« January 2012 | Main | March 2012 »
Can you read it? The note says,
"Hey there, Voter! Do you remember that on Inauguration Day (Jan 20th) 2009, the national average for a gallon of gasoline was about $1.78?
How's that "Hope & Change" working out for you!
Anyone But Obama
Nov. 2012
(Make sure you take your sticky notes with you next time you get in the car.)
Okay, this is scarey:
What Needs to Come Out of the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting
Why scarey? I'll give you one big clue in one tiny excerpt, and then you go read it all... by our friend Rick Richman.
Look at what happened in North Korea: James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, told the Senate a year ago that "we do not know whether [North Korea] has produced nuclear weapons, but we assess it has the capability to do so." Last month, however, Clapper told the Senate flatly, "North Korea has produced nuclear weapons."
In the space of a year, U.S. intelligence went from "not knowing" whether North Korea had produced nuclear weapons to knowing that it had. Intelligence may not be clear until after the fact, when it is too late.
As for Michigan's primary:
.... Romney wins 21 delegates from the congressional district results ... but only 14 of those delegates will be allowed to vote at the national convention because the state broke national GOP rules by moving its primary before the Super Tuesday contests next week.
Santorum wins 18 delegates from the congressional districts, but only 12 of those people will be able to vote at the national convention.
The statewide popular vote will be distributed between Romney and Santorum on a proportional basis with 14 at large delegates at stake, but only two of those delegates will have voting privileges. How those will be divvied up hasn’t been determined....
I wish I could be as measured as Peter Morici, of the University of Maryland Smith School of Business. How does he stay so calm, so temperate?
Here he is, quoted at RedState:
Under Mr. Obama’s stewardship, the U.S. economy is not recovering as it should. As per usual, the president distracts public attention from poor policy choices by blaming and ridiculing others.
After three years, the president, who promised Americans millions of clean energy jobs in place of a thriving petroleum industry and much lower unemployment, should own up to his mistakes. Most Americans are needlessly paying too much for gas and foreign oil, while federally subsidized solar and wind projects are filing for bankruptcy.
This November, poor judgment and weakness of character—such as the president’s repeated attacks on the petroleum industry and failure to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions—make the most compelling case for change.
Americans should not expect a perfect president but at least one who bases decisions on facts not whimsy, and learns from mistakes.
Americans are simply not getting fact-based leadership and good judgment from President Obama.
That same post gives us this infographic "that captures the salient points" of this administrations's energy policy as it pertains to oil, courtesy of the Republican Study Committee.
Nevermind that I would have put the Chu quote at the top.
Chu testified before Congress yesterday:
When Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) asked Chu whether it’s his overall goal to get our price of gasoline lower,
Chu said, “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil...”
.... Three percentage points. In his home state. In his wife’s home state. In the state his father served as Governor.
Three percentage points against a guy few took seriously two months ago and who just three weeks ago no one expected to give Romney a run for his money in Romney’s home state.
And this is our nominee — a guy who can only win in states with a home state advantage, New Englanders and New England transplants, and Mormoms. There are a lot more outside those categories than inside them and that is shaping up to cause him heartburn on Super Tuesday.
And let me tell you what else is going to happen: Democrats sense such a strong vulnerability now and sniff a chance of a Santorum nomination, they aren’t going to wait for the general election to start dumping oppo research on Romney.Get ready Romney supporters, this is just the opening salvo.
But I suspect he will be the nominee. At least we can be rid of him and, hopefully, his most ardent cheerleaders on November 7th when what the rest of us know will happen unless an economic catastrophe happens.
Hello? Bobby Jindal? ...
Waaahh.
The Palestinian leadership on Tuesday called on the UN Security Council to visit the occupied territories to see the impact of Israel's settlement campaign....
.... [The Palestinian UN envoy] said he had met ambassadors from several Security Council nations to discuss "the explosive situation in the occupied territory as a result of the provocations of Israel in intensifying the settlement campaign."
Jennifer Rubin may be a Pauline-Kael-type Romneybot, but I think it's fair to assume that she cares deeply about Israel.
Bloomberg reports: “U.S. intelligence officials who have met with senior Israeli officials concluded that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is increasingly likely, perhaps as early as this spring. Israel’s leaders, according to the officials, said they are prepared to act unilaterally without informing the U.S. in advance. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions with the Israelis.”
The Obama administration’s natural inclination has been to privately and publicly pressure Israel not to act. But this is futile. No Israeli prime minister would entrust the Jewish state’s fate to an administration that specifically and publicly talks down the military option and that has refused to give Israel private guarantees that the United States will act militarily if other measures fail to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Now Obama has a domestic dilemma a well.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Complaints from Israel about the U.S.’s public engagement with Iran have pushed the White House to consider more forcefully outlining potential military actions, and the “red lines” Iran must not cross, as soon as this weekend, according to people familiar with the discussions.
President Barack Obama could use a speech on Sunday before a powerful pro-Israel lobby to more clearly define U.S. policy on military action against Iran in advance of his meeting on Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, these people said.
Israeli officials have been fuming over what they perceive as deliberate attempts by the Obama administration to undermine the deterrent effect of the Jewish state’s threat to use force against Tehran by publicly questioning the utility and timing of such strikes.Perhaps Obama will give assurance publicly or perhaps in private. But no pledge regarding U.S. action when Iran crosses so-called “red lines” is of much value when the Israelis and the United States differ in their assessment of intelligence and have different positions on the acceptable level of risk. What is extraordinary is the degree to which lawmakers are now weighing in and publicly rebuking the president:
“The Israelis are unnerved,” said Sen. Lindsay [sic] Graham (R., S.C.), who was one of five U.S. senators who had lunch with Mr. Netanyahu last Tuesday in Jerusalem. “They think the administration is sending the wrong signal, and I do too.”
Mr. Graham, a staunch Israel supporter, added: “The president needs to be reassuring to the Israelis that the policy of the United States is etched in stone: we will do everything, including military action, to stop a nuclear-armed Iran. I hope the administration when they talk about ‘all options’ will better define what those options are. We’re getting too far into the game to be overly nuanced now.”
Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who also was in the meeting with Mr. Netanyahu last week, said he had never seen an Israeli leader “that unhappy.”
“He was angry,” Sen. McCain said. “And, frankly, I’ve never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point.”
I didn't realize that the "excerpt" was almost the entire post! All that's missing is Rubin's summation. She seems quite definite on one point: "[Netanyahu] doesn't crave reassurance. He will act in Israel's interests."
In typical Jewish style, she ends with a question:
Really, does Obama imagine Netanyahu is simply another easy mark in one more “charm” campaign?
Yeah, I don't think Obama's standard "You should be thanking me" thing is gonna work with Bibi.
