ROE WON'T BE RECONSIDERED
The court makes a reasoned and sound judgment in response to political theater:

"Whether or not the Supreme Court was infallible, its Roe decision was certainly final in this litigation," Judge David Godbey wrote in the ruling. "It is simply too late now, thirty years after the fact, for McCorvey to revisit that judgment."

SHARPTON EATS HIS "GREENS"?

With the 2004 Presidential race hurtling towards us like a comet in a 1950s "b"movie, the left wing political parties of America, both major and minor, are attempting to find their standard bearers to take on the currently still popular President Bush.

One such party is, of course, the Green Party, home to aging hippies who couldn't bother to shed their birkenstocks and young so-called anarchists who strangely enough call for me government intervention in their own lives.

In 2000, the Greens ran Ralph Nader, professional scold, who, some say, was famous enough to draw enough votes away from the equally scolding Gore to allow President Bush to get elected.

With the next election rolling around, however, there is still a question of whether or not the Greens will get Nader to run again. After all, Nader probably needs to to manage his "vast personal fortune" before venturing out again to attack the rich as evil.

So the Green party is out looking for a new presidential candidate. And one potential candidate hails from Ithaca, the City of Evil. As reported in the Ithaca Times:Paul Glover, Ithaca's most well-known activist, has been tapped as a potential candidate for the Green Party to run in the 2004 presidential election [along with] party consul David Cobb, and former Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney.

In support for a Green candidacy, Glover cites what he sees as the inability of the Democrat party to nominate a sufficiently "progressive" candidate, bemoaning, at his website, the fact that "Sharpton will raise important issues but will be marginalized by ...establishment...Democrats"

In other words, one of the three people being most seriously considered, after Nader, as the Green Party's presidential candidate, is expressing admiration for the ideas of a known, thug, racist and anti-Semite.

Sharpton first came to prominence (or notoriety) in 1987 as one of the men involved in the Tawana Brawleyhoax. For those who have forgotten, Brawley, a then-fifteen-year-old black girl, claimed a gang of white law enforcement officers had abducted and raped her, setting off a national furor over alleged racism. Later, however, her story was determined by a grand jury to be hoax. Furthermore, one of the men accused by Sharpton sued him and the others for libel. The jury found Sharpton liable for making "false and defamatory statements" about the matter. One of Sharpton's co-defendants, attorney C. Vernon Mason, "was disbarred in 1995 for price gouging, theft and abandoning clients."

That was not the end of Sharpton's racial fear-mongering, however.

During New York’s 1991 Crown Heights riots Sharpton reportedly said, “Don’t just talk about the jeweler [whose store was burned] on Utica. Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here.” Furthermore, as recently as eight years ago Sharpton:

"marched besides picketers protesting a Jewish-owned business in Harlem as they shouted 'blood-sucking Jews' and 'Jew bastards.' That little exercise in brotherhood resulted in eight deaths, when a protester rushed into the store and started shooting employees."

Nice guy, huh?

Apparently, one of the potential national standard bearers of the Green party thinks so.

Some people might say, "well, that's bad, but what makes the Greens any worse than the democratic party? They're always cozying up to Sharpton too."

I'll tell you what.

The Democrats are forced to deal with Sharpton because, right or wrong, they allowed him to insinuate himself in their party. Now he's there, stinking up the already putrid air of the left wing.

Any other party, however, does not have Sharpton. They don't have to deal with him. And they shouldn't deal with him.

But one of their "leaders," the same one who is trying to distance his party from the Democrats is expressing admiration for the fact that Sharpton espouses the same ideas the Green Party does.

The fact that one of the only persons who, by the left's own admission, seems able to sell their ideas is racist ought to give the left pause as to whether those ideas are worth selling

MORE ON EDWARDS AND ESTRADA
The RNC complains to Senator Edwards in a letter from Marc Racicot:

Your comment, as reported by the media, that Miguel Estrada has "the right last name," but no credible record of performance that qualifies him for appointment, is neither accurate nor fair.
...
Your suggestion that Miguel Estrada’s nomination is based on his surname and not on his record not only distorts the evidence, it reveals a willingness to diminish your obligation to perform a fair review of the record. It is my hope that as an experienced trial lawyer, a United States Senator, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and an aspiring presidential candidate, you will value accuracy and fairness in your deliberations.

I'm sure that Edwards was just trying to throw some red meat to the left -- or bean sprouts or tofu burgers -- whatever gets them riled up. But, it is another lesson in maturity from those politicians with a little more experience than the young "Senior" Senator from North Carolina.

DEM LEADERSHIP SMARTER THAN THE AVERAGE BLOGGER
The Stinging Nettle (why do I read these things?) writes the following about Democrat strategy:

Choose your poison...
So it seems to me that things transpired in one of two ways, either of which, in the hands of a competent opposition (by which I do NOT mean this guy or this guy ) would be a freaking grand slam. The Administration claimed for months that it knew where the WMDs were and that we knew that Iraq had them. Therefore, two months after the "end of hostilities," either:

Sigh. It's not even worth reading his mutliple choice -- something like (1) Bush is an illegitimate "selected" president or (2) because the Democrat leadership, Hans Blix, Clinton, France, the UN all knew there were WMDs and, whatever. I wonder if this guy could come up with a better strategy? Probably not, as his 4% in New Hampshire might suggest.

"EDWARDS AIMS TO REDUCE HEALTH DISPARITIES"
Between Latinos and Whites, that is. How wonderful Senator Edwards is. This headline and story are how the Raleigh News & Observer chose to bury Edwards' childish attack on Miguel Estrada in last Thursday's edition. Paging Edwards' internet defender, DrFrankLives, for any response.

SHOWING HIS TACTFUL DIPLOMATIC SKILLS
From the Dallas Morning News (registration required):

In dealing with minorities, liberals have learned to try to keep a lid on their condescension. But sometimes it slips out. And it slipped out again last week when another Demo crat seeking the presidential nomination, John Edwards, dismissively boiled down the accomplishments of the highly capable Miguel Estrada -- President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- to Mr. Estrada having "the right last name."

The soft bigotry of low expections continues, yet Johnny Edwards still supports affirmative action.

JONAH GOLDBERG IS WRONG
Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg often beats the drum about how there are no slippery slopes. Often, that's right as illustrated by Goldberg's favorite example -- Japanese internment camps during WWII did not send us down the slippery slope to gassing them. But the slide toward socialism and the redistribution of wealth from those with ability to those with needs that started with the New Deal and accelerated with the Great Society is clearly continuing apace. Yesterday, we were asked to pay for retirement for those who not only couldn't afford it, but those who didn't plan for it and squandered their money. Today, we are being asked to pay for medications for those who not only cannot afford them, but also for those who would rather keep their cable television than buy health insurance or Lipitor. And there is no principled political party in Washington opposed to this continued slouch toward socialism, just an argument over whether government will directly fund the give away, or bully private industry into doing it.

JANE ROE FILES SUIT
The "Roe" in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvy, filed suit today against the Texas Attorney General and the Dallas DA, seeking to overturn the verdict in her case finding bans on abortion to be unconstitutional. Expect the left to use the suit to scare everyone into buying stock in wire-hanger companies. Expect the right to rally its social conservatives with promises that they will stop "abortion on demand".

But expect the real resolution of this case to say nothing about abortion, and an awful lot about civil procedure. You can take a nap, now.

NEW YORK TIMES FLACKS FOR CLINTON -- WHO KNEW?
A reader points out that Dick Morris is about to release a book, Off with Their Heads: Traitors, Crooks and Obstructionists in American Politics, Media and Business, in which he reveals that the NYT took a dive on Clinton scandal coverage -- from Newsmax:

When Morris told him that Clinton was unlikely to grant the interview because he was unhappy with the paper's scandal coverage, Lelyveld hinted at a deal.

"A worried frown clouded the editor's formerly sunny face," writes Morris, who quotes the Times decision-maker as saying next, "You know, we don't think that the public cares about what happened back in Arkansas."

Lelyveld is the acting editor in chief again after the recent decapitation by Jayson Blair. At the same time, CBS is lashing back at the New York Times for its coverage of CBS's attempts to woo Jessica Lynch:

Unlike the New York Times' own ethical problems, there is no question about the accuracy or integrity of CBS News' reporting.

More here. It's fun to watch the left's press organs beat themselves up.

LET THE HORSERACE BEGIN
Howard Dean won a straw poll at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention over the weekend. The straw poll has no real effect, except its indication of which candidate has the support of the party faithful in Wisconsin. It's notable in that Senator Kerry's nationwide name recognition did not help him win the poll, and no one can say that Dean won because of favorite-son status (he's from Vermont). Here are the results:

Candidate Name	Wisconsin Delegate Support
Dean	57.7%
Kerry	14.2%
Kucinich	7.7%
Graham	5.4%
Edwards	5.1%
Gephardt	2.8%
Moseley Braun	1.4%
Lieberman	1.1%
Sharpton	0.6%

Yes, as we pointed out last week, it is too early to put too much stock in polls, but these straw polls of party activists can be good indicators of how the rank and file partisans will vote in 2004. Howard Dean may not win, but his organization and support, as evidenced in this poll, is better among activists than the alleged front-runner John Kerry. So, the lessons of this poll are (1) Howard Dean has a real shot, (2) Gephardt is in trouble -- he should do better than New England liberals in the midwest, (3) Lieberman may only be a regional candidate, and (4) Graham and Edwards must be running for 2008.