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.

MONDAY,  MAY 17,  2010

BULLETIN – AT 9:56 P.M. ET:  There has been a stunning development in the Connecticut Senate race to succeed Democrat Chris Dodd, who is vacating his seat.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, considered a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination, and an equal shoo-in for election in November, has apparently and consistently misreprented his military service record, even claiming that he was in Vietnam during the war, when in fact he never was.

The liberal New York Times, to its great credit, is running a major investigative piece on Blumental in tomorrow's edition, and available right now.  It's here.

At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

It is difficult to know at this hour exactly what the impact of the Times story will be.  In any sane situation, Blumenthal would have to withdraw, leaving the Democrats without a strong candidate in a state almost as Democratic as Massachusetts. 

Will sanity prevail and will Blumey be bye-bye?  Connecticut is a self-proclaimed "sophisticated" state where military service, at least in the state's western precincts, may not be as important as in the heartland.  (My darlings, the man simply wanted to go to school and has given us a different narrative than may have been wise.  But, whatever.  Have some Brie.)

Republicans have not generally been seen as having a strong shot at Connecticut, but this can change everything.  Stand by. 

May 17, 2010    Permalink

THE NEW MAGIC NUMBER – AT 8:05 P.M. ET:  Have you noticed how the number "trillion" has suddenly come into fashion.  You know, after a while you get used to it.  Trillion is the new billion.

It's usually applied to money.  But, through the efforts of the first lady, we now have a new iteration of "trillion."  From ABC News:

With the goal to reduce 1 trillion calories in food sold annually by 2012, First Lady Michelle Obama announced a private-sector partnership for her Let’s Move! Childhood obesity campaign.

Mrs. Obama touted that the Partnership for a Healthier America has signed an agreement with the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF) -- a partnership between 16 corporations that account for roughly 20-25% of the American food supply.

“I am thrilled to say that they have pledged to cut a total of 1 trillion calories from the food they sell annually by the year 2012, and 1.5 trillion calories by 2015,” Mrs. Obama said from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building today, “They’ve agreed to reformulate their foods in a number of ways, including by addressing fat and sugar content, by introducing lower-calorie options, and by reducing the portion sizes of existing single-serve products."

Reducing the portion size, and probably charging the same price.  I sense a racket here.

Look, we want the kids to eat right, to stay slim, etc., etc.  The problem is that we already have many low-calorie foods on the market, but the kids just won't eat them.  Or, if they do, they eat more of them because they think it's okay.

I don't know what the answer is.  But they'll have to take my cold, dead hands from around my chocolate doughnuts before I give them up.

I get the feeling that parents and peer pressure are involved here.  Maybe some of that old-time "you want to look your best for him (or her)" will work.  But we do have a problem, and if the first lady's campaign does some good, more power to her.

I'll now go off and have my Hershey dark chocolate bar.  I'm not kidding.  But I bought the small size, so I'm a responsible eater.

May 17, 2010    Permalink

WHAT A WAY TO BRING IN A NEW GOVERNMENT – The new, fresh, optimistic British government has been greeted by a little note containing a profound truth that may make the honorable ministers less fresh and less optimistic:

London – The scale of the economic challenge facing Britain's new government was laid out in a one-sentence letter, left by a minister who said: "There's no money left", it emerged on Monday.

David Laws, newly appointed chief secretary to the Treasury under Prime Minister David Cameron's new coalition government, described to reporters how he had been left the note by his predecessor Liam Byrne.

"When I arrived at my desk on the very first day as chief secretary, I found a letter from the previous chief secretary to give me some advice, I assumed, on how I conduct myself over the months ahead," Laws recalled.

"Unfortunately, when I opened it, it was a one-sentence letter which simply said 'Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left', which was honest but slightly less helpful advice than I had been expecting."

COMMENT:  I always love British directness.  "There's no money left," pretty much says it.  In our politics we would have a spokesman announce that "we face financial challenges that may impact our short-term cash flow and ability to meet, to our high standard, our continuing obligations.  But the American people will be strong, as always."

No.  There's no money left.

May 17, 2010     Permalink

NOW U.S. IS SKEPTICAL:  It's perfectly clear that this morning's announcement of a "deal" on Iran's nuclear program, brokered by Iranian pals Turkey and Brazil, is no deal at all.  Following France's public expression of skepticism, the U.S. has now responded. 

TEHRAN (AP) -- Iran agreed Monday to a key big power demand, saying it was ready to ship much of its low-enriched uranium abroad -- but immediately rolled out a new obstacle to compromise on its nuclear program by insisting it would continue enriching to higher levels.

Yeah.  We send some, and then make more.  Doesn't sound too good to me.

Tehran's decision to agree to export a large amount of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey after refusing to let it leave the country for more than half a year appeared to be an attempt to stave off a new set of looming U.N. sanctions -- a doubtful endeavor, judging by initial reactions from Western nations spearheading attempts to deal with Iran's nuclear defiance.

In Washington, the White House showed deep skepticism about the deal, saying it has the chance to be "positive step" but warning that the deal still allows Iran to keep enriching uranium toward the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

COMMENT:  To us, the deal is clearly a non-starter.  But, sadly, to other nations, wishing to do mischief and weaken our position, it may be the opening they need to slow any progress toward sanctions and urge "patience."  Russia is already talking in those terms.  You can be sure that the American and European left will follow.  China will probably say that this deal, however flawed, shows that the world can do business with Iran. 

Charles Krauthammer said this evening that this deal shatters Obama's foreign policy, his "outreach" to Iran.  Iran responded by using two other nations for cover and outmaneuvering us.  I'm afraid Krauthammer may well be right.  We have a foreign policy that goes nowhere.

May 17, 2010     Permalink

EXCITEMENT IN THE 12TH – AT 10:37 A.M. ET:  Perhaps the most exciting race to be decided tomorrow is the one to replace Congressman John Murtha, who remains deceased, in Pennsylvania's 12th C.D.  The last-minute polls show how tight this is, but there is a chance, if the voting is honest and Murtha's fellow departed can be kept from the voting booths, that the GOP can pull this off. 

The PPP poll, which generally leans Democratic, and which was taken through yesterday, has Republican Tim Burns at 48% and Democrat Mark Critz at 47%. 

John Murtha held this seat for 36 years. He was elected in 1974, also in a special election, during the Watergate affair, replacing a long-time Republican congressman.  Registration in the 12th C.D. is 2-1 Democratic, but these are conservative Democrats, and polling shows they are not happy with President Obama.  This is their chance to send a message.  Don't be surprised if the vote count goes into the night.

A GOP win would be a staggering defeat for the Dems, considering the district's recent history. 

We'll be live-blogging.  Stay with us.

May 17, 2010    Permalink

BULLETIN, AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  We reported earlier a strange deal on the Iranian nuclear program, negotiated by Little Leaguers Turkey and Brazil.  We cautioned that this was the kind of deal that had to be looked at with four or five eyes.  France has apparently taken the first look:

PARIS, May 17 (Reuters) - A Turkish-Brazilian deal to help Iran swap nuclear fuel might boost international trust in Tehran, but it would do nothing to resolve problems over Iran's nuclear programme, the French Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said France wanted to see details of the accord, announced earlier on Monday, before judging its merits.

"However, let us not deceive ourselves, a solution to the (fuel) question, if it happens, would do nothing to settle the problem posed by the Iranian nuclear programme," he said in a statement.

COMMENT:  That is a clear signal, being sent from Paris to Washington, that France expects the United States to take a tough stand, and not buckle under to an obviously inadequate deal.  The fact that France was the first major nation to take a stand reveals 1) that French President Sarkozy is a new kind of French leader, who can be trusted and,  2) that Sarkozy has little use for Obama's soft-line foreign policy and wants to preempt it.  Indeed, it's hardly a secret that Sarkozy has little regard for Obama.

We hope other nations will follow France's lead (I'm amazed I'm saying that), and continue the drive for tough sanctions on Iran.  That drive will likely fail, leaving President Obama with perhaps the most critical foreign-policy decision of his presidency.

May 17, 2010     Permalink 

WELL, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? – AT 9:17 A.M. ET:  The trendies now have a new approach to handling the personal problems of illegal immigrants – give them I.D. cards.  The newest municipality to succumb is the university town of Princeton, N.J.:

PRINCETON -- The borough and the township have agreed to a May 22 start for advocates for immigrants to issue community identification cards, according to a report in The New York Times.

The report said at least six city governments across the the U.S. endorse or issue photo identification cards to residents who are illegal immigrants. Similar programs are operating in Trenton and Asbury Park.

The cards will allow illegals to obtain local services.  The practice is spreading.  One illegal told The New York Times:

“When you don’t have a proper ID, they can humiliate you,” said Herlinda, 43, as she waited in the offices of a church where the cards were being issued. “I feel I belong in Trenton.”

That, of course, is the problem.  She doesn't belong in Trenton.  The legal immigrant, who has followed the law, belongs in Trenton and should be welcomed.

Look, we try to be humane.  These are human beings, and we are a Judeo-Christian nation.  I would never for a moment advocate denying an illegal immigrant a life-saving medical service.  We give those services, after all, to convicted murderers.  We may hate the sin but we love the sinner. 

But simply issuing an I.D. card is a feel-good solution that makes no distinction between the illegal and the legal.  This is do-goodism at work, and it encourages illegality.  It shows, once more, the need for a federal solution that upholds the law, yet recognizes the reality that we're not going to deport 12 million illegals.  This is a very difficult issue.  Simply granting more services to illegals does nothing to solve it.

May 17, 2010    Permalink

OH NASTY, NASTY – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  The much-anticipated Pennsylvania Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate will be held tomorrow, pitting recent Dem convert Arlen Specter against super-arrogant Congressman Joe Sestak, who reportedly was thrown out of the Navy for extreme obnoxia.  What a pair.

Now Sestak is showing his usual lack of graciousness, as The Politico notes:

Just two days before an electoral showdown — the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary — that is of key interest to the White House, Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak offered one more point of difference in their campaigns: whether they’ll support the other if they lose.

In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, Sestak refused to say he’d endorse Specter if he won the primary.

“What I know is this, that, in a war, you always know you’re going to succeed. And so I’m going to win, and I’m looking forward to Sen. Specter’s support after the 18th of May,” Sestak said.

Specter, on the other hand, said if he lost, he would endorse Sestak, accusing the two-term congressman of running from the question. “I’m going to support anybody against Pat Toomey. It’s not going to happen, but I’ll answer your question. He wouldn’t answer your question. ... One thing I’ve always been is candid, maybe a little too candid.”

COMMENT:  Here we have two genuinely unpleasant men.  Are we not blessed?  Does our cup not runneth over?  And one of them will be the Democratic candidate for the Senate.  Still one more reason for Pennsylvanians to vote for GOP candidate Pat Toomey, who has a real shot in this traditionally blue state.

May 17, 2010     Permalink

CUSTOMER BEWARE – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  There is big news, well sorta, about Iran this morning.  This is being called a possible breakthrough in taming Iran's nuclear program.  Why don't I think so?  Well, look at some of the parties involved in the "negotiation," that's why.  From The New York Times:

CAIRO — Iran announced an agreement on Monday to ship some of its nuclear fuel to Turkey in a deal that could offer a short-term solution to its ongoing nuclear standoff with the West, or prove to be a tactic aimed at derailing efforts to bring new sanctions against Tehran.

The deal, negotiated by Turkey and Brazil, calls for Iran to ship 2,640 pounds of low enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. In exchange, after one year, Iran would have the right to receive about 265 pounds of material enriched to 20 percent from Russia and France.

Negotiated by Turkey and Brazil?  Really?  That's like John Dillinger making a deal negotiated by Bonnie and Clyde.  Turkey is an ally of Iran, and is slipping into Islamism under its current, radical government.  Brazil is run by a wannabe Marxist who suddenly sees himself as an international figure.  He should stick to bikini-watching on the beaches of Rio. 

The terms mirror a deal with the West last October that had fallen apart when Iran backtracked, but it is

far from clear that the Obama administration will agree to it now — in part because Iran has continued to enrich uranium, adding to its stockpiles.

In October, the 1,200 kilograms that Iran was supposed to ship out of the country represented about two-thirds of its stockpile of nuclear fuel, and enough that the country would not enough fuel on hand to make a weapon. But now, the same amount of fuel accounts for a smaller proportion of its declared stockpile.

And Iran continues to enrich.  Do not believe the hype.  Check the Better Business Bureau.  The West had no role in brokering this deal, and those who did are on our permanent no-buy list.   I suspect that, unless the Obamans go completely nuts, this will fizzle.

What say you, Hillary?

May 17, 2010    Permalink

SUNDAY,  MAY 16,  2010

CHILDREN THEN, CHILDREN NOW – AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  Even some liberals, like Paul Begala, have called the sixties generation the worst generation we ever produced.   We are, of course, referring only to the generation of the late sixties, and, really, only part of it.

But it was the part that got the publicity.  Spoiled rotten by their Greatest Generation parents, who didn't want their kids to experience the hard-knuckled lives they'd lived, the kids of the late sixties, encouraged by adolescent college professors, "activists," and "journalists," tore up the campuses, lowered academic standards, and, while protesting the American action in Vietnam, remained silent over the Cambodian genocide.  Now, Boston University wants to do a little kissy-make up:

BOSTON — The telltale clues at this weekend’s festivities, 40 years late, included the tie-dye T-shirt on a woman who also wore a peace symbol necklace and a garland in her hair (“I thought everyone would be dressed like this,” she said).

When the group stood for its class picture, even those in suits and ties made the peace sign. Others raised clenched fists.

And one of them marched in the commencement processional with an antiwar poster slung around his neck.

The accouterment and spirit of their era still radiate from the class of 1970, despite the harsh and abrupt ending to their years at Boston University.

That spring was supposed to bring a flowery conclusion to their four years of academe. But President Richard M. Nixon had invaded Cambodia. National Guardsmen had gunned down students at Kent State, killing four and wounding nine. Young men still faced the draft. And this campus, like many across the country, was in turmoil, with strikes, sit-ins, building takeovers and fire-bombings.

The situation became so incendiary that, for safety’s sake, university officials called off final exams, canceled graduation and sent students packing.

This weekend, on what would have been the 40th anniversary of that ceremony, the university sought to make amends with a proper graduation.

COMMENT:  Read the story.  It will absolutely revolt you.  These little babies from a past era are still babies.  There is not a single reflective comment from them, not a single admission that, maybe, some of the things they did were hurtful rather than helpful. 

And, of course, it's all about them.  Not a word about the Vietnamese we betrayed, with their encouragement.  Not a word about the Cambodians.  Not a word about the trashing of once-great universities.  Not a word of apology for their parents, who'd sacrificed so much and were greeted with profound comments like, "Don't trust anyone over thirty."  How brilliant.  That's what passed for idealism in the late sixties.

And then there's this:

And the commencement speaker, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., singled them out.

“I love you all,” he told the crowd. But gesturing to the class of 1970, sitting right in front of him, he said, “But these are my people.”

I'm afraid that's right.  And let's remember, the next time Holder refuses to use the term "Islamic extremism," exactly what the man stands for.

May 16, 2010     Permalink

PRE-ORDER YOUR TICKETS, EVERYONE WANTS TO SEE IT! – AT 7:41 P.M.:  From the wonderful guys who gave you Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" comes more truth.  The subject:  nuclear weapons.  Of course, they know a great deal about this:

A terrifying study of the nuclear threat was launched at the Cannes film festival on Sunday, in a heavyweight campaign documentary showing how terrorists can get hold of atomic weapons.
The Cold War may be long over but "Countdown to Zero" -- from the producers behind Nobel Prize winner Al Gore's climate change polemic "An Inconvenient Truth" -- warns that nuclear bombs are easier to come by than ever.

Through interviews with former world leaders, spies, smugglers and scientists, British film-maker Lucy Walker's work shows how unsecured lumps of uranium in Russia could end up being used by terrorists to destroy cities.

Interviewees include ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Britain's former prime minister Tony Blair and Pervez Musharraf, the former president of Pakistan. Their conclusion: the world must push for "zero" nuclear weapons.

Huh?  Just freeze the frame for a moment.  We have a problem with smuggled nukes and parts of nukes.  The answer:  Hey, get rid of all nukes, worldwide!

You know, that would make a great junior-high-school essay.  But adults think differently.  A push to get rid of "all" nuclear weapons would have zero effect on terror groups trying to smuggle nuclear materials.  Can you imagine Osama bin Laden saying, "We must not seek these weapons.  It is against a treaty."  Yeah.

These people are like the gun confiscators.  Confiscate all the legal firearms, and only the thugs will have them.  Internationally, eliminate all the nukes held by civilized nations, and only the uncivilized will have them. 

The worthies behind this film are the usual leftist suspects.  And get this:

Among the talking heads in the film is Valerie Plame Wilson, a former CIA agent who worked on anti-proliferation and was targeted by the former US government which unmasked her in the fallout from the invasion of Iraq.

All right, don't laugh too hard.  You can damage something.  I didn't know she was still alive.

May 16, 2010    Permalink

EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET INTO THE ACT – AT 11:49 A.M. ET:  It seems that the socialist president of Brazil, and no great friend of America, thinks he's an international statesman.  He wants to broker a deal with Iran.  We're so excited.  From AP:

Brazil's president met with Iranian leaders Sunday to try to broker a compromise in the international standoff over Teheran's nuclear program, even as the US said new sanctions are the only way to force Iran's cooperation.

Luis Inacio Lula da Silva is trying to use Brazil's friendly relations with Iran to show it can be a fair, neutral broker in the escalating dispute. Since evidence of a clandestine Iranian nuclear program first emerged in 2003, negotiations with world powers and visits by UN inspectors have failed to persuade the US and its allies that Iran is not pursuing a weapons capability.

"It's more difficult for someone who has nuclear weapons to ask someone not to develop nuclear weapons," Silva said in an interview with Al-Jazeera TV on Saturday. "It's easier for someone who does not carry nuclear weapons, like myself, to ask for that."

That is complete garbage.

Silva met in Moscow on Friday with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who said the Brazilian leader's efforts might be "the last chance before the adopting of known decisions in the Security Council."

COMMENT:  The Russians are being helpful again.

Silva has no chance at any agreement that would satisfy American conditions.  And the United States has no chance of getting serious sanctions through the Security Council.  So we're nowhere, which is where we were a year ago.  Meanwhile, the centrifuges in Iran are spinning, with the White House spinning even faster.

This will not end well.

May 16, 2010     Permalink

IT SURFACES AGAIN – AT 10:56 A.M. ET:  The Petraeus for president thing, that is.  There is constant muttering that Petraeus may emerge as the Republicans' new Eisenhower in 2012. 

Speculation has run rampant for months that Gen. David Petraeus, who heads the US Army's Central Command and is widely credited with lead authorship of the "people first" counterinsurgency doctrine implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan, is toying with the idea of a run for the White House.

General Petraeus did little to squelch that speculation last week when he spoke at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), one of Washington's premier conservative think tanks.

With former Vice President Dick Cheney and members of the Bush-era glitterati known as the neo-cons looking on, Petraeus accepted AEI's annual Irving Kristol Award, named after the giant of neo-conservatism -- a conservative ideology with roots in American liberal thinking that eschews realist foreign policy in favor of an activist and interventionist approach to the world. The highest goal of neo-conservatism is the spread of "American values" including freedom and democracy.

The late Mr. Kristol's son, Bill Kristol, noted in a tribute to the award's three decades of honorees that none has ever gone on to become president. He then added to applause and laughter, "Perhaps this curious and glaring omission will be rectified."

COMMENT:  Well, I don't know.  I'm a skeptic.  Petraeus has regularly said that he isn't interested, the standard line, and we have no way of knowing whether he's being honest or traditional. 

But the transition from general to presidential candidate is not an easy one.  Petraeus is not Eisenhower.  Eisenhower organized victory in Europe during World War II, a vastly larger and more critical conflict than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Eisenhower wore five stars, a rare honor.  And Eisenhower emerged as a presidential candidate at a time when Americans were much closer to their military than they are today.  We had a true citizens' army. 

Also, other candidates are not going to lay down and play dead if Petraeus goes political.  Petraeus, after all, is untested in the political arena.  He's not the most inspiring speaker, as I found out when I heard him in a small room recently in New York.  He's also gaffe-prone, as we saw when he declared the Times Square bomber a lone wolf, a statement that will come back to haunt him. 

Very few generals have made it to the presidency.  The last was Eisenhower, and the last before him was Grant.  Both led gigantic struggles.  In the media age, a general must sound like a president, and military men often have a way of speaking that doesn't quite match the political markets. 

On the other hand, Dave Petraeus is a terrific guy, with a quick, innovative mind, who is intensely competitive.  The stories of his personal gutsiness are legend:  He was once shot through the chest in a training accident, and bounced back immediately, proving by doing pushups that he should be released from an Army hospital early. 

So, we'll see.  I think it's a long shot, but so was Reagan at one time. 

May 16, 2010    Permalink

WHAT A SURPRISE – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  Greece, following in the grand European tradition, is now looking for a scapegoat for the economic collapse that led to the country being bailed out by the EU.  It has found the scapegoat.  Guess who?  Well, they've got a 50-star flag, with 13 stripes...

Greece is considering taking legal action against U.S. investment banks that might have contributed to the country’s debt crisis, Prime Minister George Papandreou said.

“I wouldn’t rule out that this may be a recourse,” Papandreou said, in response to questions about the role of U.S. banks in the crisis, in an interview on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS.” The program, scheduled for broadcast today, was taped on May 13. Neither Papandreou nor Zakaria mentioned any banks by name.

U.S. stocks fell and the euro slumped on concern that Europe wouldn’t be able to contain the debt crisis stemming from Greece. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index declined 1.9 percent May 14, while the euro fell below $1.24 for the first time since November 2008.

Papandreou said the decision on whether to go after U.S. banks will be made after a Greek parliamentary investigation into the cause of the crisis.

“Greece will look into the past and see how things went,” Papandreou said. “There are similar investigations going on in other countries and in the United States. This is where I think, yes, the financial sector, I hear the words fraud and lack of transparency. So yes, yes, there is great responsibility here.”

COMMENT:  I'm no great defender of Wall Street banks, but gimme a break.  Greece has perhaps the worst economic management of any EU country.  The self-indulgence is breathtaking.  There may have been some culpability by Wall Street Banks, but other EU countries deal with the same banks, and they didn't have a blowout. 

Blaming the banks is a twofer for a Greek government:  1) blame the U.S., and 2) those people in New York with the funny names.  It's an old European tradition, and it didn't die with World War II.

May 16, 2010     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 10:09 A.M. ET:   From Irwin Stelzer, in the Weekly Standard, on the stark differences between Britain's new prime minister, David Cameron, and his deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, whom Cameron was forced to take as part of the first peacetime coalition government in Britain since the 1930s:

To say this is an odd couple is to put it mildly. Cameron is wary of ceding more sovereignty to the European Union’s bureaucracy; Clegg is an enthusiastic Europhile who would have Britain replace the pound with the euro. Cameron wants to limit immigration into an overcrowded Britain that is rapidly losing its national identity; Clegg favors unlimited immigration and legalization of those who arrived illegally. Cameron wants the government to push the development of nuclear power; Clegg opposes it. Cameron wants to strengthen Britain’s military capability and is a supporter of NATO; Clegg would like to replace Britain’s attachment to NATO with greater reliance on a European Defense Force and would abandon Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Cameron wants to crack down on judges who hand out lenient sentences to muggers and other hoodlums; Clegg thinks jails should be places of redemption, not punishment.

COMMENT:  A marriage made in Hell.  Can it last?  I doubt it.

There's already one compromise agreement:  The Lib Dems, who contain within their ranks some really bad pieces of left-wing work, have agreed to a limit on immigration from outside the EU – that means Muslim immigration – so Britain has at least a shot at remaining vaguely British. 

But...the conservatives have agreed to a national referendum on whether to adopt proportional representation for British elections in the future.  Proportional representation, as Stelzer points out, is a catastrophic system that gives small parties inordinate influence over government composition and decisions.  It is the system that has made countries like Israel and Italy so difficult to govern.  I suspect the British people will have enough common sense to turn down the proposal.  If they don't, Britain is finished.

This used to be the land of Winston Churchill.

May 16, 2010     Permalink