Back from a trip to a country where American news do not make headlines, I was happy to be home after eleven hours spent in an airplane as comfortable as a cattle truck. But, here I am, sitting in front of my laptop, livid at some recent developments in our domestic politics. Sleaze!

First, there is the Torricelli affair. The Torch, as he is called, dropped out of the New Jersey senatorial race thirty-five days before the election because he had no hope of winning. And there was this surveillance tape of a convenience store where he had met Mr. Chang, compromising witness and participant in a flagrant case of bribery. It seems that The Torch and people in his party tried to intimidate Mr. Chang, perhaps to persuade him to change his testimony. Torricelli for a while maintained that he was just buying a bottle of milk and that Chang was there by chance. This was rather lame or arrogant or both, but not surprising, as we are by now used to such sleaze on the part of elected officials of Democrat disposition. In a teary statement where he evoked his "public service" and, for unknown reasons, some conversation he had with Mr. "I feel your pain" Clinton, Torricelli announced his retirement from the forthcoming election, hinting that it was the honorable thing to do or something to that effect. "Honorable" my foot! When this sort of politician mentions anything having to do with honor or righteousness, a strident alarm should ring in the brain of every American citizen. Torricelli actually dropped out of the senatorial race because he was losing it in big ways, and because losing that race could have big consequences on the senate composition. The New Jersey Democrat machine then moved swiftly to repair the damage by finding a substitute candidate in the person of Frank Lautenberg, former senator, and by filing a petition to the state supreme court to authorize this late replacement, which may not be legal less than fifty-one days away from the election.

Lawyers, who by training can always convincingly argue all sides of a case, say that the New Jersey supreme court’s decision could go either way, but probably would fall on the Democrat side because of its political composition—four of its members are Democrats, among whom two contributed to Torricelli’s campaign. The Republicans are poised to appeal to the US supreme court in case the decision would not conform to election laws. The question then arises whether the US supreme court would hear the case, which would have to be interpreted as a federal matter. Again, some lawyers can convincingly argue both sides of this question, but it is probable that the Democrats will lose in the end, based on the principle that courts are not supposed to change election laws they do not like. Now, the best we can hope for the country’s good—faith in the system is at stake—is either that the substitution does not take place, or that disgusted New Jersey voters elect the Republican candidate. Otherwise, the Democrats have it all sewed up: think that within a year Lautenberg, who is seventy-eight, could announce that he must resign for health reasons. Well, the New Jersey governor then appoints a Democrat replacement who disposes of a good five years firmly to secure a second term by bringing to the state as much pork as necessary. If the Democrats still run the senate, the leadership will provide ample support.

These shenanigans, clever as they are—some pundits will surely call them "brilliant politics"—are breaking new ground in sleaziness. The model is simple: a candidate who fears losing an election can just drop out to be replaced with a better prospect at the last minute. This is subversion of election law. But subversion in general has long been a Democrat strategy. Recently, the senate majority leadership has done all it could to sabotage the Bush administration. Appointments of judges and other officials are turned down based on ideological criteria that totally disregard any measure of respect for presidential prerogatives. The creation of the Homeland Security Department has been put on hold because objections of the federal employees’ union to sensible compromises have been given precedence over effectiveness of operation. And then, there is the constant scare propaganda about Social Security and the environment, and the lies about the motives of administration officials. This is politics at its crassest. Daschle and Gephardt call that "debate" and invoke the right to disagree. But there is no true debate, only a desperate quest for power that has taken the shape of a vicious, take-no-prisoners political war. Only ten days ago or so, Daschle campaigned for Torricelli with the full knowledge of his misdeeds, because keeping control of the senate, even by supporting a corrupt candidate, was the paramount objective. That is not new. The same hunger for power at all costs kept in office a disgraced president who behaved like a guttersnipe, lied publicly, and perjured himself in a court of law.

Predictably, that Torricelli in the end got away with bribery was blamed in certain quarters not on the senate Ethics Committee or the senate, but on the Justice Department and the president for not having filed charges. This is pure demagogy. Going after The Torch would have played well in the hands of the Democrats, who could have claimed to be victims of a political ploy on the part of Republicans eager to regain control of the senate. In the current climate of political war, the Bush administration did well not to intervene. There is no need at this time for distractions such as the sort of circus that accompanied Clinton’s impeachment proceedings.

Actually, this political war took a new turn a few days ago. Democrat Representatives Bonior, McDermott, and Thompson announced to the world from Baghdad that Saddam Hussein’s assurances to comply with UN resolutions had to be taken at face value, and that our president’s case against the Iraqi dictator might well be less than candid. To support their claim on the latter point, they added that past American presidents had lied to get their ways, and cited in particular Lyndon Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Impugning Mr. Bush’s integrity based on Johnson’s duplicity is quite a stretch, but it is well in line with other efforts to upset the Republican administration. These inflammatory statements of course provided aid and comfort to the enemy, which on the part of members of the government trespassed on treasonable terrain. Did anyone in the Democrat party condemn such deportment? No one did. Were there apologies? There was instead the usual blather about the right to disagree, the need to debate, and so on and so forth. But such debate over policy disagreements could have been conducted as well in the halls of Congress. So, why Baghdad? Could it be that the congressmen just foolishly expressed sincere—albeit erroneous—convictions from being hoodwinked by Saddam? I think not. They are not birdbrained Jane Fondas. Theirs was a calculated political move to undermine President Bush’s efforts to build a coalition. Its staging in Baghdad aimed to secure international attention with maximum effect on the European fence-sitters.

Any success of the Bush presidency is intolerable to the Democrat Party and its aspiring dictators. Gephardt, Daschle, Gore, and their minions are engaged in a scorched-earth war against whomever stands in their way, placing their political ambitions above honor, duty, and country. If America is still America, trashy politics will eventually doom the Democrat Party to irrelevance, and that will be only justice. I can hardly wait for that day.