July 26, 2004, 7:00 a.m.
The campaign, a perfect B&B, a perfect woman, &c.

Rejoice — Martha Beatriz Roque, an economist and one of Cuba's most famous dissidents, is free (as much as you can be free in Cuba). She was released from prison last week, having been arrested in Castro's March 2003 crackdown. As she walked out of prison, she said to a Lieutenant Colonel Perdomo, "I am leaving free of conditions. I am a dissident and I will continue being a dissident."

According to the Information Bridge, "Martha Beatriz requested that we extend her gratitude to everyone in the exile community and in the entire world who provided solidarity in her case, adding that it was precisely the effort of the exiles and that of the international community that made possible her release from prison."

Anyway, rejoice.

I have a question: Why doesn't Michael Moore speak at the Democratic convention? I mean, he is now probably the biggest star in the Democratic party. He is nowhere near the fringe; he is at the center of it. President Clinton has all but endorsed his movie. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee has declared his belief in Moore's theory about Afghanistan. You can hardly get a Democrat to say a bad or skeptical word about him.

Michael Moore might be — to borrow a phrase — the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Let him speak!

It has frequently been said that the Left and the Democrats are not so much pro-Kerry as anti-Bush. Well, Mrs. Kerry — or whatever she calls herself — and her son Chris have been wearing a pin that has a black "W" with a red line through it. Is that quite sporting? I mean, what if the wife and children of the Republican nominee wore pins expressing nothing but contempt for the Democratic nominee? Wouldn't the media in general say that was kinda sorta distasteful — or something?

Last week, I had a couple of questions for Kerry — questions I would like posed to him — and many readers wrote with their own questions, the most recurring of which was, "You say life begins at conception: What must you make of abortion, then?"

Turns out that Peter Jennings asked the candidate essentially this question. His answer, or answers, as Jennings continued, were tortured and, in a sad way, hilarious. I'll quote.

Jennings: "You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life begins at conception. What makes you think that?"

Kerry: "My belief, just my, my, my personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process as a, as a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life begins. Something begins to happen. There's a transformation. There's an evolution. Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in. Roe v. Wade has made it very clear what our standard is with respect to viability, what our standard is with respect to rights. I believe in the right to choose, not the government choosing, but an individual, and I defend that."

Jennings: "Could you explain to me: What do you mean when you say 'life begins at conception'?"

Kerry: "Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established — is a test of viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy, and I support that. That is my test. And I — you know, you have all kinds of different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard."

Jennings: "If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?"

Kerry: "No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins. Is it at the point where I would say that you apply those penalties? The answer is no, and I believe in choice. I believe in the right to choose, and the government should not involve itself in that choice, beyond where it has in the context of Roe vs. Wade."

The interview goes on in this vein. And please bear in mind that Bush is supposed to be the stupid and inarticulate one.

Speaking of anchormen questioning Kerry, Dan Rather said to him, "Have you ever had any anger about President Bush, who spent his time during the Vietnam War in the National Guard, running in effect a campaign that does its best to diminish your service in Vietnam? You have to be at least irritated by that, or have you been?"

That is classic Rather. Remember, this is the guy who was so tough on Richard Nixon (among others). But my immediate question is, Has Bush, in fact, been running a campaign "that does it best to diminish [Kerry's] service in Vietnam"? I haven't noticed. And I doubt it.

Plus, did you catch that little shot at Bush and the Guard? What did Dan Rather do during the Vietnam War, beyond harassing those who were trying to win?

I've been hearing the word "progressives" a lot — that's what the Left, or "liberal Democrats," call themselves. Howard Dean says that a "subtext" of his convention speech "will be that the progressive wing of this party needs to support John Kerry." Oh? As opposed to what other wings? And if John Kerry doesn't come out of the "progressive wing" — what does he come out of? I mean, this is not John Breaux. Kerry is barely to the right of Pierre Trudeau.

Of Ralph Nader, Dean says, "He apparently wants to win so badly he is willing to get in bed with the most unseemly folks that progressives everywhere are fighting against." By "unseemly folks," Dean means Republicans — who are mischievously trying to help Nader get on state ballots. I myself think that the Republicans are in bed with unseemly folks — the Naderites.

Or the progressives. Or the Deaniacs.

Whatever.

The Hotline conducted an interview with Andy Hiller, of WHDH in Boston. To the question, "What's the best thing about your job?" Hiller said, "Having the opportunity to give opinions."

That's mainstream journalism, I tell you! What chumps the rest of us are to think we have to join opinion magazines!

I imagine that Howard Dean would call Cynthia McKinney a "progressive." In any case, the Georgia firebrand is back, looking likely to regain her seat in the U.S. House. The New York Sun quoted Rep. Barbara Lee, the hard-Left congresswoman from California: "My constituents in Oakland and Berkeley are anxiously waiting for Cynthia McKinney's return to Congress."

That is one statement by a politician you can absolutely trust!

Think only fellow black radicals support McKinney? Think again. Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio said, "Congress needs a person like Cynthia."

There you go.

In his column, New Republic editor Peter Beinart wrote, "On Tuesday night [of the late-August convention], the Republicans send up Rod Paige, a living testament to the GOP's embrace of affirmative action . . ."

Oh? He seems to me a perfectly ordinary and plausible secretary of education: a lifelong educator, former superintendent of a big-city public-school system (Houston's), a same-stater whom the president trusts . . .

If this is affirmative action, it is certainly less flagrant than the usual.

And about those speakers at the Republican convention — it has been objected (including by NR) that the lineup does not reflect the Republican party, that it is insufficiently conservative.

Remember, however, my dear fellow conservatives: The two biggest speakers in the lineup are Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush.

And when you have the big enchiladas, there is less need to mind the beans (or whatever) on the side.

Speaking of the Republican convention, and the big speeches, particularly Bush's: It is my belief that the president should incorporate something about the Pennsylvania plane and the "Let's roll" spirit. The Democrats and the media will go ape, but they will anyway, no matter what the president says. Do it. It is important, and true — true to this war effort, and inarguably to Bush's conception of it.

Regular readers have heard me complain many times before that "youth" is being extended while adulthood is being delayed, and delayed. Used to be, when you were 20 years old, you were grown — well and grown. Now, you're supposed to be excused like a nine-year-old.

Listen to Douglas Faneuil, speaking to the judge in the Martha Stewart case: "I believe it would have taken an exceptionally brave 26-year-old to prevent all this from happening. Nonetheless, I deeply regret not being that brave."

Oh, gimme a friggin' break. How old was Nathan Hale when he was hanged? How old was Keats when he died?

Give. Me. A. Friggin'. Break.

When reading about something from the 9/11 Commission report, I thought of a bit from Saturday Night Live. I will explain.

We now know that President Clinton was handed a brief on December 4, 1998. It was headed "Bin Ladin [sic] Preparing to Hijack U.S. Aircraft and Other Attacks."

I remember when that Richard Clarke memo to W. became famous. The mock anchorwoman on SNL said something like, "Put down the Game Boy, moron, and do something about this."

Will they be saying the same, in retrospect, about Clinton?

Truth is, neither president was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Of course, ultimately, the terrorists were.

And somebody — namely President Bush — is serious about doing something about them.

Hallelujah.

You may remember the fabulously scandalous Hazel O'Leary, Clinton's secretary of energy. She's now president of Fisk University. According to the AP, she "was escorted off a flight and questioned by the FBI after she became abusive and tried to get into the cockpit while the plane was delayed on the tarmac."

I can see it now (or I think I can).

Geoffrey Wheatcroft is an awfully smart guy, and he writes smart pieces, but there was something smelly in his New York Times op-ed contribution from Saturday.

He wrote, "And even if French cultural chauvinism sometimes has a paranoid tinge, it can't be entirely dismissed, not at least by those of us who think that 'La Règle du Jeu' and 'Les Enfants du Paradis' might on balance be better movies than 'Terminator 3.'"

Now, you and I — and everyone else — could pick really bad, embarrassing French movies and really good, perdurable American movies. What Wheatcroft has done here is cheap, easy, and snarky.

Remind me never, ever to write that way — except in Impromptus, of course — where cheap, easy, and snarky is part — an essential part! — of our game.

Nicholas Gage had his own piece in the Times, about Greece and the Olympics. At one point, he writes, "We [the author plus his wife and daughter] are confident we will be safe because we know the measures that are being taken to provide security for the Games." Two paragraphs later, he writes, "No one can feel safe anywhere these days."

But I'll forgive Gage anything, for having written Eleni — a book that, startlingly, depicts Communists for what they are.

One more something on a New York Times op-ed piece. Yesterday, Barbara Ehrenreich wrote, "But who is prepared to step forward and show Wal-Mart how to coexist with the people of its chosen planet? Certainly not the enablers, like George Will and National Review's Jay Nordlinger, who smear the company's critics as a 'liberal intelligentsia' that favors Williams-Sonoma."

If you would like to read what I wrote about Wal-Mart — and that would be swell — go here (subscription required — and encouraged!). One thing I wrote — just by the by — is, "The roster of Wal-Mart foes includes the following: Democratic politicians, particularly those trying to impress unions; union leaders (while we're on the subject); left-wing pundits; a handful of right-wing pundits, concerned for localism; and arbiters of taste (mainly soi-disant)."

Did you see Anchorman? It's really, really cool, because there's this really, really dumb guy, who's the weatherman on the news team, and at the end of the movie, when they say what everyone did later, they said this guy was an adviser to the Bush administration, because, as we all know, the Bush people are really, really stupid, and this guy is stupid too, and isn't that really cool, because the stupid guy goes on to advise the Bush administration, and Bush is really stupid, and the people who make Hollywood films are not stupid, and isn't that really, really cool? Really cool? I mean, they burned 'im!

(P.S. Enjoyed the movie very much regardless.)

Two letters, and I'll let you go:

"Dear Jay: I've always suspected that liberals tend to be the most intolerant people. What happened today made that crystal clear.

"My wife and I own a bed and breakfast on Amelia Island, Fla. And in the course of our one year here, we've made this place our own, which means National Review on the coffee table and books by Buckley, Coulter, Frum, et al. on the bookshelves in the library.

"Today, a couple walked in here and asked to stay. We happily obliged. But half an hour later, when my wife saw them again, they demanded their money back and said they were going to leave. Shocked, she asked why. Their reply was: 'We own a bookstore and we see lots of offensive books on your bookshelves. This is not a place we'd like to stay [at].'

"'Offensive?' My wife still didn't get it.

"'Yes, offensive. Ann Coulter is just evil.'

"We gave them their money back and let them go. It's best not to have them around to spoil our other guests' jolly good time.

"This particular episode reminded me of a conversation I had with another guest a few days ago. He was delighted to see the 'offensive' publications in our library. A fellow NR subscriber, he nevertheless gave me a warning.

"'I never thought I'd see this stuff at a B&B,' he said.

"'Why not?'

"'I think most of your demographics tend to be affluent, and liberal, people.'

"'You'd be surprised how many conservatives have come through here and complimented my good taste,' I boasted, 'including an Army Ranger who owns a Purple Heart.'

"'That's great to hear,' he winked. 'Good luck to you.'

"He knew something I didn't, obviously. Now, I am perfectly okay with people voting with their wallets. Maybe they think all of our profits (which is nil) go into the Bush re-election campaign and don't want to be an accomplice. Fine. But in a very typical left-liberal way, they have to be indignant, preachy, and, of course, obnoxious about it.

"I guess you can't please everyone — but I certainly will not remove NR from my coffee table. Heck, from now on, I'm just going to try harder to woo conservative travelers. If you tell me you're an NR reader, I'll offer you a discount!"

Signed, Sam Chi, Ash Street Inn, 1-800-277-6660, www.ashstreetinn.net.

You know one of the things I like best about that marvelous letter? That the couple were owners of a bookstore. Of course!

Finally, I received an e-mail with "The most perfect woman in the world" on the Subject line. (I thought it was porn spam.) Our reader writes, "Jay, as God is my witness, there is an ad on Match.com from MissNorway98 (her screen name) who, based on her picture, is absolutely stunning. But the text from her ad stunned me more: 'You will lose points if you suggest we watch Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' I can't think of anything that would turn me off more. Also, if your profile describes you as 'Liberal' or 'Very Liberal,' we are clearly not a Match. I am more concerned about your mind than your body. Big muscles will not impress me, but sincerity and patriotism will. If you oppose the foreign policy of the United States then you are not for me. A guy who believes the United States was wrong to intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq is not for me. America liberated my country from the Nazis, and we have not forgotten."

Well! Do with that what you will!

Happy Democratic Convention Week, or something, and I'll catch you later.