10/24/00 6:00 p.m.
Clinton v. Gore
Clinton burning to be in the spotlight.

By NR's John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru

ast week, Bill Clinton had this to say about George W. Bush's performance in the debates: "I almost gagged when I heard that answer on the patients' bill of rights in Texas. Could you believe that? Here's a guy who takes credit for a bill he vetoed." This, from the president who ended welfare as we know it.

Clinton is, of course, trying to horn his way into the spotlight. No doubt it is frustrating for him not to be the center of attention. But there may be something else at work, too: a deep anger at the notion that Al Gore's campaign is struggling because of an association with his scandals. It was always clear that if Gore lost, it would be Clinton trying to put some distance between the two rather than Gore. If only they'd taken his advice…. Now it appears that Clinton isn't even going to wait for the campaign to be over before he pre-emptively spins a defeat.

Santorum Smeared
Also last week, Republican senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer on the virtues of home schooling: "I hate to say this, but we get to pick who their friends are. We see the difference when they're hanging out with their friends from church and when they're going out into the neighborhood. A little bit different values."

Santorum's opponent, Ron Klink, says that his comment was "repulsive" and "repugnant." He says that Santorum revealed himself to be prejudiced, which raises questions about his ability to treat judicial and ambassadorial nominees fairly. This is either a desperate attempt to revive Klink's failing candidacy — or a desperate attempt to boost minority turnout in Pennsylvania to help Gore.

Liberal Gremlins…
…appear to have made some mischief with NR's website, which today featured a curious argument for Third World debt relief. We are told that America must do "its fair share" "if it truly aspires to be a 21st century world leader" and "to demonstrate that America can once again serve as a shining city on the hill." The alternative is grim: "Otherwise, should America and the other 'haves' turn a deaf ear to the pleas of the world's "have-nots," the 21st century will likely be increasingly plagued by famine, failed states, massive transnational flows of refugees, and growing regional instability."

Well. The IMF and the World Bank are largely responsible for this mess, having lent money to governments of poor countries without enforcing free-market conditions for the loans. If these institutions want to forgive uncollectible debts, that's fine, but it should do so itself and then refrain from lending to these governments again. The current proposal would have these institutions lend the governments yet more money to pay off the old loans. Here we go round the merry-go-round again.