I know that James Taranto of "Best of the Web Today" at Opinion Journal is a "neocon," and thus hated even more by those on the ultra-right than the ultra-left.

Still, when the guy nails it, few are better. Yesterday, he discussed Julianne Malveaux's (of USA Today) laughable suggestion that the Democrats beat George W. Bush in 2004 by making government daycare their big issue:

What is this "care crisis"? Well, it seems some parents have trouble finding baby sitters, and although Malveaux does not care for the United States of America ("I don't celebrate the Fourth of July," she said in 2002. "I get up in the morning and read Frederick Douglass's 'The Meaning of the Fourth of July to the Negro' and then I grouse for the rest of the day"), she does trust its government to take care of everyone's children.

Is this a winning issue for the Democrats? Probably not. If the Dems accept Malveaux's recommendation, they will immediately open themselves up to ridicule for seeking a literal nanny state. The potential appeal of this issue, meanwhile, is limited to those voters who have small children--a constituency kept unnaturally small by the "right to choose" beloved by Democrats. And if you've got kids to care for and can't even get a baby sitter, where will you ever find the time to vote?

"A constituency kept unnaturally small..." What a beautiful line.

Incidentally, if Malveaux's name rings a bell, it could be because she's the one who once said of Clarence Thomas on PBS, "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."

Is that "hate speech?" Just curious.