DUELING HEADLINES
New York Times, June 30, pg. A17: "California, Here Bush Comes, a Moderate on Immigration and Racial Quotas"

Washington Times, same day, pg. A3: "Bush favors ending quotas"

Sounds like George W. Bush is trying to be all things to all people--a "moderate" for the liberal New York Times, and a conservative for the right-leaning Washington Times.

What Bush said: "I support the spirit of no quotas, no preferences. But I think what's important to say is not what you're against--what you're for. I'm for increasing the pool of applicants and opening the door so that more people are eligible to go to the university systems." He added that in Texas, "we are transforming what was heading for a quota system to [one] that is needs-based and on a best-efforts basis to meet an important social need, which is capitalism and ownership in all sectors of all communities."

These comments came in response to a question about whether Bush supported California's Proposition 209, which bans race and sex preferences in public employment, contracting, and university admissions (now there's something to be for). He essentially dodged the question--we still don't know whether he would have supported Prop. 209, as a majority of California voters did in 1996.

Bush should be pressed on this question. Voters in Washington state passed language identical to 209 last year, and Florida may have something like it on the ballot next year. Indeed, there ought to be a federal version of Prop. 209. Until Bush states clearly where he stands on race and sex preferences, headline writers won't be the only people who are confused.

GO GENTLY, PLEASE
The independent counsel law is set to expire at midnight. Although we're tempted to hope Janet Reno will take these final hours to reconsider her decision not to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton-Gore fundraising shenanigans, we say: Good riddance.