Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

FRIDAY,  APRIL 30,  2010

HMM, INTERESTING, NOT A LIBERAL IDEOLOGUE – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  The president is mulling candidates for the Supreme Court:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Obama has accelerated his search for his next Supreme Court nominee, meeting in the Oval Office with one of the candidates, federal Judge Sidney Thomas of Montana, a person familiar with the conversation says.

Mr. Obama's meeting with Judge Thomas on Thursday was his first known formal interview for the upcoming vacancy on the court. He is holding conversations with other candidates, and it is not clear whether he has already had other personal meetings with contenders...

...the personal time Mr. Obama devoted to Judge Thomas suggests that the federal judge, well respected within legal circles but hardly a familiar name in Washington, is under a higher level of consideration by the president.

And...

The court is dominated by justices with ties to the Northeast and the Ivy League; Judge Thomas' career is rooted in the West -- he lives in Billings, Mont., and earned his bachelor's degree from Montana State University and his law degree from the University of Montana.

And...

The 56-year-old judge serves on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the largest of the nation's appellate courts. He was nominated to that job in July 1995 by President Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate with no controversy.

The San Francisco-based appeals court on which he serves has a liberal reputation, but attorneys who know Judge Thomas describe him as independent and a straight-shooter.

COMMENT:  We'll wait for a more complete analysis of how straight a shooter he is.  But, on balance, he'd probably be as good as it gets for an Obama appointee.

April 30, 2010     Permalink

PART OF BRITAIN IS NUTS – AT 7:48 P.M. ET:  Since we're on the subject of Britain – see post just below – the screwball thinking that goes on there never ceases to amaze, especially in the one-gloried realm of British justice.  From the Daily Mail:

A Muslim protester who daubed a war memorial with graffiti glorifying Osama Bin Laden and proclaiming 'Islam will dominate the world' walked free from court after prosecutors ruled his actions were not motivated by religion.

Tohseef Shah, 21, could have faced a tougher sentence if the court had accepted that the insults - which included a threat to kill the Prime Minister - were inspired by religious hatred.

Wait, now wait.  I went to school.  You went to school.  We all studied English.  Would someone explain to me how the line, "Islam will dominate the world" is not inspired by religious hatred, when jointed with a threat to murder the prime minister?  Was this an oblique way of saying, "We love the Christians"?

Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Parliamentary Counter Terrorism sub-committee, said: 'This is an outrage against our war dead.'

Shah sprayed the words 'Islam will dominate the world - Osama
is on his way' and 'Kill Gordon Brown' on the plinth of the memorial in December.

He was arrested after his DNA was found on the discarded spray-can but refused to give an explanation for his actions or show any remorse, a court heard.

Shyness.  That's what it was, shyness.

The Crown Prosecution Service said Shah's offence could not be charged as a hate crime because the law requires that damage must target a particular religious or racial group.

It said: 'While it was appreciated that what was sprayed on the memorial may have been perceived by some to be part of a racial or religious incident, no racial or religious group can be shown to have been targeted.'

Seems to me you could list every other religious group in Britain other than Muslims, and it could be convincingly argued that they were the targets.  Obvious to we mere mortals.

Churchill must be spinning.

April 30, 2010     Permalink

BRITAIN VOTES THURSDAY – AT 7:27 P.M. ET:  Britain votes Thursday.  Conservatives have taken the lead in the polls, but are short, so far, of a majority in Parliament.  That would mean a "hung Parliament," and negotiations with another party to form a government.  A mess.

LONDON, April 30 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's faltering election campaign suffered fresh blows on Friday as support for his Labour Party slid in one new poll and leading newspapers came out in support of his rivals.

Opposition Conservative leader David Cameron's campaign was boosted by viewer polls finding him the winner of a televised debate among party leaders on Thursday night, the last before next Thursday's election.

But the increased support for the Liberal Democrats, traditionally Britain's third party, showed no sign of abating, appearing to leave Britain on course for its first parliament with no overall majority since 1974...

...A YouGov poll for the Sun newspaper showed the Conservatives leading on 34 percent with Labour and the Lib Dems tied on 28 percent.

But a Harris poll for Saturday's Daily Mail found support for Labour, which has ruled Britain since 1997, falling to just 24 percent. If repeated next Thursday, it would be Labour's worst election showing since 1918, it said.

The poll put the Conservatives on 33 percent and the Lib Dems on 32 percent. Under Britain's electoral system, which is based solely on the vote in individual constituencies, not proportional representation, the Conservatives would be the largest party but short of a majority in parliament.

COMMENT:  I'm particularly curious as to how President Obama will congratulate the new prime minister, considering his pretty obvious distaste for the Brits.  I'd imagine his message will be:  "I congratulate you on becoming prime minister of your colonialist, imperialist, dying nation, which did so much to oppress my father.  Feel free to visit the White House anytime, and talk to one of the ushers."

I'm serious.

April 30, 2010      Permalink

OH, THIS IS JUST TOO RICH – AT 10:10 A.M. ET:  Stories about Illinois politics are always good for a laugh, especially on a Friday.  This one, from the Wall Street Journal, is juicy:

We're hearing that Team Obama is increasingly eager to throw the Democratic Senate candidate from Illinois, Alexi Giannoulias, under the bus and replace him with someone who can win. The news gets worse and worse for the former wonderboy of Illinois politics. Mr. Giannoulias's family bank, Broadway Bank, collapsed and was seized by federal regulators. Now there are allegations of bank fraud.

Aw, come on.  Bank fraud?  In Illinois that's a misdemeanor.  Ten-dollar fine.

One intriguing idea being considered: Force Mr. Giannoulias out of the race and replace him with . . . Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel is still popular in Illinois and there was a big push to get him handpicked as the Obama successor back in late 2008. Democrats have used the shaft-and-shift strategy before, as in New Jersey in 2002 when they dumped a walking wounded Bob Torricelli as their Senate candidate a few weeks before Election Day.

Ah yes, we remember Bob very well.  Don't know where he is today.

What seems increasingly certain is that if Mr. Giannoulias stays on the ticket, he will hand the Senate seat to Republicans. Democrats need a replacement and muscling Rahm Emanuel onto the ticket as the Democratic candidate has obvious appeal. This is the Chicago way of politics, and no one does it better than Rahm.

COMMENT:  Rahm wants to be mayor of Chicago, and the United State Senate would be a good starter position.  In Illinois, any Chicago mayor outranks any U.S. senator.  In fact, the Chicago parking commissioner outranks a senator. 

We hope the Dems stick with their current loser because his Republican opponent, Mark Kirk, would be an outstanding senator.  This is the seat once held, and not used very much, by Barack Obama.  If the current Dem candidate is deep-sixed, the replacement would probably be a better vote getter.

April 30, 2010     Permalink

YOU THINK WE'VE GOT PROBLEMS? – AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  Spain is tottering, and Greece has already tottered:

MADRID (AFP) – Spain's jobless rate topped 20 percent in the first quarter, national statistics institute INE said Friday, fueling fears over the country's public finances which have rattled global financial markets.

The number of unemployed jumped by 280,200 to 4.61 million, more than in Germany which has nearly twice Spain's population, for a jobless rate of 20.05 percent. The unemployment rate rose from 18.83 percent in the fourth quarter.

The last time the unemployment rate topped 20 percent in Spain was in the fourth quarter of 1997 when it hit 20.11 percent.

Spain's jobless rate has soared since the global credit crisis hastened the collapse of its labour-intensive construction industry at the end of 2008.

COMMENT:  Spain is run by one José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, a strikingly immature socialist (they call him "Bambi") who derives great satisfaction from lecturing the United States.  He has led Spain to ruin.

We've been following the European economic crisis.  Some countries are literally going bust.  This inevitably will affect the United States as our exports to Europe shrink because Europeans won't be able to pay the bills.

Welcome to the recovery.

April 30, 2010     Permalink

THIS STORY WILL GROW – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  Congress is working on the Iran Sanctions Bill, and, in an act of extreme ineptness, the administration has maneuvered to weaken it.  Another swift foreign-policy move by an administration already seen as weak-kneed and a bit pathetic. 

There has been some major blowback from Congress against these White House efforts, and some of it is led by Democrats, who apparently are listening to the folks back home.  From the Jerusalem Post:

The Obama administration has expressed concern that the legislation could hurt multilateral efforts to get countries such as China and Russia on board with its long sought UN Security Council resolution slapping further sanctions on Iran.

Do we laugh, or just cry?   The administration is seeking exemptions for Russia and China.  But if they have exemptions, what good would the bill do?

A conference committee meeting to reconcile House and Senate versions will decide whether to capitulate to administration pressure.

“The security of our nation and our allies cannot afford for this conference to produce a bill that is so full of holes, carve-outs, exemptions or waivers that no one takes it seriously. We’ve been down that road before,” warned Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee during the conference meeting. “It is time for Congress to fill the vacuum created by executive branch inaction and enact crippling, mandatory sanctions that address the rapidly growing threat posed by Iran.”

“The idea of country-by-country waivers is absurd,” agreed Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. “They will waive virtually every country unless they decide to simply ignore the law.”

And...

Other members at the conference committee Wednesday suggested that tough legislation could strengthen the administration’s hand rather than weaken it.

“I want the toughest possible sanctions on Iran. I want unilateral sanctions. I want multilateral sanctions. I want UN Security Council-mandated sanctions. And I want these sanctions now,” declared Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-New York), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee. “Today, we are going to move forward on a sanctions bill that I believe will strengthen the Obama administration’s diplomatic hand. The world, and I mean both our allies and others, needs to know that the United States is done waiting.”

COMMENT:  It's impossible to predict the outcome.  Will we have a tough bill or a joke?  The administration wants the joke so it can give Russia and China a gift and get them "on board."  On board for what? 

Obama's Iran policy has already collapsed.  Congress can save the president with a tough bill allowing no exemptions for "cooperative" states. 

But remember, the president can use his veto power, and he just might, unless Congress weakens the bill to conform to the appeasement policies that have gotten us so far since January 20, 2009.

April 30, 2010     Permalink

SOME QUESTIONS ARE IN ORDER – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  As anyone reading Urgent Agenda knows, I'm not great fan of some elements on Wall Street.  There are some great people down there, and I know some.  There are also Wall Street types I wouldn't have in my home. 

But there's something awfully suspicious about a new criminal investigation into Goldman Sachs. From The New York Times:

Federal prosecutors have opened an investigation into trading at Goldman Sachs, raising the possibility of criminal charges against the Wall Street giant, according to people familiar with the matter.

While the investigation is still in a preliminary stage, the move could escalate the legal troubles swirling around Goldman.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which two weeks ago filed a civil fraud suit against Goldman, referred its investigation to prosecutors for the Southern District of New York, which has now opened its own inquiry.

COMMENT:  It's quite possible, of course, that the inquiry is entirely justified.  But the timing makes us uneasy – right before a major election.  Let's not forget that Barack Obama was propelled into power in some measure by the Wall Street collapse that occurred in mid-September, 2008.  Anger at Wall Street helps Democrats...even though the Dems get most of the Street's political contributions these days.

So what could be more beneficial for the party in power than a crackdown on those deservedly unpopular zillionaires in lower Manhattan?  I make no charges.  But, as we always hear, timing is everything, and the timing of this probe is a bit too convenient for comfort.

We'll watch this carefully.  Don't be surprised if the Democrats do a modern version of the old leftist "warmongers of Wall Street" cry as the election approaches.  What else do they have?

April 30, 2010    Permalink

ONLY A MATTER OF TIME – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  When President Obama recently approved some limited exploration for offshore oil, skeptics wondered if we'd actually see any drilling, or whether environmental fundamentalists would make it impossible to proceed.  There were suggestions that some excuse would be found for preventing the actual extraction of petroleum.

Well, the excuse has been found.  The destruction of that oil rig off the Louisiana coast, and the resulting oil slick, has given the anti-drilling forces all the ammo they need, and they are reloading:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A top adviser to President Barack Obama says no new oil drilling will be authorized until authorities learn what caused the explosion of the rig Deepwater Horizon.

David Axelrod also defended the administration's response to the April 20 accident, saying ''we had the Coast Guard in almost immediately.''

He deflected comparisons with the government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, telling ABC's ''Good Morning America'' that such speculation ''is always the case in Washington whenever something like this happens.''

Bush had the Coast Guard in almost immediately as well, and many lives were saved in Katrina as a result.  Bush got only blame, no credit.

Obama recently lifted a drilling moratorium for many offshore areas, including the Atlantic and Gulf areas. But Axelrod said Friday ''no additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what has happened here.''

None will.  Look, this is a disaster.  It shouldn't have happened.  There must be a thorough accounting, with severe penalties, if called for.  But we don't stop flying because a plane goes down.  We don't stop traveling the seas because a ship sinks. 

Drilling should proceed, obviously observing all cautions.  We need that petroleum.  But I'm afraid this incident has set back the cause, and possibly damaged it fatally.  The oil is seeping onto the beaches.  The photographs will be devastating.  Public opinion will be affected. 

There are conspiracy theories floating around the internet that this was sabotage, designed to cripple offshore drilling.  I have seen no evidence to back up the claim.  But clearly it is an idea that will have to be addressed by any investigating body.

The whole mess is just sad because it can affect the future of the country and its economy.  But this round will go to the environmentalists

April 30, 2010    Permalink

THURSDAY,  APRIL 29,  2010

THEY LEARN NOTHING – AT 10:17 P.M. ET:  As we reported earlier, Iran has just been named to a UN panel charged with advancing women's rights.  The appointment is a farce. 

But will Iran try to improve its record now that it's a member of the panel? Apparently not, as Fox reports:

The warning follows recent comments made by a hard-line Iranian cleric, who claimed women dressed in revealing clothing were disturbing young men and causing earthquakes.

Women with suntans are violating Islamic law and will be arrested in Iran, the capital city's police chief was reported by The Daily Telegraph as saying Wednesday.

"The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehavior by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values," Brigadier Hossien Sajedinia said.

"In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins," he continued. "We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."

The warning follows recent comments made by a hard-line Iranian cleric, who claimed women dressed in revealing clothing were disturbing young men and causing earthquakes.

A preacher has also told the residents of Iran's capital Tehran to leave the city.

COMMENT:  We await, probably in vain, any response by "feminist" groups in the West, who have a curious lack of interest in the condition of women in countries deemed hostile to the United States.  Gee, you dont think these groups have other priorities, do you?

April 29, 2010    Permalink

COUNTRY FIRST AT 7:55 P.M. ET:   A new survey reveals some fascinating tidbits about Americans, and where they place their loyalties:

NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) – Americans are more loyal to their favorite soft drink, television show or car brand than they are to their employer, according to a joint Reuters/Ipsos poll.

But they are most committed to their country, followed by their family and their doctor.

Scrap the doctor.  Under Obamacare, you'll never get to know him.

"The most surprising thing was that country, which is more abstract, was No. 1, ahead of your family or spouse," said Timothy Keininghan, the author of the poll and a co-author of the book, "Why Loyalty Matters."

And..

Companies did not fare well when it comes to allegiance. Most Americans said they are more committed to their favorite soft drink than the company they work for...

The unkindest cut of all.  Sprite over Sprint.

...When asked how companies could improve loyalty the top answers included offering cash awards to consumers, replacing automatic answering machines with real people, making good products and not raising prices.

COMMENT:  The lack of company loyalty continues a trend.  But part of that trend is the fact that people today feel more mobile than they did 50 years ago.  Working for the local company is not the end-all.

But companies who value experienced workers obviously have some work to do.

April 29, 2010    Permalink

A TRUE OBSCENITY – AT 6:33 P.M. ET:  This is beneath contempt.  Far beneath.  The great Anne Bayefsky, a true heroine of journalism, reports for Fox:

How could a country that stones women to death for adultery possibly be chosen to serve in a leadership role on the U.N.'s Commission on the Status of Women?

The United Nations Economic and Social Council yesterday elected Iran to serve a four-year term -- beginning in 2011 -- on the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). The U.N. calls the Commission “the principal global policy-making body” on women’s rights and claims it is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women.” Yet Iran was elected by acclamation. It was one of only two candidates for two slots allocated to the Asian regional bloc – in other words, a fixed slate and a done deal.

Among other Iranian qualifications to serve in a leadership role in advancing the rights of women, is the country’s criminal code, which includes punishments like burying women from the waist down and stoning them to death for adultery.

The 2009 U.S. State Department report on Iran outlines other highlights of Iran’s women’s rights credentials. For instance, “spousal rape is not illegal” and when it comes to any other kind of rape “most rape victims did not report the crime to authorities because they feared…punishment for having been raped…Four male witnesses or three men and two women are required for conviction. A woman or man found making a false accusation of rape is subject to 80 lashes.”

Other features of Iran’s legal system, according to the State Department, include: “a man may escape punishment for killing a wife caught in the act of adultery if he is certain she was a consenting partner….[I]n 2008, 50 honor killings were reported during a seven-month period…” In general, “the testimony of two women is equal to that of one man.” Moreover, “a woman has the right to divorce only if her husband signs a contract granting that right, cannot provide for his family, or is a drug addict, insane, or impotent. A husband was not required to cite a reason for divorcing his wife.”

COMMENT:  When will we finally realize that the U.N., except for some medical and food assistance functions, has outlived its usefulness as a peacemaking or human-rights-advancing body?  It's a disgrace.

There is an alternative idea that's been floated – a league of democratic nations that will fill the role originally intended for the U.N., which is now being run by the corrupt of the Earth.  It's worth exploring, but the left is, understandably, cool, as very few "third world" countries would qualify.  And, after all, we must defer to their greater wisdom and suffering. 

No, no.  We're tired of that line.

April 29, 2010     Permalink

CRIST OFF GOP LIST, WIDELY HISSED – AT 6:15 P.M. ET:  Charlie Crist made it official.  He's going Lieberman.  He just announced that he's dropping out of the Republican U.S. Senate primary in Florida to run as an independent.  Other Republicans frowned and said naughty things.  From CNN:

Tampa, Florida (CNN) -- Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's decision to abandon the Republican Party and run for Senate as an independent, made official at a St. Petersburg campaign event Thursday, marks a stunning turnaround for a politician who just over a year ago was heralded as one of the GOP's brightest young talents.

But Thursday's rally also represents a general election kick-off for what is now one of the most entertaining and unpredictable races of the midterm election year, a battle between three viable statewide candidates.

"This is unprecedented in Florida, and I would say unprecedented in the country," said Justin Sayfie, the editor of the SayfieReview.com, an online clearinghouse for Florida political news.
Crist will be hunting for votes in the nation's fourth largest state along with Democrat Kendrick Meek and Republican Marco Rubio, whose small government message has rallied conservatives to his side over the last year and turned him into a celebrity of sorts among Republicans.

COMMENT:  Republican comment is predictably negative.  Current polls show that, while Crist is competitive, he would lose to Rubio in a three-way race.  The Dem is nowhere.

Crist will have to run a negative campaign to cut into Rubio's lead and raise doubts about him.  If, by chance, he should win, I don't think it would be long before he drifts to the Democratic Party, unless he tries to make amends and announces that he will vote with the GOP to organize the Senate.  That may be critical if the body is evenly split.  But I don't expect Crist to win.

April 29, 2010    Permalink

OH PLEASE SAVE US FROM THIS – AT 10:26 A.M. ET:  The administration is in high grovel again in its "outreach" to the Muslim world.   This story may require medication, so be careful.  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama's aggressive outreach to the Muslim American community is reducing its sense of isolation, Obama's envoy to the Muslim world told a conference in Washington Wednesday evening.

"We’ve really started to knock down that sense of otherization," said Rashad Hussain, a White House lawyer who also serves as liaison to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Hussain defined the rather esoteric term, "otherization," as describing a sense that many Muslims had during the Bush years that their value or danger to society was viewed solely through the prism of terrorism.

"Muslims...sometimes feel like they don't have as much of a stake or a role in the future of the country," Hussain told the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy conference. "That's something that all of the engagement that the United States has done on these issues both internationally and domestically has helped to counter."

Are you believing that?  No president did more to reach out to the American Muslim community than did George W. Bush.  He even visited a mosque right after 9/11. 

And I've never seen a country fight a war and show so little prejudice toward co-religionists of the same people being fought. 

And, by the way, where's the "outreach" from the other direction?  The nerve of this White House guy to say that American Muslims "feel like they don't have as much of a stake or a role in the future of the country."  Why not?  What's been done to them?  They've been extended every courtesy, and some college faculties grovel before them. 

The United States has done much for Muslims over the years – in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East, and even in Europe.  I don't recall a single thank-you.  But we're still required to do all the outreaching.

Oh, and get this:

Shortly after his appointment as the OIC envoy earlier this year, Hussain grabbed some headlines for a flap over comments he made in 2004 describing the Bush administration's actions against some terror suspects as "politically-motivated persecutions." He initially said he had no recollection of making the remarks but after POLITICO obtained a recording of the presentation he conceded he'd made the comments and called them "ill-conceived or not well-formulated."

Yeah, just a little mistake.  Let's move on.  Who needs integrity?

Seems to me we might devote a bit more "outreach" to those fighting for freedom in Iran and elsewhere.   But that just isn't very chic these days.

April 29, 2010     Permalink

SHOCKED, SHOCKED, TO LEARN THAT POLITICS IS BEING PLAYED HERE – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  There are reports that Hillary Clinton is still interested in politics.  And here we thought she'd gone to a convent.  From The Politico:

Nearly two years after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ended her losing presidential campaign and endorsed rival Barack Obama, Clinton’s allies maintain a triad of groups that have continued to make her presence felt in the political world — and could serve as a platform for the next phase of her public life.

Next phase?  You mean she's not retiring to become a community organizer, or head of the Barack Obama Appreciation Committee?  I'm surprised. 

Her presidential campaign committee, still in the process of winding down, maintains and makes money off a lasting asset from her presidential bid — an e-mail list of 2.5 million core supporters. Her Senate campaign committee accrues modest interest on a $1.9 million nest egg.

And a thriving foundation called No Limits, founded after Clinton resigned from the Senate to join Obama’s Cabinet, works to burnish her legacy, maintains contact with Clinton supporters and pursues a policy agenda that closely mirrors Clinton’s own — health care and women’s issues.

Now wait, just wait.  Health care?  Didn't they take care of that?  And since she's SecState, shouldn't they be adding a foreign-policy issue to that list?  Does anyone notice?

The three entities operate almost completely apart from Clinton, who is barred by protocol from active involvement in outside groups (particularly those involved in partisan politics). But their operations are intertwined, sharing the same Washington offices and drawing from the same pool of supporters and staff.

Protocol?  Oh, I'll bet that really matters to Hillary. 

Does the term "2016" interest you?  Even "2012" if the wind blows right.

April 29, 2010     Permalink

THE TREACHERY CONTINUES – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  Where are the protests in the press over our collapsing, dishonest Iran policy.  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to another betrayal, described by ace reporter Eli Lake of The Washington Times:

The Obama administration is pressing Congress to provide an exemption from Iran sanctions to companies based in "cooperating countries," a move that likely would exempt Chinese and Russian concerns from penalties meant to discourage investment in Iran.

The democracy forces in Iran must be cheering...not.

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is in a House-Senate conference committee and is expected to reach President Obama's desk by Memorial Day.

"It's incredible the administration is asking for exemptions, under the table and winking and nodding, before the legislation is signed into law," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican and a conference committee member, said in an interview. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the administration was pushing the conference committee to adopt the exemption of "cooperating countries" in the legislation.

I just love the term "cooperating countries."  It shows the never-never land in which this administration lives.  So they'll ask for major concessions in the proposed new law in order to get Russia and China "on board."  And what will the Russians and Chinese give us in return?

Cooperation.

We've seen this "cooperation" before. 

Another act of appeasement, to be described by the mainstream media as creative diplomacy.  Aren't we just proud of our new leader.

April 29, 2010    Permalink

CRIST ANNOUNCES TODAY – AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  Republican Governor Charlie Crist of Florida will announce his political plans today, important because it affects the politics of one of our largest states.  The news has leaked.  From the Washington Post:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) will announce his future political plans today, a decision widely reported -- by the Fix among many others -- to be a stepping-away from the Republican party to run for the Senate this fall as an independent.

Crist, perhaps seeking to preserve his ability to change his mind in the final hours before making an official announcement today at 5 pm in St. Petersburg, denied Wednesday that the die was cast on an independent bid. But, sources familiar with the process insisted he had begun to inform people that he would pursue a third party candidacy.

Well, if he does that and wins a three-way race for the Senate, he becomes a political genius.  If he does that and loses, he has no future in politics, having committed the ultimate sin – leaving your party and then losing.  I still think this is a mistake for Crist, and for the nation.  It may give the weak Dem candidate for the Senate, Kendrick Meeks, a chance to slip into office by splitting the conservative vote. 

Those same sources cautioned, however, that Crist is notoriously fickle -- even on major decisions like this one -- and that until he says the words "I am running as an independent" things could still change.

Some phone calls to Charlie are in order, from political people with gravel voices.  "You know, Charlie, you want knees tomorrow..."

The Republican nominee will be the phenomenal Marco Rubio.  He's a shoo-in in a two-man race.  It's less sure with Crist running. 

We'll let you know.

April 29, 2010    Permalink

EUROPEAN CRISIS – AT 7:57 A.M. ET:  We continue to follow closely the European financial crisis.  Bloomberg reports it's now starting to affect American companies:

United Technologies Corp. finance chief Greg Hayes sets aside some wiggle room in his profit forecast every year for swings in the euro. By March, half his safety net had already evaporated.

And...

Terex Corp., DuPont Co., McDonald’s Corp. and Johnson & Johnson also said in the past two weeks that the euro’s slide is affecting profit or may hold back growth. The 8.2 percent decline in the currency so far this year makes U.S. exports more expensive and lowers overseas sales when euros are translated to dollars, threatening a potential rebound in revenue and a lift to the economy.

The European debt crisis, like a political vacuum cleaner, is also starting to suck up politicians.  From The New York Times:

BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel’s strategy for dealing with Greece’s untenable debt problem was to stall and hope the crisis did not demand action until after a critical state election in early May. On Wednesday, the clock finally ran out.

Mrs. Merkel’s hand was forced by mistrustful credit markets and the ratings agency that downgraded Spain, Portugal and Greece in a matter of just two days. As the crisis worsened, political calculations had to take a back seat to the more basic task of ensuring the stability of the euro currency that replaced Germany’s beloved mark.

The crisis could easily become full blown right in the middle of our own fall election campaign.

Wait.  Let me read that sentence again.  An American financial crisis?  Right in the middle of a political campaign?  Do I remember something like that before?  Am I dreaming? 

Look, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy.  No, I'd never suggest that.  Why, I believe the people running our government are pure of heart, virgins all, including the boys.  But a major crisis pitting the U.S. against Europe for economic survival, right in the middle of a campaign, something that could affect...benefits to Americans...

Hmm.  I didn't say it.  Don't accuse me of saying it. 

April 29, 2010    Permalink