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.

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE – LAST DAY!

This is the last day of our current subscription drive. 

As I've noted, the drive corresponds to the renewal period for many current subscribers.  Renewals have been very strong.  We have an extraordinarily loyal readership, and I think our readers value what they are receiving.

But to go forward we need new subscribers and donators. 

If you have not yet subscribed, please consider doing so.  You'll help insure that Urgent Agenda continues, and you'll receive our special subscriber privileges, which we hope to expand this year.

Subscriptions and donations are our lifeblood.   Without them we cannot function.

You can subscribe (or donate) by going to the column on the right, just opposite these words.

Subscribers and donators receive The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed publication.  At The Angel's Corner you can join our Forum, which has become the most popular feature at Urgent Agenda.  Write on anything you wish.   Did you know that some Angel's Corner pieces are used in college classrooms?  Others are published around the internet. 

And, at The Angel's Corner, we give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed, after intensive review, on those who meet the very highest standards of absurdity and leftist immaturity.  Be the first to find out who has been so blessed.  But please, don't send candy or cakes to try to get us to name your favorite.  We have morals here.
   
If you ever want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults and strange phone calls.  But we cannot guarantee that you'll still have friends.

Subscribe or donate today. A credit card will do it. Or, we can send you a mail address, if you prefer.

FRIDAY,  JUNE 18,  2010

“WILL YOU LOVE ME IN DECEMBER AS YOU DO IN MAY?" – AT 8:44 P.M. ET:  That's a lyric written by Jimmy Walker, the late, and very corrupt, mayor of the New York of many decades ago, and someone might slip it under Barack Obama's door.  They were applauding for The One all over the world at one time.  No longer.  Nile Gardiner marks the president's decline in Britain: 

What a difference 18 months and an oil spill makes. In January 2009 Barack Obama was hugely popular on this side of the Atlantic, and could have walked on water in the eyes of the British media, the political elites, and the general public. In June 2010 however he probably qualifies as the most despised US president since Nixon among the British people. In fact you can’t open a London paper at this time without reading yet another fiery broadside against a leader who famously boasted of restoring “America’s standing” in the world.

What a valentine!

It’s hard to believe that any politician could become more disliked in the UK than Gordon Brown, but Barack Obama is achieving that in spades. And as Janet Daley noted of the British press, the love affair with Barack is well and truly over.

The key catalyst for rising anti-Obama sentiment in the UK has been his disastrous handling of the BP issue, and his relentless desire to crush Britain’s biggest company. There is no doubting BP’s responsibility over the Gulf oil disaster, and it is right that the firm is being held to account for its failures. But the brutal, almost sadistic trashing of BP by the imperious Obama administration, which has helped wipe out about half its value, threatens its very future, as well as the pensions of 18 million British people and the jobs of 29,000 Americans.

As Churchill once said of another British politician, Obama is a bull who brings his own China shop with him.

The Anglo-American Special Relationship, the most successful partnership of modern times, will survive long after President Obama departs the White House. It is far bigger than any one president or prime minister. But there can be no doubt that it is being significantly damaged and weakened at this moment by the Obama administration’s sneering approach towards Great Britain, at a time when British and American soldiers are fighting and dying alongside each other in a major war in Afghanistan. President Obama needs to see the big picture and understand that his anti-British posturing is hugely counter-productive and highly offensive. He is already one of the least popular US presidents of modern times, not only in the eyes of the American people, but now the people of Britain as well.

COMMENT:  Those of us who were for McCain during the 2008 election campaign, and who were ridiculed for it, can hold our heads high. 

And Sarah Palin has more common sense in her little finger than Obama has in his whole brain.

June 18, 2010     Permalink

OH, THE MOANS FROM THE OVAL OFFICE – AT 5:56 P.M. ET:  In the immortal words of Jimmy Durante, this is a catastroscope...if you're a Democrat.  From Scott Rasmussen's daily presidential approval poll, today:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 (see trends).

These results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, more than two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted after the president’s speech to the nation. Tomorrow’s update will be the first based entirely upon interviews conducted after the speech.

The Gettysburg Address it wasn't.  The numbers get worse:

Overall, 41% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. That’s the lowest level of approval yet recorded for this president. Fifty-eight percent (58%) now disapprove.

It's true that other polls put the numbers closer, but Rasmussen polls among likely voters, which we find the most consistently accurate method.  And get this love message:

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats approve of the president’s performance. Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans disapprove along with 72% of unaffiliated voters.

When you've got 72% of independents against you, it may be a good idea to seek a mid-life career change.

Rasmussen also examines press coverage of the president, week by week.  This week he finds:

The Rasmussen Reports Media Meter shows that media coverage of President Obama has been 39% positive over the past week. Since the passage of the health care law, coverage has ranged from a high of 60% positive to a low of 39% positive.

Even the press is having its doubts.  That's a psychological miracle.

June 18, 2010      Permalink

GET YOUR TRIPS TO THE CLEANERS IN NOW, BEFORE OBAMA TAKES YOU THERE HIMSELF – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  The president wants to impose a new energy program on us.  Americans understandably are apprehensive over the cost, having been burned repeatedly since Barack Obama took the oath of office.  Here are some numbers:

President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas.

That's a Harvard University study's estimate of the per-gallon price of the president's global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.

So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill?

Good question, because such measures wouldn't do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak.

The answer can be found in Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now-famous words, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste -- and what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."

And...

The logic linking cap-and-trade to the spill in the Gulf should frighten anyone who owns a car or truck. Such measures force up the price at the pump -- Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs thinks it "may require gas prices greater than $7 a gallon by 2020" to meet Obama's stated goal of reducing emissions 14 percent from the transportation sector.

Of course, doing so would reduce gasoline use and also raise market share for hugely expensive alternative fuels and vehicles that could never compete otherwise. Less gasoline demand means less need for drilling and thus a slightly reduced chance of a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon spill -- but only slightly. Oil will still be a vital part of America's energy mix.

COMMENT:  Wasn't the Democratic Party once the party of the little guy?  I wonder how the little guy feels about all this.  Of course, the people in power will never know since they'd never stoop to talk to the little guy, unless he was maybe part of the grounds crew at Harvard. 

Our economy is precarious enough without an energy program that will depress it further.  We certainly do need new sources of energy, and we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  But those goals will only be met by a balanced program of energy development – done mostly by the private sector – and an increase in drilling for the oil we already have.  But that is heresy to Democrats, who lost interest in the average American decades ago.

June 18, 2010      Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:06 A.M. ET:  From James Lewis at American Thinker, on American weakness and its implications:

For almost a century the United States has been the cop on the world beat, as the British Empire declined and crumbled. The US was the great, civilized power that supported freedom of trade, resistance against the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin, relative peace in the Third World, and the protection of post-World War Two stability, ranging from Japan and South Korea to Israel and Berlin. Europe today would not exist were it not for American protection; it would be a Soviet colony. India and Pakistan might be in a hot war. China might be attacking Japan to retaliate against the horrors of World War Two, which are constantly repeated in the Chinese media. Ancient hatreds exist all over the world, ready to explode when the cop on the beat gets drunk or just resigns.

The United States has preserved the balance of power and kept it on the side of civilization against the mob. All the feeble regimes in the Third World depend upon us to come to their aid against their own mobs and agitators. In fact, those regimes are just the mob agitators who won the last round.

COMMENT:  George W. Bush understood that.  So, of course, did Ronald Reagan.  Carter didn't.  Obama doesn't.  Our international position seems to be deteriorating everywhere, and improving nowhere.  Now, with an economy that won't recover, and an oil spill that he has done so little to stop, Obama seems even weaker to the world than before, and he has never seemed a wall of strength.

In our current state – doing poorly in Afghanistan, refusing to stand strongly against North Korea, unable to stop the Iranian nuclear program, and throwing allies under the bus – we are opening the door to some international explosion that we won't be able to contain.

The urgency to defeat Obama in this year's midterms grows greater by the day, and the urgency to remove him entirely in 2012 must become a national mission.

June 18, 2010     Permalink 

NOONAN ASSESSES OBAMA – AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  Peggy Noonan, who's sharpened up quite a bit recently, gives a very direct assessment of Barack Obama, almost a year and a half into his presidency.  From The Wall Street Journal:

The president is starting to look snakebit. He's starting to look unlucky, like Jimmy Carter. It wasn't Mr. Carter's fault that the American diplomats were taken hostage in Tehran, but he handled it badly, and suffered. He defied the rule of the King in "Pippin," the Broadway show of Carter's era, who spoke of "the rule that every general knows by heart, that it's smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart." Mr. Carter's opposite was Bill Clinton, on whom fortune smiled with eight years of relative peace and a worldwide economic boom. What misfortune Mr. Clinton experienced he mostly created himself. History didn't impose it.

But Mr. Obama is starting to look unlucky, and–file this under Mysteries of Leadership–that is dangerous for him because Americans get nervous when they have a snakebit president. They want presidents on whom the sun shines.

And...

The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique. Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment."

I love this quote:

The right didn't like the speech either.

As for the center, Nielsen reported that 32 million people watched the speech, as compared to 48 million viewers that watched the State of the Union. Ronald Reagan once said you should never confuse the reviews with the box office. This was the box office voting with its clickers.

Reagan was right.  It's the audience, not the critics, that decides what makes a hit, or a successful president.

There is a growing meme that Mr. Obama is too impressed by credentialism, by the meritocracy, by those who hold forth in the faculty lounge, and too strongly identifies with them. He should be more impressed by those with real-world experience. It was the "small people" in the shrimp boats who laid the boom.

And when speaking of why proper precautions and safety measures were not in place, the president sternly declared, "I want to know why." But two months in he should know. And he should be telling us. Such empty sternness is . . . empty.

Peggy is really good today.

...it's also true that among Democrats—and others—when the talk turns to the presidency it turns more and more to Hillary Clinton. "We may have made a mistake. She would have been better." Sooner or later the secretary of state is going to come under fairly consistent pressure to begin to consider 2012. A hunch: She won't really want to. Because she has enjoyed being loyal. She didn't only prove to others she could be loyal, a team player. She proved it to herself. And it has only added to her luster.

COMMENT:  Ah, and what will she do with that luster?  Hillary has become more interesting than Barack, and that is not a compliment to a president.

June 18, 2010       Permalink

THEY REALLY NEEDED A NANNY – AT 7:32 A.M. ET:  It's very hard to gauge from first reports how serious this really is.  It could be anywhere from catastrophic to a bunch of guys wanting to return to their country and get shot at.  From Fox:

A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from a Texas Air Force base where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned.

The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, "Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.]," issued by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas, and obtained by FoxNews.com.

The Afghans were attending the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. The DLI program teaches English to military pilot candidates and other air force prospects from foreign countries allied with the U.S.

"I can confirm that 17 have gone missing from the Defense Language Institute," said Gary Emery, Chief of Public Affairs, 37th Training Wing, at Lackland AFB. "They disappeared over the course of the last two years, and none in the last three months."

COMMENT:  Huh?  The last two years?  And we're only now hearing about it?  We'll follow this, but it clearly requires major journalistic attention.  Hey, it's over two years.  MSNBC can blame it on Bush.

June 18,  2010     Permalink

THURSDAY,  JUNE 17,  2010

UNBELIEVABLE – AT 8:25 P.M. ET:  We fight hard not to believe the worst about our government, but at times it's difficult.  Just read this story, but maybe you'd better take a calming pill first.  From ABC News:

Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.

"It's the most frustrating thing," the Republican governor said today in Buras, La. "Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges."

Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.

"These barges work. You've seen them work. You've seen them suck oil out of the water," said Jindal.

Governor, Governor, don't be childish.  Just because something works doesn't mean the federal government will approve it.  That seems to be the last thing they care about.

Get this:

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

Say what?  Why couldn't the Coast Guard just board the barges and inspect?

Is it possible, just possible, that the truth lies somewhere else?  Is it possible that there are "forces" in the federal government who don't want any idea advanced by Bobby Jindal to work?  After all, he's been talked about for the 2012 Republican national ticket.  I have absolutely no proof whatever to back up my suspicion, but I'd guess it's a suspicion shared by many readers and political observers. 

This administration has done very little actually to stop the oil leak.  I wonder why.

June 17, 2010      Permalink

USELESS, USELESS – AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  Is there a day that goes by without news of still one more "outreach" to the Muslim world?  Now, with all that reachin' out by a guy named Barack Hussein Obama Jr., you'd think there'd be some impact.  Well, think again.  From the L.A. Times:

A poll of global attitudes finds support strong in most nations, but approval has dipped in Muslim countries, due in part to Obama's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Detractors also take a dim view of U.S. international decisions.

Reporting from Washington — Confidence in President Obama among the world's Muslims is slipping, according to a poll of global attitudes that also found widespread concern that the United States remained a go-it-alone nation even under the new administration.

The survey, by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, found support for Obama had remained strong in most nations even while his approval rating at home had slipped. But in five of seven Muslim nations that were polled, he was regarded with approval by about one-third or less of respondents, and his popularity had slid over the last year.

The finding is likely to be of concern to the White House, which has worked hard to improve the American image abroad, particularly in the Muslim world.

COMMENT:  When will we learn the following?  People don't get their news directly from the event, but through media and governments.  In the Muslim world both media and governments are near-hopeless.  These people cannot be satisfied unless we hand them total victory in every respect.  They are professional victims, constantly nursing grievances and accomplishing nothing. 

The findings shouldn't bother any mature, rational White House.  Government can't simply be an international popularity contest.  I don't think the Obamans understand that.

And another thing:  Our standing throughout the world is also affected by international leftist movements that simply want to bring down the United States, in order to destroy capitalism.  They're not terribly impressed by any temporary president. 

We were endlessly told that the Bush administration had destroyed our international standing, even though a careful observer would have clearly seen dramatic gains in our relations with some key countries, like India, Japan, and the nations of Eastern Europe.  We've now had almost a year and a half of Obama.  Notice the great improvement?  I hope we've learned.

June 17, 2010       Permalink 

HILLARY, YOU OLD GOSSIP, YOU – AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  Hillary Clinton revealed in an interview given in Latin America today that the Justice Department will sue Arizona over its anti-illegal immigration law.

There's been a lot of talk about this, but no formal acknowledgment by Justice or the White House.  Hillary apparently let the cat out of the bag, informing a foreign news organization first.  I kinda thought the American people might have been informed first.  This reminds me of the fact that Barack Obama gave his first interview as president to an Arab news organization.  Americans must wait in line. 

So, Eric Holder will sue Arizona and still wants to try dangerous 9-11 terrorists in New York.  I think it's important that someone in Washington send a note to Holder informing him that he's attorney general of the United States, not some other country.  Of course, the same note, with a different office written in, might be sent to the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

June 17, 2010     Permalink

BOOM TOWN – AT 9:08 A.M. ET:  A stunning new report, just released, demonstrates that the much-hyped economic recovery is just that – hype.   We're just not making it:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of people filing new claims for jobless benefits jumped unexpectedly last week after three straight declines, another sign that hiring remains weak.

Initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 472,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the highest level in a month.

First-time claims have hovered near 450,000 since the beginning of the year after falling steadily in the second half of 2009. That has raised concerns that hiring is lackluster and could slow the recovery. Economists say they will feel more optimistic that the economy is creating jobs once initial claims fall below 425,000 per week.

The four-week average for unemployment claims, which smooths volatility, dipped slightly to 463,500. That's down by 3,750 from the start of January.

The number of people continuing to claim benefits rose by 88,000 to 4.57 million. That doesn't include about 5.2 million people who receive extended benefits paid for by the federal government.

COMMENT:  The housing market is also slowing.  And the president of the United States is pushing new energy legislation that will place major burdens on American families.

Sometimes I have visions of America switching to a parliamentary form of government, where we can get rid of presidents a bit more quickly than we can now.

I have a dream today, a dream of a moving van pulling up to the White House.  Oh yes, I have a dream.

June 17, 2010      Permalink

THE SILENCE OF THE PRESS – AT 8:46 A.M. ET:  When we talk about corruption in the media, we should be mindful of the fact that it works in several ways.  It isn't only what the press reports that can mislead us, it's what the press chooses not to report. 

I've observed over the years that leaving out critical information is often a more effective way to slant the news than reporting a story that favors a reporter's position. Mark Steyn at NRO comments on one story the press just won't report:

When you look at all the formulaic sludge that wins the Pulitzer Prize for Most Unread Multipart Series, it is striking that not one of the major newspapers has done an investigative series on the proliferation of "honor killings", not in Yemen or Waziristan but in the heart of the western world. Instead, as Phyllis Chesler writes:

The mainstream media rarely covers them. More often, local media does, but even local media does so walking-on-eggshells, careful to quote from at least one apologist and one know-nothing. Usually, the (hardcopy) mainstream media covers such events weeks later, only briefly, or as a way to “spin” any possible prejudice against the perpetrators involved. Sometimes they are mentioned, but only in passing. Rarely do follow-ups appear. Usually, a wire service piece is used, and no original reporting is done. Sometimes, the newspaper’s blog might refer to a piece which first appeared in another newspaper which, in turn, has mentioned the subject only in passing.

And...

The media's attitude to "honor killings" is not only shameful and dishonors the dead; it's also part of the reason why America's newspapers are sliding off the cliff: Their silence on this issue is merely an especially ugly manifestation of how their news instincts have been castrated by political correctness.

What is so disgraceful, of course, is that this sin of omission is often committed by "feminists" in journalism.  Their feminism doesn't seem to extend too far.  They seem thoroughly unconcerned about the fate of Muslim women.  As Steyn writes:  "Multiculturalism trumps feminism, and so the media accepts a two-tier sisterhood in which Muslim girls are run over, stabbed, strangled, drowned and decapitated for wanting to live like the women they read about in The New York Times and The Washington Post."

The sad fact is that modern feminism has too often been a branch office of the hard left, and on the hard left the rights of women have never been particularly important...not compared to, say, insuring the triumph of anti-American elements around the world.  That self-proclaimed "feminists" can go along with this without an outcry from their sisters or from women's studies departments in universities says a great deal about what feminism has become, and what universities have become.

June 17, 2010       Permalink

WE'RE SHOCKED, SHOCKED, TO FIND THAT A LAW SCHOOL DEAN COULD BE A HYPOCRITE – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  I was wondering when someone would notice this.  Well, it sure wasn't a mainstream journalist.  It was the GOP.  From Fox:

A Senate Republican is accusing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan -- who protested the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as an influential dean at Harvard -- of remaining silent about the university receiving $20 million from a Middle East country that sanctions the oppression of gays.

The accusation comes as the both sides in Senate gear up for the start of confirmation hearings for Kagan, as Republicans opposed to her confirmation seize on "anti-military" fodder.

On Wednesday, during a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted Harvard University accepted a $20 million gift from Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz in 2005 that was used to establish a center for Islamic Studies in his honor.

Sessions cited an Obama State Department report that noted that homosexual acts are a crime in Saudi Arabia under Sharia law and punishable by death or flogging.

COMMENT:  Why, is this redneck saying that there's dishonesty at Harvard?  Hypocrisy?  Phoniness?  Is he thoroughly unfamiliar with the ways of superior people?  That's not hypocrisy, Senator Sessions.  That's just an "alternative narrative."  That's not phoniness.  That's just "intercultural understanding."

These senators.  What do they know?

June 17, 2010       Permalink

ICH BIN EIN ARIZONAN – AT 8:03 A.M. ET:   Even the Washington Post must now admit it:  Most Americans polled continue to support Arizona's new illegal-immigration law.   Oh, the pain in the editorial offices:

Most Americans support the new, controversial Arizona law that gives police there the power to check the residency status of suspected illegal immigrants. But most also still back a program giving those here illegally the right to earn legal documentation, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

I love stories that begin that way.  The liberal writer is saying that we're bad, but there's still some good in us.

Oh, now we have to go down seven paragraphs to find the basic statistic we're looking for:

In all, 58 percent of Americans say they are supportive of the new law.

The rest of the story breaks the statistics down, apparently trying to soften the blow.  But the bottom line is that most Americans do support Arizona, although the Justice Department will probably take Arizona to court, trying to overturn the law. 

Another finding from the poll:  Some 51 percent of those polled give Obama negative marks on  how he's handled the issue of immigration.  I don't know how the question was phrased, and whether the word "illegal" was inserted, but the figure cannot thrill the White House.

June 17, 2010      Permalink

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS STARTING TO PANIC, BUT THEIR HEALTH PLAN COVERS PSYCHIATRY – AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  While our attention has been focused on the oil spill, and the president's low-octane speech about it, the Dems in Congress have been sending a message to Mr. Obama, and it isn't a valentine.  The Washington Times reports:

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a $140 billion taxes and spending package in a resounding defeat for President Obama and Democratic leaders that signaled the era of freewheeling stimulus spending is giving way to greater concern for deficits.

Hours later, chastened Democrats produced a pared-down version they said spent less and found offsetting tax increases to pay for most, though not all, of the new measure, which includes unemployment benefits and aid to states.

"There are fewer dollars involved here, and it is more paid-for," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, acknowledging the 11 Democrats and one independent who sided with Republicans in blocking his first version. "We heard what those senators were saying and we have adjusted the amendment accordingly."

Republicans said the vote - in which Democrats fell 15 votes shy of the 60 needed to allow for the overspending - marked a new attitude for lawmakers who are beginning to worry about debt and deficits as they prepare to face voters in November. It would have swelled the federal debt by $80 billion.

COMMENT:  The numbers in the Senate are important.  Even if Republicans fall short in their effort to take control of the Senate in November, there are now enough moderate Democrats asserting themselves to probably block most, if not all, crazy liberal stuff.

As for the president, he's getting low marks on his Carteresque speech about the spill, and is clearly no longer seen a a Divine or even a divine presence. 

But he controls foreign policy, and that's the part that should keep our gray hair growing.

June 17,  2010     Permalink