sisu

America the invisible*

"Grant Wood's 'American Gothic' (left) meets Senators Waffles and Hillary! (REUTERS/Chip East photo)," we captioned this photoshopped diptych -- posted back in April of 2004 -- of no-nonsense Iowans and those who would have their votes then (Kerry) and now (Clinton).

As Hillary moves center stage on the Heartland hustings, this post from the 2004 campaign season resonates:

As John Waffles Kerry and Hillary! mingled with the commonfolk at a New York state town meeting yesterday, we were reminded of an anonymous quotation cited by ScrappleFace last month in "9th Circuit Court Overturns New Iraq Constitution":

"Democracy cannot be entrusted to millions of people who have never been to law school," an unnamed judge wrote for the panel. "Ultimately power must rest in the hands of those who know what's best for others. That's the American model, and that is what we should export to the world."

Not to mention Bubba's immortal "Sure, we could cut taxes, but what if you spent your money wrong?"

Did you catch presidential candidate Rudy on C-Span the other day telling it like it is about tax cuts vs increases? Without naming names but using the pronoun "her" -- much to the amusement of his listeners -- he cited Hillary's notorious "We're going to take things away from you on behalf the common good"?

*Post title refers to "Invisibles," the first ad of the Clinton presidential campaign, wherein "Hillary says that everyone who has been invisible to George W. Bush won't be invisible to the next president." Isn't that special?

"If only the right people were in charge"

People who live in fat houses shouldn't throw their weight around. Former fatty Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has some fun with Michael Moore's ample girth as "an example of why the health care system costs so much in this country." As a recovering weight-challenged American ourselves, we couldn't agree more. Above, Babe strategizes over the latest iteration of our first Cold Turkey Cookbook recipe, Steamed Haddock with Leeks served last night with a bed of Orzo Salad left over from our Fourth of July extravaganza. The groaning board that keeps on giving.

"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart," lardman Michael Moore told John Stossel [via Blue Crab Boulevard] recently during an interview for a forthcoming "20/20" special on health care, unwittingly revealing the black hole at the heart of the leftist world view. Stossel explains:

In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone . . .

He told me that government should provide "food  care" as well as health care and that big government would work if only the right people were in charge.

Baby (above) and Tiny (just out of the picture to the right) took their "déjeuner sur l'herbe" this afternoon. With apologies to Emile Zola, "Photographers, and especially Sissy Willis, do not share the pussycats' obsession with the supper: to them, the supper is only a pretext to take pictures of the cats, whereas for the cats only the supper exists."

Shades of Bill "what if you spend YOUR money wrong" and Hill "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" Clinton. We've blogged about Moore's totalitarian proclivities before. Like his common-good fellow travelers in politics, journalism and the arts, he knows better than we do what's best for us, and because his heart is in the right place, we should trust him and do as he says, if not always as he does. The Invisible Hand and its All-American companion, cooperation for mutual advantage, need not apply. As we wrote during the last Presidential election cycle:

Looking back at the post-9/11 Moore mouthings, in the wake of the damage his demagoguery has done to the administration's and the nation's credibility among the weakest-minded of our own citizens and leftist fellow travelers around the world -- not to mention Osama's adoption of Moorish rhetoric in his latest Bush-bashing tape -- we realize that Michael Moore is right up there with George Soros trying to undermine our democracy. We, the citizens, are too stupid to figure things out for ourselves, of course. Moore is, in fact, telling all who will listen that Americans are "the stupidest people in the world."

We're so stupid we never realized that CNN is a shill for the Bush Administration. John Amato of Crooks and Liars has the delicious details:

Michael Moore went off on Wolfie and CNN for a hit piece they aired about “Sicko” right before he came on. He was hot! He slapped the beard around pretty good . . . and said that everything he said about the Iraq war did come to pass:

Moore: Why don’t you tell the truth to the American people? I mean I wish that CNN and the other mainstream media would just for once tell the truth . . . You fudged the facts about this issue -- about the war and I’m just curious. When are you going to apologize to the American people for not bringing the truth to them that isn’t sponsored by some major corporation?

Michael Moore knows all about fudging facts. Too bad he never took Fred Thompson's advice: "Mental institution, Michael. It might be something you should think about."

Update: The right people are in charge at Steve's Friday Ark #147, now boarding.

"Truth is that sock that got lost in Gore's spin cycle"

It's a shame Hillary! (Global Newscast photo) and Al (Dave Chidley, CP via AP) don't get 'long. At least they can agree on one thing:  Do as I say, not as I do.

"There was too much mythology about Hillary that stretched the facts, she felt. [Donna] Shalala had always been made uncomfortable by hyperbolic statements from friends and acolytes of Hillary, as well as leaders in the women’s movement who didn’t know her personally, who put forth the notion that had she pursued her own political career and not deferred to Bill Clinton’s, she would have been a governor or senator in her own right by 1992," writes Carl Bernstein in A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, to be published Tuesday and exerpted today in the London Times. We rarely see eye to eye with Ms. Shalala, but in this case she's caught the conscience of the Queen, and Bernstein's riveting -- if mostly deja vu -- narrative is chock full of fresh red meat eyewitness accounts of Hillary friends and former aids that kept us turning the cyberpages. A few tidbits:

. . . both Clintons were certain that an overwhelming majority of Americans favoured universal coverage, even yearned for it.

To their total surprise and consternation, among the jolts the Clintons endured in the flush of their victory was serious resistance to putting Hillary in charge of healthcare from the most experienced members of the incoming domestic and economic policy team . . .

To accept their judgment would have meant to controvert her most basic notion about herself: that given the responsibility and the power, she could solve virtually any problem she applied herself to by dint of sheer force of will, intellect, study and hard work . . .

“He was president in no small measure because she stood by him in the Gennifer Flowers mess. And he had to pay her back. This is what she wanted, and he couldn’t figure out how not to give it to her. And so he hoped for the best, and jumped over the side with her."

We loved Bernstein's reportage and his brisk, laconic prose -- the facts, ma'am, just the facts -- but saw red when he started trying to squeeze the facts into the tired MSM template:

"It is remarkable how many of the contradictions of the Clinton presidency and its two principals were on display at the new administration’s difficult birthing, the faultless intentions, the reckless fundraising, the seriousness, the infatuation with Hollywood, the idealism, the physical exhaustion, the sensitivity to matters of race, the boomer sensibility, the surprising naïveté, the intense religiosity of the new president and first lady, their folksy grandiosity, her disregard for the rituals of Washington and disdain for the press, the rivalry between Hillary and Vice-President Al Gore, her sense of entitlement and the shading of the truth, her protective instincts toward her husband, her confusing relationship to feminism, her occasional tin ear, her lack of sophistication, her misreading of the voters’ healthcare mandate, the propensity of their enemies to hammer them for conduct that other presidents and their wives had got away with routinely.

The Clintons' "surprise and consternation" when others didn't see the righteousness of the "faultless intentions" of Hillarycare called to mind Al Gore's latest projection of his own psychological dysfunction onto us great unwashed:

"I don't think that the skills I have are the ones that are most likely to be rewarded within this system. Its like a washing machine that is permanently set on the spin cycle. It doesn't stop spinning. That creates real problems for a politics based on reason."

Friends have urged him to run for president again, but he wants to see a "transformation of this conversation of democracy" that de-emphasizes imagery and spin-doctoring.

"Truth is that sock that got lost in Gore's spin cycle," we wrote in the comments of Ann Althouse's inspired analysis:

What?! You think this is spinning? You're spinning. You're always spinning. You're like a washing machine. Al Gore is grateful to those who have a good opinion of him, but you . . . you don't seem ready for reason, you know, reason, that process that yields a good opinion of Al Gore. Why don't you help him transform the conversation of democracy. De-emphasize imagery! You washing machine.

Speaking of washing machines, Hillary seems stuck in a spin mode of her own, recycling failed collectivist visions of a "shared prosperity." Betsy Newmark explains:

Most Americans don't pay much attention to the news or history so it is often easy for demagogues to mistate economic realities in order to arouse populist angst . . .

It might have been one thing to promote such ideas for sharing wealth a century ago. But we've had a century to see how such policies play out in real life from communist societies to the failing socialist plans in many parts of Europe. Why would anyone want to emulate those policies now with all that historic evidence of how such plans work out in reality? Well, no matter their failures, telling the less well off that they should be getting some of the wealth from those who are better off will always be politically winning rhetoric to the ears of the poor. What such ideas would do overall to economic growth and economic innovation is an entirely different story.

Hillary's rhetoric reveals a person who disdains the individualism that has been at the heart of America since its founding. She prefers a more collectivist approach.

As we wrote in our post "Chatty Hillary" last winter, "It's not that she's a woman. It's not that she's a Clinton. It's her assumption that our own earnings are hers to give or take away that galls, especially in light of her invitation to "chat."

Humor is the best revenge

"The Three Faces of Joe" photomontage triptych of Ambassador Joseph Wilson as The Holy Father (left), Satan (center) and Speaker of Truth to Power from our July 18, 2004 post "That's what lying is."

With apologies to George Herbert, humor is the best revenge. ScrappleFace with his ‘Long National Nightmare’ Over, Bush Pardons Wilson," Lucianne's boy Jonah with "The Joe and Valerie show" and our own true love Bob Tyrrell's "Democrats Found Guilty" lowered our blood pressure big time today with their deep, dark and delicious takes on the big lie that lies at the heart of the Libby trial verdict's apparent reaffirmation among our friends on the left side of the aisle that Bush Lied, People Died.™ As we blogged here the other day, we had Joe Wilson's number way back when. And now, in solidarity with our own take nearly three years back, a republication of "The Father of Lies":

The real Joe Wilson is "a deeply evil human being," says Roger L. Simon.  Photoshop montage of Joe Wilson as Satan

Now that the cover of The Church of Bush Lied™ has been blown, and Father Joe is revealed as The Father of Lies himself, how to understand why he did it?  Why is a man "willing to lie and obfuscate for temporary political gain about a homicidal dictator's search for weapon's grade uranium?" while "John Kerry, The New York Times, even some bloggers are willing to soft-pedal this," as Roger L. Simon puts it. Even as the mystery writer/blogger demurs that he is "only guessing like everyone else," his guess sounds mighty good to us:

But I do have a hunch about this that I have had from practically the first moment I read about it. I think the Wilson/Plame escapade has little or nothing to do with whether Saddam tried to buy uranium of any sort in Niger or anywhere and everything to do with the power struggle between the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department. Wilson's trip to Niger was a charade . . .

What we do know that is important about Wilson is that he opposed the war from the beginning and is an Arabist of the most traditional State Department sort. These people historically have been extremely skeptical of democracy in the Middle East. There is a way to construe that as racist, but it may actually have more to do with good old fashioned greed. Or maybe they are used in a sinister way to perpetuate each other. Whatever it is, they stand for a status quo ante in every sense. Wilson may claim to be a "progressive," but he is an "old boy" at its purest.

Old Boy, yes.  Another nickname for the Author of Evil.

As we wrote in Laura Lee's comments today:

As for the revival of the Joe Wilson cult, I am intrigued with the all-pervasive denial that Lori Byrd observes in our fellow Americans on the left side of the aisle:

"Because Wilson’s version of events became conventional wisdom years ago, liberals have been able to ignore inconsistent and contrary revelations with no repercussions."

The Democrats' recent victory at the polls has only encouraged the pathological self-delusion that floats their leaky boat.

Calling the Sanity Squad!

Chatty Hillary

 

Goldwater Girl Hillary Rodham was the crème de la crème, smarter and savvier sis of two also-ran brothers from a wealthy Chicago suburban family. Hillary! quit the campus Republican party and got religion at Wellesley College, where she famously studied at Saul [ends justify the means] Alinsky's knee. Her thesis, written under his tutelage, was suppressed by Wellesley at her request, and Alinsky is totally absent from her Wikipedia entry. Make of that what you will. Above, in the flower of her youthful beauty (no attribution) left and right as a Wellesley senior in 1969, when her graduation speech made Time mag as she declared "We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living." Aren't we all? Then came Yale Law School and her destiny, Slick WIlly. Immediate, ecstatic and penetrating, indeed.

"I cannot stand this condescending, calculating, manipulative person," writes Bird Dog at Maggie's Farm, exactly capturing our own thoughts and feelings re the woman who would be Leader of the Free World. Centrist Ann Althouse wants to give the person now known in media circles once again as Hillary RODHAM Clinton -- it wasn't long ago that we were expected to call her Hillary! or Hillary Clinton or even Senator Clinton -- another chance. Commenting on the warm and fuzzy "I'm In" video at HillaryClinton.com Ann says:

I think it's a signal of openness -- possibly as an antidote to the disease of calculation that everyone thinks she has and possibly to leave plenty of room to readjust any and all of her policies and proposals.

And let me add that I think she looked fine.

Photoshop montage of Hillary as Ilsa - She Wolf of the SS from our 2004 post "Hillary's Pink Offensive."

Openness, no. We who closely followed the Clinton trajectory through the White House years know what we know. Hillary was bit by the calculation bug way back when. She is a force to be reckoned with, but she's no Margaret Thatcher, as her campaign chairman the cuddly if morally challenged Terry McAuliffe appears to have convinced the London Times' Washington correspondent. But we do agree with Ann that Hillary "looked fine." Beautiful production values, a skillful surgical nip and tuck of the jowels and a well-coached "kinder, gentler" persona made for a fine outing that might impress the impressionable.

"You can get your Marc Jacobs designer tee shirt at Friends of Hillary for only a $555 contribution, plus tax. And, each shirt comes with a specially-produced 'I Hillary' tag sewn inside," went the caption at the now-defunct website of Hillary's 2004 Pink Offensive. We photoshopped her own quotation about "taking things away" from us and her husband's related concern that we might spend our own money "wrong" for dramatic effect.

"Many of you are well enough off that . . . the tax cuts may have helped you," Hillary Rodham Clinton told wealthy supporters back in June of 2004:

We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

As we said in the comments at Ron Rosenbaum's provocatively titled "I Like Hillary Because She's Mean" blogpost at Pajamas Xpress:

What I don't like about "the new Mrs.Thatcher" -- beyond her decidedly unThatcherian politics and lack of any evident core values other than the accumulation of power -- is her condescending, elitist, I-know-better-than-you-what's-best-for-you attitude, as expressed in her shameless admission that "We're going to take your money for the common good." Similar to her husband's "What if you spend YOUR money WRONG?"

"As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism," says Miss Hillary, inviting her fellow Americans to "join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country -- about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures. I am going to take this conversation directly to the people of America, and I'm starting by inviting all of you to join me in a series of web chats over the next few days." Isn't that nice.

It's not that she's a woman. It's not that she's a Clinton. It's her assumption that our own earnings are hers to give or take away that galls, especially in light of her invitation to "chat." Not to mention her assumption that we have abandoned hope.

Update: Pajamas Media links to us and to Professor Bainbridge, who writes:

When you compare key quotations side-by-side, it becomes clear that LadyThatcher was all about liberty and prosperity, while Hillary is all about unions, big government, and high taxes and spending.

Exactly.

"A demoralizing and revolting spectacle"

"This country must conclusively demonstrate that we are not the weak horse" -- the cut-and-run cowards Osama identified in his December, 2001 "Declaration of War Against the Americans" -- wrote James Schlesinger in an Opinion Journal piece way back in April of 2004, warning that "withdrawal before we have successfully stabilized Iraq is, therefore, not an option." With gleeful Democrats and poll-parsing Republicans going for the jugular, the horse stumbles. (Horse Attacked by a Lion by George Stubbs, 1769, Enamel on copper, Tate Collection)

With friends like our sound-bite-spewing national legislators and their fellow travelers in the media, who needs enemies? Osama may not have been able to make the President blink, but it seems our elected representatives have. Bill Kristol explains:

Say you're an average congressman. How do you react to President Bush's Iraq speech? You suspect, deep down, that he's probably doing more or less what he needs to do. We can't just click our heels and get out of Iraq -- the consequences would be disastrous. And the current strategy isn't working. You have said so yourself. Last fall you called for replacing Rumsfeld. You've complained that there weren't enough troops. What's more, you've heard good things about General David Petraeus from colleagues with military expertise. So now Bush has fired Rumsfeld, put Petraeus in command, and sent in more troops. Maybe this new approach deserves a chance to work?

Naaaaw. The nation may be at war, and the President may have --- in effect -- ceded to critics' calls for Rummy's head and more boots on the ground, but appeasement never works. The more you cede, the more they demand. It's never enough. Too little too late? Who knows? We are still hoping -- not a strategy -- that the Administration's revised plan, implemented by his new appointees, will bear fruit. Meanwhile, for Democrats and all too many Republicans inside the Beltway, Kristol writes, first things first:

Look at those polls! And those op-ed pages! You didn't come to Washington to support an unpopular president conducting an unpopular war. And the Bush administration is doing a crummy job of explaining this change in strategy. The path ahead in any case is going to be tough, and the new strategy might fail.

What's your obligation? Certainly not to take responsibility for proposing a real alternative to the president's policy. No way . . . So the Boneless Wonders will push a nonbinding resolution to, as Joe Biden put it, "demonstrate to the president he's on his own." Sure, the resolution will weaken the president's hand abroad -- but that's not their problem. It will lessen the chances of success in Iraq -- but that's above their pay grade.

"It's a demoralizing and revolting spectacle," sighs Kristol.

Update: Laura Lee has a most amusing and profound take on all spectacles "demoralizing and revolting."

Did Obama just call me a racist?

Democrat boy wonder Barack Obama's racist-lite statement to the effect that people with our politics wouldn't vote for an African-American anyway is akin to the fraudulent sexism that would be implied were Hillary to say "Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m a woman? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics." (Unattibuted Hillary photo, left, and Jim Cole AP Photo of Obama pressing the flesh in Portsmouth, NH yesterday)

“Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics,” Barack Obama told ecstatic New Hampshire voters yesterday. Being one of those voters who probably wouldn't vote for him because of his politics, we were naturally offended at his suggestion that people like us are racists. Swept up in the locals' devotional hysteria, however, the media didn't seem to notice. Folks hear what they want to hear. A few tellng snippets from various news reports:

“Obviously it is flattering to get a lot of attention, but I must say it is baffling, particularly to my wife,” Obama quipped.

You don't suppose Oprah's endorsement might have had something to do with it? Naw. There's no question Obama knows how to pour on the charm and make Democrats "feel good about themselves":

“I don’t think he came here with a political speech. He came out to celebrate New Hampshire, and we Democrats have been waiting so long for this,” said Andrea Goldberg, a longtime activist and state human service worker.

“I think he was genuine, charismatic.” . . .

"We are looking for change, a new vision. The election said we want to be different. The kind of call he makes is a lot like Bobby Kennedy,” said Sullivan, who vowed to support Obama if he runs.

An apt comparison. They're looking for a messiah to lead them out of the desert. For a Democrat, from what we've read so far on his "call to pursue an 'American agenda' on health care, education, ethics, energy independence and a quick redeployment of troops from Iraq," Barack Obama seems just the thing to give Hillary nightmares.

Previous takes on Obama here and here (scroll down).

Update: But Hillary's a big girl, and she has "vays." From ahem at Protein Wisdom  comes this bit of wit and wisdom: "It appears Obama is running -- at least, until his lifeless body is found mysteriously in the parking lot behind the DNC headquarters."

Update II: Pajamas Media links.

A reminder to our fans: Vote HERE for sisu daily now through December 15 in the 2006 Weblog Awards!

A most eloquent eulogy for the nation's tragic loss

Britney Spears's crotch comes home to roost. Our site meter stats continue to soar. Yesterday's PajamasMediaLanche has given way to today's CrotchaLanche. But check out the occasional aberration (photos below) for clues to the light at the end of the tunnel.

"When you lose an election, bad things happen," writes Allahpundit at Hot Air, delivering a most eloquent eulogy for the nation's tragic loss this day of the best US Ambassador to the UN you could ever ask for in these days of gathering darkness.

A Google search in our site meter stats for "hampton tollbooth accidents" (midway down the list above) leads to one of our all-time favorite posts, "Baby is our Co-Pilot,"

We speak, of course, of John Bolton, the man with the mustache that repels bullets, who handed in his resignation in the knowledge that a man of no qualities -- Senator Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr. of Delaware, about to wrest the mantle of Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee from Richard Lugar in the wake of the recent unpleasantness at the polls -- would use the power of his office to deny the full Senate, a majority of whom would have voted in favor of Bolton's appointment, a chance to have their say.

Another Google search, this time for "michelangelo-mary and child" (near bottom in site meter list above) leads to "Lacrymosa," where we wrote "While the MSM slept, Michael Yon -- the self-employed, reader-empowered embedded journalist blogger reporting from the front -- captured the spirit of the age in one amateur photograph that has touched the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens in spades."

As we've blogged forever, the totalitarian impulse runs deep and dark in our species, and minority Senators long denied their ability to strut and fret their hour upon the national stage are particularly vulnerable. The coming televised hearings will be unwatchable.

Update: This just in from our totally awesome nephew, Chris:

Click here or on photo above of Paulette Goddard, Bob Hope and whatshisname Richard "I Led Three Lives" Carlson [thanks to commenter Kimsch of Musing Minds for the ID] in the 1940 movie "Ghost Breakers" to learn what a zombie is.

The year was 1940, two years after the appeasing Chamberlain declared "Peace for our time" as Hitler's forces of darkness were closing in. Bob Hope, who would later become the great white hope of American forces all over the world, delivered the punchline of all punchlines, which resonates bigtime in this post-election season of our discontent:

Richard Carlson character: A zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.

Bob Hope character: You mean like Democrats?

Thanks for the memories.

"The senator now says he won't rule out crossing the aisle"

A buffet "Thanksgiving Lite" for twelve -- similar to last year's Thanksgiving feast at Goomp's -- is planned for the next blogmeet of our sub rosa group this Saturday afternoon at Chelsea-by-the-Sea. In preparation, Tiny (above) supervises Tuck's careful dismantling and washing of the 68 removable parts of our Bavarian crystal chandelier. Cleaning protocol: Tuck goes up on a ladder to painstakingly remove each piece: 

Next, he dips each element into a shallow Pyrex dish of water and ammonia (left just beyond image below), brushing to clean off the grime of days. Then he dips individual pieces into a pan of water (bottom left) to rinse and lays them out to dry on kitchen towels.

We'd never observed the musical aspect of the process before, but Tuck has known about it for years. When you dip the tulip-shaped baubles (above center) into the water, they make a glub-glub sound, followed by a whistle as you lift them out. Echoes of Mozart's Adagio for Glass Harmonica -- click here to listen. Click on image below for Tuck's music making on YouTube:

Once the bloggers gather, there'll be more than a glistening chandelier to delight their eye and a groaning board to satisfy their palate. The main course will be lots of impassioned conversation about the topics du jour. The genius of our Founding Fathers, for example, in light of the disappointment of many -- ourselves included -- regarding the recent unpleasantness at the polls. Glenn Reynolds explains that "democracy serves some of the same interests that sex does":

My thought has been that elections play the same role for the body politic that sex plays for the body physical: Every so often, the voters throw the rascals out, and vote in a new set of rascals, meaning that the special interest groups, lobbying outfits, etc., that parasitize the body politic have to adapt to a shifting target . . .

Even though Democrats ran against the "culture of corruption" in Washington -- don't hold your breath. Still, politicians respond to pressure. So if there's sufficient attention to the issue, who knows?

If not, I think that we may see a renewal of pressure, a la Ross Perot, for a third party. And it's possible that technology and the Internet will facilitate the growth of third parties in ways that weren't previously possible. Perhaps having a third party in the mix will enable us to mix things up more. 

As blind paleontologist Geerat Vermeij wrote, "Everyone is affected mostly by their enemies." Joey Lieberman's third-party campaign -- "The senator now says he won't rule out crossing the aisle and joining the Republican party" -- comes to mind. It's Darwinian, my dear Watson.

"The reign of terror, then, is to be transferred to Washington"

From "The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner" at the United State Senate website: "Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking 'a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight -- I mean,' added Sumner, 'the harlot, Slavery.'"  (Caning of Senator Charles Sumner, May, 1856, NY Public Library collection)

"That is a classic Brian Lamb question, and I should have thought to prepare for it," emails the delightful and erudite Senate Historian, Dick Baker, whom we'd caught the other morning on C-Span being stumped by a caller's query re the origin of the expression "lame duck." After a little googling, we came up with a few interesting tidbits and emailed Mr. Baker with our results. Here's what he wrote back:

Many thanks for taking the time to help out with the “lame duck” question . . . I frequently get the question “When was the U.S. Senate first called the `World’s Greatest Deliberative Body’?” The best we can do with that one is to suggest the mid-19th century. After we had moved on to other callers, it occurred to me that the mid-18th century would have been a good guess for the lame duck.  Now, you have confirmed it.  Thank you very much.

For your enjoyment and edification, here's what we found in two separate entries from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Lame duck, originally Stock Exchange slang for "defaulter," is first attested 1761.

Lame-duck was originally (18c.) "any disabled person or thing;" modern sense of "public official serving out term after an election" first recorded 1863 in Amer.Eng., attributed to Vice President Andrew Johnson, in reference to Col. Forney.

Challenged by Mr. Baker's reference to "the world's most deliberative body," we headed out into cyberspace once more for some answers. The best we came up with was the standard issue:

The Senate is regarded as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives; the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms, allowing for a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere that is somewhat more insulated from public opinion than the House.

"As uncivil as Senatorial debate may seem in our day, we've failed to reach the level of the caning of Senator Charles Sumner," we emailed Mr. Baker, adding a bit of polite political rant:

If only we taught our children the all-too-human facts of our own history, they might be more critical of the ahistorical hysteria fed to them daily by an agenda-driven press.

Regarding Senator Sumner, we were referring to a notorious example of deliberative debate described at Mr. Baker's own superb United States Senate website:

On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.

The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state.

This from a Boston Atlas [Republican] editorial at the time:

The reign of terror, then, is to be transferred to Washington, and the mouths of the representatives of the North are to be closed by the use of bowie-knives, bludgeons, and revolvers. Very well; the sooner we understand this the better. If violence must come, we shall know how to defend ourselves. We hope, for the credit of the State, that every man in it will feel this outrage upon Mr. Sumner as a personal indignity, no less than an insult to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and that there will be such a general and spontaneous expression of opinion, as will fully manifest our deep disinclination to submit to any repetition of the contumely.

Mr. Baker's latest response was a corker:   

We considered organizing a Senate-sponsored conference on “civility” in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the Sumner-Brooks affair. The idea elicited only laughter, so we’ll wait for the 200th.

Too bad it was laughed -- nervously? -- off the agenda. A conference on "civility" referencing the Sumner-Brooks affair would be just the thing to lend some much-needed perspective to the overwrought national "debate" in these troubled times. Plus ça change . . .