The Corner

The one and only.

The Latest Tweets from Team NRO . . .

Veteran Angry at Hagan for Sending His Health Records to the Wrong Person


A North Carolina veteran is angry that someone in Democratic senator Kay Hagan’s office sent his private health records to another person.

“This wasn’t gotten over the Internet,” Kenneth D. White told a local ABC affiliate. “This was sent from the U.S. government. That’s all my personal medical records, all my personal information — sent to another individual. I’m appalled and I’m very upset about that.”

Hagan’s office instead sent the requested records to a man named Kenneth A. White. Both men agreed that her apology for the “clerical error” downplayed the “huge mistake,” as Kenneth D. White put it.

“When you send out a soldier’s information to another person,” Kenneth A. White concurred, “that’s not a mistake.”

The report came out Monday. Hagan didn’t have to explain the mix-up in person, Tuesday evening, because she skipped the final Senate debate with Republican state-house speaker Thom Tillis.

“The empty chair in Kay Hagan’s place tonight is symbolic of her record of failing the people of North Carolina in the U.S. Senate, where they’ve seen Hagan’s empty chair at crucial hearings on the threats of ISIS and Ebola as well as over half of her Armed Services Committee hearings on national security,” Tillis campaign manager Jordan Shaw said after the debate.

Ottawa on Lockdown after Canadian Parliament Attacked, Soldier Shot


The Canadian capital of Ottawa erupted in chaos Wednesday morning, after a soldier was shot at a famous war memorial and at least one gunman fired dozens of rounds inside the Canadian parliament.

Security personnel cordoned off the city’s government center, urging citizens to evacuate as they moved into the building. Parliament was reportedly in session when the gunman entered, but authorities say Prime Minister Stephen Harper was spirited away to safety. The wounded soldier has reportedly been taken to a nearby hospital.

Police are also reporting other attacks, including one at a nearby hotel, and they are searching for multiple suspects. One suspect is reportedly dead, while others remain at large.

The incident comes two days after an Islamic State sympathizer in Quebec ran down two Canadian soldiers with his car, killing one and wounding another. The suspect was killed by police after a brief car chase. 


Soft Metal Thinking


Senators Mark Warner (D., Va.) and Mark Begich (D., Alaska), both up for re-election next month, say they want to change Obamacare, most importantly by adding a new “copper plan” to the exchanges. Over at Bloomberg, I argue that this proposal won’t do much to address any of the objections to the law.

Web Briefing: October 24, 2014

Charlie Baker Leading for the First Time in Mass. Gov Tracking Poll


The Republican candidate for Massachusetts governor, Charlie Baker, leads his Democratic opponent for the first time in the state’s weekly tracking poll, conducted by NPR station WBUR. Baker is up 43–42 on the state’s attorney general, Martha Coakley — a slim lead and well within the margin of error, but the first lead he’s held in the poll (as an aside: of course Massachusetts’s biggest poll is conducted by an NPR affiliate).

This isn’t a fluke: The director of the poll notes, “It’s one of several polls which over the last week or so have shown a movement toward Baker. Coakley has essentially been treading water while Baker’s been climbing.” Baker trailed by three poitns in the previous WBUR poll.

Michael Cowett wrote about Baker’s chances for NRO this week, pointing out that he’s made some inroads with Democrats and urban voters that might give him a chance to triumph this time, after losing to Deval Patrick (a vastly better candidate than Coakley) four years ago. The WBUR poll director noted similar trends: Baker has shrunk Coakley’s 21-point lead in the poll among voters from Boston and 26 Massachusetts cities down to nine points, and Coakley’s share of the Democratic vote has remained stuck around the high 60s.


Debate Audience Laughs at Shaheen for Refusing To Say She Supports Obama


A New Hampshire Senate debate audience broke into laughter on Tuesday after Democrat Jeanne Shaheen refused to provide a yes or no answer when asked whether she supports President Obama.

During a debate with Republican Scott Brown, the Democratic senator was asked whether she approves of the job Obama is doing. “Now, there’ll be a chance to follow up,” reporter Alison King said, “but this is a yes or no answer. Do you approve, yes or no?”

“In some ways I approve, in some things I don’t approve,” Shaheen replied, as the audience cracked up. “Like most questions we deal with as policy makers, there aren’t simple answers, yes or no.”

When King continued to press Shaheen, the senator moved on to talking about a prison she helped re-open, arguing it created jobs in New Hampshire.

As in many battleground states, President Obama is deeply unpopular in New Hampshire. The race between Shaheen and Brown has tightened in recent days, with the Democratic senator maintaining a slim lead. Shaheen has been criticized for voting for the president’s position in the Senate almost 100 percent of the time.

Later in the debate, Shaheen was asked if she would back Nevada senator Harry Reid for another term as majority leader if Democrats retain control of the Senate. She once again dodged, drawing more laughs:

She said she didn’t know whom her caucus would select and was open to multiple senators vying for the position. But when asked whom else she might support, Shaheen refused to speculate.

Following the debate, local NBC affiliate WHDH political analyst Andy Hillier gave the victory to Brown, saying that Shaheen “lost the debate” due to her defensiveness on President Obama.

“This is the kind of debate that can change votes,” Hillier concluded. “I don’t know how many votes it will change, but if I’m right, and Scott Brown was the winner, then this very close race will get even closer.”

An Update on Obama’s Evolution


Now he thinks the marriage policy he publicly favored at the start of 2012 is unconstitutional.

Worth Keeping an Eye On


Friendly Advice to Internet Austrians


Ben Southwood suggests not labeling every idea that strikes you as misguided as Keynesian. (H/t Scott Sumner.) I’ve tried to make the same point before, and Josh Hendrickson is worth reading on related matters.

Coburn: NIH Wasted Research Money on Massages for Rabbits


Senator Tom Coburn’s annual Wastebook, a review of questionable government spending projects, comes at a bad time for the National Institute of Health, the head of which recently attributed the Ebola crisis in part to a lack of funding for vaccine research.

Rabbits received Swedish-style massages in a taxpayer-funded study, the Oklahoma Republican points out, in order to learn about how the massages might affect athletes attempting to recover from injuries.

“Taxpayer dollars that could have supported potentially more transformative research were instead spent on exercise and massage equipment for rabbits,” Coburn’s report says. “As for the rabbits, they were eventually euthanized, so while well massaged, those feet were not so lucky after all.”

Coburn’s report quotes the Ohio State University Sports Medicine co-medical director who led the project as saying that the researchers “tried to mimic Swedish massage [for the rabbits.]”

“It’s the most popular technique used by athletes,” Dr. Thomas Best said. The project cost $387,000 over a two-year period.

NIH spent almost that much money researching the relationship between mothers and their dogs.

“Mothers have the same reaction when looking at photos of their dogs as they do to those of their own kids, according to recent government-funded research published this year,” the report notes. “Two of the scientists performing the study received a combined total of $371,026 from the National Institutes of Health this year, money intended for work in addiction research.”

Coburn’s report comes days after an NIH official said that the director of the agency shouldn’t have claimed that taxpayer-funded researchers “probably would have had a vaccine [for Ebola] in time for this” in the absence of budget cuts.

“You can’t say that,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NBC on Sunday. “I think you can’t say we would or would not have this or that. Everything is slowed down. But I wouldn’t make that statement.”

The report chronicles hundreds of other abuses of taxpayer money, such as the $50 million spent by 13 agencies on administrative leave for employees, many of whom were placed on leave due to alleged misconduct. 

“A police officer for the National Institutes of Health was placed on paid administrative leave in June after pulling a loaded gun on a motorist during a fit of road rage,” the report notes.

The more-famous Lois Lerner, the former IRS official who apologized for the “inappropriate” targeting of tea-party groups before the 2012 election, “collected nearly $50,000 during the four months” on leave, according to Coburn’s report.

NYT Editorial Board Shakes Fist at the Heavens


It’s rare I encourage NRO readers to check out a New York Times editorial, but this one is too delicious. The Times is furious at Democratic Senate candidates for their refusal to embrace Barack Obama. A few excerpts:

The panicky Democratic flight away from President Obama — and from some of the party’s most important positions — is not a surprise. Mr. Obama remains highly unpopular among white voters, particularly in Southern states where candidates like Ms. Nunn, Ms. Grimes and several others are struggling to establish leads. But one of the reasons for his unpopularity is that nervous members of his own party have done a poor job of defending his policies over the nearly six years of his presidency, allowing a Republican narrative of failure to take hold.

Few voters know that the 2009 stimulus bill contributed heavily to the nation’s economic recovery, saving and creating 2.5 million jobs. Not a word of it is spoken on the campaign trail, where little credit is also given to the White House for months of promising economic news.

Similarly, the Affordable Care Act, one of the most far-reaching and beneficial laws to have been passed by Congress in years, gets little respect even among the Democratic candidates who voted for it. Though none support the Republican position of repeal, most talk about the need to “fix” the health law, as if it were a wreck alongside the road rather than a vehicle providing millions of people with health coverage. . . .

Many of these candidates are running in difficult political environments and are being careful about what they say or don’t say in hopes of preserving Democratic control of the Senate. They run the risk, though, of alienating important constituencies who prefer a party with a spine, especially black voters, who remain very supportive of Mr. Obama. By not standing firmly for their own policies, Democrats send a message to voters that the unending Republican criticism of the president is legitimate. There is much that is going right in this country, and there is still time for Democrats to say so.

A few points worth making. First, about those darn southern whites. As Steve Hayes noted on Twitter earlier this morning, the New York Times’ own poll found that Obama is unpopular in 43 states. It’s true, he’s popular in New York, but just barely. But that still leaves quite a few non-southern states. What I find particularly amusing about the editorial is how backward-looking it is. Bill Clinton always used to say elections are about the future, but the Times can’t let go of the past — and thinks its dyspepsia is a font of good campaign advice. Really? You want Democrats to talk about the stimulus? There have been two congressional elections since then. If voters feel like the economy is doing poorly, talking about an unpopular move to fix the economy five years ago doesn’t seem to me like a great piece advice. Talk more about Obamacare? The Times seems to share Obama’s view that if you just keep saying the American people are wrong for not liking the thing, they’ll eventually come to their senses. Indeed, the whole editorial reminds me of researchers screaming at the dumb dogs for not liking the dog food.

I don’t hold much of a brief for the Democratic Senate candidates, but something tells me that Mark Pryor, Mark Begich, and Mary Landrieu know a hell of a lot more about what makes for good politics in their states than the folks at the Times

R.I.P., Ben Bradlee, Although a Paper Is Not a ‘Public Trust’


As you have no doubt seen, legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee has died at the age of 93. Bradlee, who led the Post’s newsroom from 1965 until 1991, was a towering figure in the history of 20th-century journalism, and his contributions included overseeing coverage of Watergate and the publication of the Pentagon Papers, as well as what may have been his most lasting contribution — the introduction of the Post’s widely imitated (and often equaled or surpassed) “Style” section.

My impression of Bradlee is formed almost entirely by Jason Robards’ portrayal of him in Alan J. Pakula’s 1976 film All the President’s Men, which I believe is second only to His Girl Friday among great journalism movies. I have no particular insights on Bradlee, and while many people my age credit President’s Men with inspiring them to go into journalism, for me the reporting touchstone was (and remains) Kolchak: The Night Stalker. The Post has a fine obituary and Howard Kurtz has a good retrospective. (Interestingly, Kurtz counts indifference to suburban reporting as one of Bradlee’s vices, though in my experience — reading the Post more than 20 years after Bradlee’s departure — the paper’s two brightest editorial points are that its Virginia coverage is pretty good and its Redskins coverage is the best treatment of a local team by any paper in the country.)

President Obama Awards Presidential Medal Of Freedom; November 20, 2013 Win McNamee, Getty Images

President Obama weighed in on Bradlee’s death Tuesday night, and it’s a perfectly fine presidential statement. (I will not quibble at these proceedings over the self-dealing in Obama’s praising a paper so far to the left it actually made me say out loud, “Jesus Christ, I thought the L.A. Times was full of commies” when I got here a few years back.)

For Benjamin Bradlee, journalism was more than a profession – it was a public good vital to our democracy.  A true newspaperman, he transformed the Washington Post into one of the country’s finest newspapers, and with him at the helm, a growing army of reporters published the Pentagon Papers, exposed Watergate, and told stories that needed to be told – stories that helped us understand our world and one another a little bit better.  The standard he set – a standard for honest, objective, meticulous reporting – encouraged so many others to enter the profession.  And that standard is why, last year, I was proud to honor Ben with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  Today, we offer our thoughts and prayers to Ben’s family, and all who were fortunate to share in what truly was a good life.

Every time I hear the phrase “public trust” or “public good” used in reference to newspapers, I rip up one of those environmentally incorrect plastic bags our excellent delivery lady puts the papers in. Newspapers in free societies are not, and never have been, public trusts. They are for-profit enterprises, and the use of the phrase “public good” around political corridors and publishers’ offices (even in today’s newsrooms, reporters are still realistic enough to avoid that kind of palaver) is always cover for either 1) pushing an obvious political agenda; 2) pleading for a public or private bailout of a dying medium (one which has already spent more than a century agitating to rig local and federal laws in its own favor); or 3) refusing to publish content that people actually want to read. I never met Bradlee, and I suspect this grandiose notion of the news media probably passed through his head a time or two. But he clearly had a strong sense of a good story, which will always be the most important thing in news.

Tags: Media

The West Wins, In Spite of Itself


From my most recent NRO article, about some fortunate developments for U.S. foreign policy: “The Saudi oil-price offensive is the chief explanation for Russia’s sudden retreat from the Ukrainian border, and if Iran does not mend its ways, its economic condition will, in Hillary Clinton’s infamous threat, become crippling’​after all. This development coincides with the United States’s quiet strengthening of Israel’s ability to destroy the Iranian nuclear program from the air, on the condition that no such attack can be undertaken without American agreement (giving Washington plausible deniability).”

Whether you agree or disagree, your comments are, as always, most welcome.

SB Won’t See


The College Fix:

A campus lecture by embattled conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza slated for Tuesday night at the University of California-Santa Barbara was abruptly canceled after the judge overseeing D’Souza’s probation for his campaign finance law violation rescinded permission for the pundit to speak.

John Bolton Backs Eleven More GOP Candidates


Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton has endorsed eleven more Republican candidates running for election in the U.S. House of Representatives in various states. Bolton’s political-action committee is supporting candidates with hawkish foreign-policy positions, and his PAC’s work is seen as an effort to counter the non-interventionist foreign policy championed by Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) and other libertarian-leaning Republicans.

Bolton has made donations of $2,500 to $10,000 to each of the following newly endorsed candidates:

Representative Michael McCaul (TX-10): $2,500
Bruce Blakeman (NY-4): $5,000
Representative George Holding (NC-13): $5,000
Rick Allen (GA-12): $5,000
Representative Chris Smith (NJ-4): $2,500
Tom MacArthur (NJ-3): $5,000
Darlene Senger (IL-11): $5,000
Carlos Curbelo (FL-26): $10,000
Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-2): $5,000
David Young (IA-3): $10,000
Representative Tim Walberg (MI-7): $5,000

Bolton has contributed $465,000 total to the 86 candidates he has backed in the midterm elections. The full list of candidates Bolton has endorsed can be found here.  

Krauthammer’s Take: Dems’ Midterm Strategy Is ‘Total Humiliation for Obama. . . and He Can’t Take It’


Democratic candidates want nothing to do with President Obama, and, says Charles Krauthammer, “he can’t take it.”

“This is a guy who six years ago had a worship service at a Denver stadium, being cheered by people while he was behind Greek columns. A few weeks earlier, he had been the hero of 200,000 Germans in Berlin,” Krauthammer observed on Special Report. “Here was a man, as Rich Lowry said earlier, bestriding the world. He was a citizen of the world, the most interesting, most sought-after political rock star on the planet. And now he’s got to hide under his desk until November.”

Statements like the president’s yesterday “pop out” because “this is a total humiliation for him and every once in a while he can’t take it.”

Russian Hide and Seek


Is a Russian submarine lurking in Swedish waters?

The BBC:

Naval vessels searching Swedish waters for a suspected foreign submarine are focusing on a bay near the capital Stockholm on the fifth day of the biggest such operation in years. Ships equipped to detect submarines are among at least five vessels searching Ingaro Bay. One Swedish newspaper said that a ship had “made contact” but there was no official comment on the report. Russia has denied that any of its vessels are involved. A Russian oil tanker has been sailing in international waters nearby, raising suspicion that it was there to help a submarine in difficulty.

This sort of thing used to happen from time to time during the Cold War, most famously on the entertaining occasion when a Soviet Whiskey-class submarine ran aground on the rocks near the naval base at Karlskrona, Sweden’s largest.

Then the embarrassment was Moscow’s. Now it is Stockholm’s.

Foreign Policy:

In carrying out their search, the Swedish authorities are being severely hampered by their lack of sonar-equipped helicopters. Because the Stockholm archipelago is a dense island landscape, it has become something of a notorious playground for submarines, which have ample natural features behind which to hide and evade surface vessels. Unlike ships moving on the surface, helicopters have a distinct advantage in tracking down submarines, which have great difficulty monitoring aircraft while underwater. A helicopter can quickly cover large areas, surprising submarines by dropping sonar sensors. But Sweden’s fleet of anti-submarine helicopters were phased out in 2008, and the replacement isn’t expected until 2018.

Sweden’s recently departed center-right government, and more specifically its enthusiastically europhile foreign minister Carl Bildt, used to make something of a specialty of tough foreign-policy talk, expressions of concern (most notably on Ukraine) and the projection of the EU’s soft power.

But soft power is generally more effective when backed up by a cudgel in the back pocket, something that the Swedes forgot. The strategic climate in the Baltic region has been deteriorating for some years, but very little was done to restore defense spending: carelessness and complacency ruled. That’s worth remembering when re-reading some of Mr. Bildt’s fine words over Ukraine.

And now, delightfully, it is left to Sweden’s new center-left government to sort out the mess, a job for which it is not, perhaps, the most natural candidate.

The Financial Times explains:

Sweden’s prime minister pledged to increase spending on defence in Thursday’s budget as the Nordic country’s search for a foreign submarine entered a fifth day.

Sweden’s new centre-left government has been placed in an awkward situation by the chase for the submarine – presumed to be Russian – as it is firmly against NATO membership and wants to focus more on co-operation with the UN rather than partnership with the western military alliance.

Co-operation with the U.N.?

Oh dear.

Trust Your Stuff, GOP


When a baseball pitcher is trying too hard, his manager will walk out to the mound and say, “Trust your stuff.” What this means is: Rely on what got you this far in the first place; understand that the speed, movement, and control (collectively, “stuff”) of your pitching is good enough to get batters out; don’t overthrow in an attempt to squeeze out an extra mile-per-hour or two or another half-inch of break; don’t try too hard to hit a precise spot. Just rear back and throw the ball, and good things will happen.

That’s the spirit that Republicans need to keep in mind over the next two weeks, and going into 2016. Trust your conservative message to be strong enough to win votes from the large fraction of Americans who value freedom, prosperity, security, and family; don’t oversell it, and don’t try to craft specific appeals to this group or that gender or such-and-such a demographic. A candidate who microtargets his campaign message is like a pitcher who focuses too hard on hitting the corners, and the solution is the same: Rear back and fire. Clumsy attempts at targeted legislation and tax breaks will only dilute our message.

The Republican party, and conservatism in general, aren’t built for identity politics; that’s the Democrats’ game. As I wrote a year ago:

Try to translate all this into Republican terms and you’ll see the main structural weakness of the GOP: Since our principles are opposed to identity politics, we don’t have any powerful, well-defined identity groups to logroll for each other. There’s only one group that benefits strongly and directly from Republican policies, and its members won’t be able to vote for 18 years.

The flip side of this is that since conservatism supports what’s best for the nation as a whole, everyone who isn’t a gung-ho member of a Democratic client group is a potential Republican voter — just as long as we trust our stuff and don’t mess it up by getting too fancy.

Colorado Man Offers to Buy Mail-In Ballots for $5 Each


The fun has begun in Colorado, where a new law has loosened an avalanche of mandatory mail-in ballots. With polling booths there having gone the way of wooden skis, a so-called “honor” system assumes that eligible people, and no one else, will complete their own ballots.

This touchingly naïve — if not deliberately permissive — new arrangement suddenly has come under scrutiny, thanks to Brian Dorsey of Pueblo, Colorado. He posted a jaw-dropping item on Facebook announcing that he was “ISO” or “In search of…mail in ballots…$5 each.” He offered to “BARTER, SELL, AND BUY, NO RULES.”

After incensed Facebook readers complained, Colorado authorities sprang into action. Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert Ortiz informed the local sheriff who dropped in on Dorsey.

“The man did admit to posting the comment, but said he was just joking and poking fun at mail in ballots, something he’s against,” according to NBC affiliate KOAA-TV. Court papers indicate that Dorsey “did not have any extra ballots, so no arrest was made.”

  So, Dorsey got the heat off his back by saying that he only was joking. (Remember that, for future reference.) What if the sheriff had not shown up? One week from today, would Dorsey be laughing about his hilarious little “joke,” or would he be wading knee-deep in mail-in ballots? Would he just stare at them or fill them out to benefit his favorite politicians? Would he stack these ballots in little piles or retail them to some campaign operative eager to give a candidate that extra smidgen of support that could mean victory in a skin-tight vote tally?

Such questions are the necessary result of the growing abandonment of traditional polling-place voting on Election Day. This new mail-in-ballot law is the spawn of Colorado’s Democratic legislature and its Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper. Like other liberals, they seem hell-bent on distributing ballots promiscuously while being prudish about allowing oversight to assure that votes only are cast by eligible citizens who are who they say they are.

While Colorado officials argue that verifying signatures on mail-in ballots will curb potential fraud, others find this claim far funnier than Brian Dorsey’s brand of electoral comedy.

“A perpetrator does not have to match the voter’s signature,” says Marilyn Marks of the Rocky Mountain Foundation, which promotes ballot security and clean elections. “If you found my ballot in the trash, you could scrawl Marilyn Marks on the signature line – and have no idea of my signature — and then ‘witness’ it with ‘John Doe,’ and it is exempt from signature verification. Seriously.”

Into the mail such a phony ballot would go, ready to be counted with and nullify a legitimate ballot that deserves to respected and tabulated.

Election Day once was sacrosanct. People got out of their chairs, donned their clothes, went to the polls, and cast their ballots in a solemn, national civic ritual. Watchful precinct workers at least tried to confirm that voters were who they purported to be. On Election Night, we all saw the votes canvassed and learned who would lead the public affairs of our cities, states, and nation.

In too many places today, this has devolved into Election Month. Like umpires deciding a tied baseball game in the seventh inning, early voting encourages Americans to submit their ballots, even before final debates have concluded and closing campaign ads have aired.

People in beanbags with towels around their waists can vote at home on mail-in ballots. Whether they actually cast their own ballots is a mystery, as there are no precinct workers to greet them and judge whether anything seems amiss. These ballots get popped in the mail or — in Colorado — dropped into unsupervised collection boxes. In that state, local journalists give updates every few days as to which party has returned the most ballots. Rather than learn the results on Election Night, voters see a running score, as if choosing one’s United States senator, congressman, and governor were a ball game.

This is called defining elections down.

— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

ISIS Sympathizer Kills One Canadian Soldier, Wounds Another in Hit-and-Run Attack


A suspected Islamic State sympathizer whose passport was revoked by Canadian authorities ran down two Canadian soldiers in a Quebec parking lot on Monday, killing one and wounding another in what the Canadian government now believes was an Islamist-inspired attack.

The now-deceased Martin Rouleau waited two hours outside Canadian veterans building before slamming into the two soldiers, the Toronto Star reports. The homegrown jihadist then led police officers on a brief car chase, losing control of his vehicle and landing in a ditch. Rouleau was shot after climbing out of his overturned vehicle and confronting the officers, and died soon after in the hospital.

The Canadian government knew Rolueau had been “radicalized,” putting him on a list of 90 individuals in the country being actively monitored by police. They also pulled his passport, hoping to stop the wannabe jihadist from traveling to join Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria. 

On Tuesday, Canadian authorities broke the news that the attack was likely inspired by Islam, saying the attacker was motivated by a “terrorist ideology.”

“This is a terrible act of violence against our country, against our military, against our values,” Blaney said.

Authorities are still investigating whether the attack is part of a broader plot. Security has been beefed up at Canadian military installations nationwide. 

R.I.P. Oscar de la Renta


Pat Buckley, with one of the designers who made her look good; Oscar de la Renta, with one of the ladies who made him look good.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review