It won’t happen, largely because, er, McCain is a Republican, he would outshine Kerry anywhere he went, and, in the good senator’s own words, “It’s impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk.” But at the same time, you can see why it’s tempting. McCain represents the kind of Republicanism that independents admire and support: fiscally conservative, strong in defense, and yet hostile to the sectarianism of the religious right. But that Republicanism was defeated in 2000 in South Carolina, when George W. Bush unleashed the attack-dogs of the far right. Many of us hoped that Bush would integrate McCainism into the party. He hasn’t. Instead, he has entrenched the fanatics who defeated McCain in the primaries. So the McCain fantasy endures. A Kerry-McCain ticket would steady the nerves of those who worry about Kerry’s defense posture, and McCain could be deputed in office to wrestle with some of the more populist stands he and Kerry support: demonizing the drug companies, for example, or campaign finance reform. can you imagine a McCain-Cheney debate? Priceless. McCain is also a little like Max Cleland, a war hero savaged by the Bush machine. he has every reason to want a little revenge. and it’s a dish always best served really, really cold.
A SAUDI THAW? More evidence of some positive developments in the Arab-Muslim world after the liberation of Iraq.
JAYSON BLAIR GOES FOR IT: So what does Blair do now? What would you do if you wanted the purest, darkest revenge against the newspaper that eventually rejected you? You’d go on Bill O’Reilly and you would describe the New York Times as a den of leftist, ideological conformity in which any dissent from left-liberalism is tantamount to career suicide. You’d confirm the most paranoid critic’s view that the NYT is as objective as a MoveOn ad. Watching the spectacle last night had my jaw drop close to the floor. Can we say chutzpah! Now, as it happens, of course, Blair may have a point. (Although he greatly exaggerates.) But the fact is: Blair would say anything and indeed has said anything to get attention. His credibility on this issue is no different than his credibility on any issue. Sorry, Bill. A liar’s a liar. Even when they might inadvertently stumble onto something close to the truth.
TEN PERCENT: That’s the percentage of Catholic marriages that end in an annulment. At least according to this source. And here are some of the reasons allowed for divorce, I mean, annulment. Here’s another amazing statistic: “American Catholics make up 5% of the world’s Catholic population, but they get 80% of the Catholic world’s annulments.” And then here’s something that Stanley Kurtz should consider:
In the early 1960s, about 300 declarations of nullity came from the United States each year; today that annual figure has grown to over 60,000. By any measure, that is a staggering increase.
I wonder if Kurtz will write an essay blaming the Catholic church for the decline in marriage in America, as he has blamed gays for it in Scandinavia. This one institution has presided over an exponential increase in de facto divorces in the U.S. in the last forty years. And getting an annulment really isn’t that hard: 90 percent of applications for annulments are granted. Maybe Kerry didn’t need any extra influence at all! It’s the Catholic church that has opened the door wide to the decline of religious marriage in America. So where’s National Review on this one? 60,000 Catholic annulments for straights a year, and NRO devotes all its energies to gays? Frankly, I do not believe that annulment is such an awful thing. It may be humane in many cases. But it’s important to note that even the Catholic church, which claims to have absolute standards on questions such as marriage, makes exceptions to its rules for the human beings it ministers to. But only if they’re straight.
The Dish 