Iraq.
The eternal optimist
(Review) Michael O'Hanlon, at the liberal Brookings Institute think tank, writes that weapons inspection can work in Iraq.
Well, that's nice.
The Pelosi Problem
(Review)) Michael Crowley lays out the TNR position on House Dem leader Nancy Pelosi.
It's no surprise that Pelosi is working so hard to dispel the notion that she's a liberal. Already, Republicans are painting her as a combination of Maxine Waters and Barbra Streisand. That's unfair: Pelosi isn't a wild-eyed ideologue; she's just a fairly typical member of the House Democratic caucus. And that's exactly the problem. The caucus was already to the left of most Democratic voters--and far to the left of the country as a whole--even before November 5. And now many of its members have decided that the lesson of last week's election disaster is that the party wasn't liberal enough. Pelosi may say her liberalism isn't her defining feature. But it's a big part of why she's about to get promoted. As Michigan Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan recently put it, "I don't think anybody's going to become the next minority leader of the Democrats that wants to go along with [George W.] Bush on the war." In other words, Pelosi was chosen in part because she's not expected to challenge the liberal instincts of the House Democratic caucus. Which is a pity. Because, unless someone saves the House Democrats from themselves, they could be looking at a long time in the minority.
The Democrats. They learn nothing, and they forget nothing.
November 14, 2002
Been nice working with you, Paul
(Review) Bob Novak says that Paul O'Niell's days as Treasury Secretary are numbered.
And intellectually lazy, too.
(Review) Not only is the left arrogant and condescending, but intellectually lazy, too. Tim Swarens writes in the Indianapolis Star:
Republicans now control the White House, Congress, the judiciary, the majority of governors' offices and a record number of state legislative seats. The rise of one-party rule has occurred, however, not because conservatives have superior ideas but because the opposition has none.
Where are the liberals offering proposals to fix their greatest achievement, Social Security? Who has a liberal solution for stopping international terrorism that involves something more than carrying signs that compare George W. Bush to Osama bin Laden? What is the liberal plan for a stronger economy? Education? Transportation? National defense? Liberals have become a shrinking band of self-anointed intellectuals in search of a workable idea.
There are actually a lot of center-left ideas out there. But the left wing of the Democratic party is essentially uninterested in them, mainly because they aren't quite leftish enough.
Americans are either too stupid or too selfish to govern themselves
(Review) George Will writes about the condescension the Left applies to the electorate.
It believes Americans are not competent to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in individual accounts. And not competent to exercise school choice. And not competent to own firearms without hundreds of regulations. The party believes that many African Americans are not competent, period. Hence they need to be treated as permanent wards of government and swaddled in paternalistic preferences.
I think back to Bill Clinton's statement that he'd love to give the public a tax cut, except he wasn't sure we'd spend it properly. Or Al Gore's assertion in the 2000 Presidential campaign that we needed "targeted" tax cuts that reward families who spend their money "properly", i.e., in the way Al believed they should.
That isn't a message that, over the long term, the American public is going to willingly accept. Most people think they are competent to live their own lives, and they aren't particularly interested in having it regimented by a few grandees sitting thousands of miles away in Washington DC.
Dealing with the real world
(Review) Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in a world where the choices we have to make were all morally unambiguous, and we could choose between a clear good, and a clear evil?
Well, as Dinesh D'Souza points out, that isn't the world we live in.
In the real world, as opposed to the philosophy seminar, the choice is often not between the good guy and the bad guy, but between the bad guy and the really bad guy. In such a situation, a country is justified in allying with a bad guy to oppose a regime that is even more terrible...Once the principle of the lesser evil is taken into account, then U.S. alliances with dictators such as Marcos and Pinochet become defensible. These were measures taken to fight the Cold War. If one accepts what today is an almost universal consensus — that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire" — then America was right to attach more importance to the fact that Marcos and Pinochet were reliably anti-Soviet than to the fact that they were autocratic thugs.
But, the critics respond, the Cold War is over. Why back such tyrannical regimes in the Middle East as the royal family in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan's Musharraf?
Again, applying the principle of the lesser evil, what is the alternative? Are there viable democratic forces in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to replace the existing despots? Or is the alternative to Musharraf the forces of radical fundamentalism, the Osama bin Laden folk? In that case, America's support for Musharraf is fully warranted.
Liberals need to wake up and smell the coffee. The world is what it is, not what we would wish it to be.
Saddam Hussein's Delusion
(Review) Amir Taheri writes that Saddam Hussein is deluded. But he is willing to kill a lot of people to try and make his delusions come to life. Don't look to him for rational decision-making.
November 13, 2002
A belligerent acceptance
(Review) The Iraqi governments' acceptance of UN inspectors is couched in belligerent and threatening tones.
You may recall the huge clamor fabricated by the President of the United States administration, in the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq, supported in malicious intent, and spearheaded in word and malevolence, by his lackey Tony Blair, when they disseminated the claim that Iraq had perhaps produced, or was on its way to produce, nuclear weapons, during the time when the United Nations inspectors had been absent from Iraq since 1998. Then they returned to stress that Iraq had, in fact produced chemical and biological weapons. They both know, as well as we do, and so can other countries, that such fabrications are baseless. But does the knowledge of the truth constitute elements for interaction in the politics of our day, which has witnessed the unleashing of the American administration's evil to its fullest extent, dashing all hope in any good? Indeed, is there any good to be hoped for, or expected, from the American administrations, now that they have been transformed by their own greed, by Zionism as well as by other known factors, in the tyrant of the age.
OK, so, obviously, the Iraqis aren't happy. The key passage, however, is here.
Dealing with the inspectors, the government of Iraq will, also, take into consideration, their way of conduct, the intentions of those who are ill-intentioned amongst them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people's national dignity, their independence and security, and their country's security, independence and sovereignty.
and
Therefore, through you, we reiterate the same words to Security Council: Send your inspectors to Iraq to make sure of this, and everyone will be sure, if their way of conduct is supervised so that it becomes legal and professional, that Iraq has not developed weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological, as claimed by evil people. The lies and manipulation of the American government will be exposed, while the world will see how truthful and adequate are the Iraqis in what they say and do. But if the whims of the American administration, the Zionist desires, their followers, intelligence services, threats, and foul temptation, were given the chance to temper and play with inspection teams or some of their members, the colors would then be confused and resulting commotion will distort the facts and push the situation in dangerous directions which is something fair-minded people do not wish for, as well as the people, including my government, want to bring forward the facts as they are. The fieldwork and implementation will be the decisive factors that will reveal whether the were really for the Security Council to make sure Iraq is void of those alleged weapons, or whether the whole thing was an evil cover by those who were behind the resolution who have no scruples to utter debased slander and to tell lies to the public opinion including to their own peoples.
So, let the inspectors come to Baghdad to carry out their duties in accordance with the law, and then we will hear and see along with who want to hear, see and move according each one's responsibility and rights. The final word and reference will still be resolution No. 687 with its obligations on both the Sec General and Iraq, along with the code of conduct agreed upon in the agreement signed by the Sec Gen in New York on 16th September 2002, and the press statement of Hans Blix and ElBaradei in Vienna in 30/90 1/10/2002.
Translation: If they get too close to stuff we don't want them to see, they're out of here, and we'll blame them for not being fair to us.
As far as I can tell, the Iraqis are trying to accomplish two things. First, they will allow the inspectors is because they have no choice, but they are setting the PR groundwork for kicking them out if they get too close to sensitive stuff. Second, they know that allowing the inspectors to come in postpones any military action for as long as possible, and gives them more time to prepare.
It will take several weeks before the inspectors even have enough information to know where to begin looking for stuff.
On the other hand, since the Iraqis in this letter claim they have no biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons at all, the inventory required by SC Res 1441, will be glaringly empty if these kinds of weapons.
Eye to eye with the other fella, and he just blinked
(Review) Iraq has agreed to accept UN Security Council Resolution 1441.
More anlysis of the Pelosi party
(Review) Pete DuPont weighs in with his analysis of that will happen to the Democrats under Pelosi's leadership.
The alternative to Pelosi
(Review) Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) writes in the Washington Post an essay describing why he, and not Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) should be the House Minority Leader.
But for the most part, Democrats spent too much time pointing out what Republicans are doing wrong and not enough time laying out what we would do differently. We did a good job of identifying the problems many Americans face -- rising drug costs, declining 401(k) plans, poor schools and a weak economy -- but we did not communicate how we would solve these problems.
Although Democrats have traditionally sought the upper hand on domestic issues, we now live in a post-9/11 world. If we want the American people to trust us to govern, we cannot take a dismissive or defeatist attitude toward issues of national security.
One area of stark contrast between my opponent and me is Iraq. Rep. Pelosi opposed the president and voted against the resolution. I worked with Republicans and Democrats to pass a narrowly tailored resolution and joined Democrats and Republicans in voting for it. Ultimately, congressional support helped the administration negotiate a strong resolution that won the unanimous approval of the U.N. Security Council.
But no matter how individual members voted on the resolution, our problem as a party in this most recent election was that we raised objections rather than offered solutions. Many Americans may be apprehensive about the president's national security strategy, but they understand that he has one, and that the Democrats don't.
I suspect that these arguments will be rejected by a majority of the Democratic caucus. Too bad.
November 12, 2002
Like sand through the hourglass...
(Review) Dennis Ross says time is running out for the Iraqis. Or, rather, it should be. But that doesn't mean that it is.
All this does not mean we are now trapped by the resolution. But it does mean that the stakes in ensuring full disclosure on Dec. 8 are very high. If disarmament is the objective, the only possibility of achieving it without war will depend on Hussein's understanding that anything less than full disclosure is, in fact, the trigger for war. Anything less than that will put us on a slippery slope that allows Hussein to play for time, make sure the inspectors find nothing in the early going -- or find only what he wants them to find to "prove" he is cooperating.
President Bush has set the stage for disarmament. Now he must condition the French, the Russians and the rest of the world to understand that the moment of truth comes not with the inspectors' arrival but with the character of Iraq's disclosure on Dec. 8.
Well, that's the real trick, isn't it. The French and Russians don't want there to be an attack at all. That's a perfect prescription for the same kind of inspections rope-a-dope that Hussein played throughout the nineties.
King of the Undead
(Review) Osama bin Laden may not be dead after all. Al-Jazeera has a new audio tape of a man claiming to be Osama, that mentions recent events.
Again, though, it's an audio tape, so it could just be Rich Little having a hoot.
Scheer idiocy
(Review) Robert Scheer's column today provides yet more proof, as if any were needed, that he is an idiot.
Yet Bush's key palliative for the stagnant economy, the tax cut, has failed miserably as a stimulus and instead has contributed to a sharply rising national debt.
Earth to Bob: There haven't been any tax cuts yet. They haven't taken effect yet, so people are still paying the same amount of taxes as they were before he became president. Last year, people got some extra money back as a refund, but that's it. The point of tax rate cuts is that they reduce the amount of money people pay throughout the year by reducing witholding. That hasn't happened yet.
Maybe you should hold off on criticizing the failed Bush tax cuts until after they actually happen.
Under such leadership, the highest court in the land would be likely to strike down Roe vs. Wade. But the mere thought of this long-sought "victory" makes the GOP's political pros squirm: To go back to the days when abortion was illegal and women routinely died as a result of self-inflicted coat-hanger wounds is hardly a prescription for future Republican victories.
*sigh*
Overturning Roe v. Wase would not outlaw abortions. The issue would simply be returned to the state legislatures. Sure, some states might ban abortions. A lot of other states wouldn't. But it would be back in the political arena where, presumably, the will of the people would prevail.
Got a problem with the will of the people, Bob?
But of course he does. Can't trust the will of the people. After all, their election of Republicans proves that the people are just too stupid or too selfish to be allowed to govern themselves.
Even Richard Cohen agrees with me. Which is scary.
(Review) Richard Cohen urges the Democratic party not to become a buch of "left-leaning losers".
For some reason, the media loathe saying, "No big deal." Just as everything at CNN gets hyped as "breaking news," so every election is a "historic" ideological realignment that will change the country forever (or maybe until the next election) and even alter the course of El Niño. This election was nothing of the sort -- and it would be folly for the Democratic Party to think what the voters were really missing was a starker alternative.
Nov. 5 was a triumph for George Bush and Karl Rove and a clear defeat for the Democrats. But the GOP won with money and tactics -- a great get-out-the-vote effort and, yes, the lift provided by Bush's personal popularity. The victory, though, was no knockout -- just a match won on points. For the Democrats, there's no reason to act woozy and stumble to the left. The party has been in that corner before. It's where it usually loses.
Well said.
Homeland Security deal reached
(Review) Well, it looks like a deal has been reached with Congress on Homeland Security, so it will pass out of the lame-duck session of Congress.
That's wierd. I mean, it's been held up in the Senate all session by the Democrats. What could possibly have happened to change the Democrats' mind about it?
What are they thinking?
(Review) The Iraqi Parliament has unanimously rejected UN Resolution 1441, even though Uday Hussein, an Iraqi MP and Saddam Hussein's son, recommended they accept it.
OK, I'm stumped. The Iraqi MPs don't even sneeze unless Saddam Hussein personally OKs it. So, is this just a PR move that Saddam will implement by rejecting the Parliament's vote, so that he looks like a reasonable guy? Or are they telegraphing a rejection, and doing so in a way that attempts to make it look like rejection of the UN is a popular move, rather than the decision of a single person, Saddam Hussein?
November 11, 2002
The Gray Lady
(Review) The Weekly Standard presents the November 6 edition of the New York Times, the way Hal Raines wanted it to look.
St. George the Divine
OK, don't even try to tell me that the impression you get from this picture wasn't intentional. Must be that darned Karl Rove behind this.
Ominous
I appear to be a bit more ominous than even I'd like to be.
You have an ominosity quotient ofSeven.You are as ominous as the creators of this quiz. Which terrifies us. |
It just keeps getting worse
(Review) It's a continuing downhill slide for Georgia's Democrats. Now, Democratic state lawmakers are jumping ship for the Republican side of the State legislature.
World-Historical signifigance
(Review) Writing for the Times of London, William Rees-Mogg says that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is a watershed in history.
Resolution 1441 is an historic event. It recognises the fact that the United States is the world’s only superpower. It has taken 13 years, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, for an American President to use with confidence the full global power of the United States. He is the first President to understand how strong his country is.
In varying degrees all the important powers of the world have themselves understood the implications of 9/11. Governments have to accept the Ancient Roman maxim that “the safety of the Republic is the supreme law”. If the major governments act together, they can hope to protect their vulnerable populations from global terrorism. The fall of the twin towers, the horror of the Moscow theatre, the Bali bombing, the attack on the Indian parliament and the suicide bombings in Israel have shown everyone how exposed the world is to 21st-century terrorism.
Yet the terrorists cannot take on the whole world, and they cannot hold out against the power of the United States unless other significant powers are prepared to protect terrorists. Resolution 1441 shows that the United States is prepared to carry the responsibility and that the major powers recognise that their safety depends on the success of American action.
I wonder if Saddam Hussein feels like the walls are closing in.
Here Come Da Judges
(Review) Terry Eastland provides a roundup of the judidial selection process over the next two years.
No one to blame
(Review) Economist Robert Bartley writes that if the economy's still bad in 2004, there won't be any Democrats to blame.
W hasn't really had a tight grip on the economic policy tiller. If he doesn't get one, Democrats may be dancing in the streets in 2004.
Veteran's Day
This is, of course, the day a grateful nation tenders its thanks to those who've sacrificed and served in our nation's uniform. In that spirit, please allow me to sincerely say, "You're welcome".
Special announcement
Blogging will commence rather later today, since Its a holiday, and I have tons of neat stuff to do.
November 10, 2002
Mark Steyn Has been busy
(Review) This time, its a column in the UK's Telegraph about W's winning ways.
Advice from an old Pro
(Review) Ted Van Dyk was a professional Democratic pol for 40 years. He has some advice for Democrats on how to regain their party's fortunes.
There are many interpretations of what happened to Democrats on bloody Tuesday. But the most obvious is that voters went with their common sense. The party's strongest and defining modern ground was that on which President John F. Kennedy ran and won in 1960:
• A strong national defense and a willingness to use military force in appropriate circumstance, coupled with an unyielding commitment in the world to certain universal principles while recognizing that nations would follow their own paths ("We arm to parley"; "We aim to make the world safe for diversity.")
• A consonant commitment to nuclear arms control and other measures that would keep dangerous weapons from dangerous leaders and lessen the chances for military confrontation.
• An appeal to a new, postwar generation to subsume itself in causes higher than themselves ("Ask not what your country can do for you . . .").
• A strongly pro-growth, pro-market economic policy that featured tax cuts to stimulate both investment and consumption and the historic Trade Expansion Act which committed the country to global liberalization of trade ("Get America moving again"; "a rising tide lifts all boats").
That platform is not far from President Bush's current platform. For the most part, Democrats reflexively have been opposing it.
Tuesday's voters knew what they would get if they voted for Republican Senatorial and House candidates: a Congress prepared to act on--rather than obstruct and delay--President Bush's federal judicial nominations, tax proposals, national-security, energy, prescription-drug, Social Security reform, and other notions.
Voters were not necessarily in agreement with the president on those matters. They were, however, fed up with a Democratic Party trying to prosper, collectively and individually, by frightening senior citizens about loss of their Social Security or by reflexively characterizing as "racist" or "right-wing extremist" almost any Bush proposal or nominee usable to inflame emotions among core Democratic constituencies. And they saw no credible Democratic alternative platform.
The chickens came home to roost Tuesday.
The Democrats must understand that National Security is the primary responsibility of the Federal government. Without that being assured, all other political arguments are pointless. It is not an issue they can begin to take a look at after they've strung up "the rich" from the nearest lamp-post. They should also understand, as JFK did, that stringing up "the rich" is probably not a very good idea in the first place. Economic growth is not just an issue that interests "the rich" but every single American.
That means that it's not enough to oppose the Bush "tax cuts for the rich", but that they must also have a pro-growth tax cut to ensure economic growth as well. It is not possible to tax our way to prosperity. That's the choice the Europeans have tried, and it's resulted in structural unemployment rates of 12%, an utter dearth of new jobs in the private sector for a quarter century, high levels of public debt, and moribund economies at the point of collapse.
The way to end poverty is through economic growth. The way to adequately supply the military, so that they can protect us with cool, high-tech weapons, is through economic growth. The way to increase government revenues, so that we can afford to keep the baby boomers on life support for the next few decades is through economic growth. The way to ensure that everyone can afford medical care is through economic growth.
Politics is about ideas. No one in the Democratic party has had any new ones since John Kennedy. If the Democrats want to play the part of the quasi-socialist, welfare-state, income redistribution party, then they'll languish in political limbo until further notice. We've already been down that road, and nearly every American is familiar with its drawbacks. There are a number of solid, center-left proposals on social, military, and fiscal policy that offer attractive, pro-growth alternatives to the Republican obsession with Supply-Side economics.
The Left's disdain of free markets and the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, and their obsession with the government as the cure for all ills is not a winner any more. The class-warfare, soak the rich, rhetoric was dated almost from the minute it flowed from the pen of Karl Marx. There are people out there on the left with new ideas, and new vision, if the Democrats will only grab them and use them.
"Where there is no vision," the Bible tells us, "The people perish." The same is true of political parties.
For Democrats Adrift, Some Fiscal Therapy
(Review Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has a fantastic fiscal policy message for the Democrats, if they're willing to listen. I certainly don't agree with all of it, but it's coherent and attractive, and it demonstrates why a center-left party is so valuable as a source of ideas that can be used to craft bipartisan compromise. The Right does not have a monopoly on ideas.
Democrats should just stop obsessing about the tax cut and start thinking about what the economy really needs. The economy is sputtering because there aren't nearly enough buyers to purchase all the goods and services we can now produce, at a price that covers the full cost of producing them. Blame the technology bubble and some irrationally exuberant overbuilding. Or blame China and other countries where capacity also mushroomed in recent years.
But a lot of productive capacity here in America isn't a bad thing. Quite the contrary. As long as we use it eventually, it gives us the means of achieving higher standards of living. In fact, over the long term we'll need much more productive capacity -- especially as millions of Boomers, their bodies beginning to corrode, start filing for Medicare and Social Security.
The challenge over the next two years is to boost demand for what we can produce now. Alan Greenspan can't do that alone. The Federal Reserve has been whacking interest rates for over a year in order to stimulate demand. Last week they cut the key rate by half a point, to 1.25 percent, its lowest level since John F. Kennedy was in the White House. That doesn't leave much room for further cuts. Yet the economy is stuck in neutral.
Where to turn? Fiscal policy -- taxing and spending. Here's where the Democrats' message should be crystal clear. If monetary policy isn't up to the task, the federal government has to do its part to stimulate use of America's productive capacity, even if that means running deficits.
This analysis, is spot on. If deflation is a worry, then monetary policy isn't much of a help, as I've explained repeatedly, because interest rates are already at historic lows. That means that fiscal policy simply has to be used to take up the slack. Yes, it may very well mean that we have to run run deficits, temporarily, but the example of Japan demonstrates very clearly that sustained deflation is a far more serious problem than running an government budget deficit. In fact, the deficit, to the extent that it causes the money supply to increase, promotes inflation, rather than deflation. in the context of a deflationary economy, that's a good thing.
Reich also acknowledges the problems with using fiscal policy in this way, but those are problems that can be dealt with.
Of course, I have problems with some of Reich's program, but it offers a clear and consistent message. The devil is, as always, in the details. I expect the Democratic version of "affordable health care" will be state-centered, rather than market-centered, which will will be a deal breaker. And the Federal government should help the states out with grants, rather than, as I suspect the Democrats would want, pushing for increased Federal spending directly in these areas. This program also leaves unanswered about what exactly to do about social security, since a payroll tax cuts pulls funds from the program.
The point that he makes, however, which is that the most effective way to grow the economy is to increase productivity, is undeniable. Increased infrastructure spending, educational reform that results in real improvements in learning, and things like that are actually necessary to improve productivity, and long-term economic growth.
But these are policy disagreements that a center-left and center-right party can iron out. More importantly, this is a center-left program that might actually add to the public debate over how best to use fiscal policy to improve the long-term growth potential of the economy. It shares with Supply-siders the idea that economic growth, rather than income redistribution, is, in the end, the answer to both revenue shortfalls, and poverty.
But that, of course, is what will make it unpalatable to the more leftist Democrats who are poised to take control of the party.
Colin to Saddam: Time's Up
(Review) Secretary of State Colin Powell writes that Saddam's time is now running out.
After 11 years of flouting dozens of U.N. resolutions and statements, Hussein's contempt for the international community is obvious. We are all well acquainted with the tactics of denial, deceit and delay that he has used time and again to avoid compliance. We are also well aware of the brutal and aggressive nature of his regime. He has twice invaded his neighbors and he has used chemical weapons not just against other countries but against his own citizens: men, women and children.
During the four years since inspectors have been barred from Iraq, Hussein has done everything he can to acquire and develop more weapons of mass destruction -- whether biological, chemical or nuclear. He has no scruples about using the weapons that he possesses or about providing them to terrorists should that suit his interests.
Long experience with Saddam Hussein and his regime tells us that he will respond only when confronted with steadfast resolve and the threat of force. Every member of the Security Council understands that if Hussein fails to comply with Resolution 1441, there must be serious consequences.
Doesn't sound like Colin's gone wobbly to me.
Dems Living in the past
(Review) Merk Stayn writes that the main problem of the Democrats is that they're stuck in the past.
This is the Democrats' real defect. ''Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,'' sang Fleetwood Mac in Bill Clinton's '92 campaign. Ten years on, the Dems can't stop thinking about yesterday. For Al Gore, it's always Florida 2000 and his chads are dangling. For the National Organization for Women, it's always 1973 and Roe vs. Wade. For Jesse Jackson, it's always 1963 and Selma, Alabam'. Come election time, the Democrats sound like an oldies station with only three records.
Even in crude terms of ''shoring up their base,'' the Dems feel clapped out: When Harry Belafonte has nothing to say about America's secretary of state and national security adviser other than that massa's been roun' the cottonfields and picked out a couple new house slaves, he's cranking out a tired refrain even older that his last hit. When elderly feminists run around warning ''women'' that their right to an abortion is at stake in this election, it's not just that it's untrue, it's that it's so lame, and frankly sounds just plain loopy when North Korea has nukes and there's a Homeland Security bill to pass. The National Organization for Women endorsed 18 candidates in this election: 15 lost.
We live in interesting times, as the old Chinese curse has it, and the Dems have nothing interesting to say. In the midst of a great historical drama, they're still doing vaudevillian knockabout. On all the important issues, the Dems were profoundly unserious. And their complaint that the president's selfish obsession with national security, foreign policy and other trivialities was crowding out ''the real issues'' is a good example: Whatever the merits or otherwise of a ''prescription drug plan for seniors,'' a great national party has to be more than a pharmacist-in-chief. The obsession with pill dispensing sounded weird in 2000, and just plain inadequate now.
The past is dead. It can't be changed. If the Democrats aren't able to look to the future, then they can expect more November 5ths.
