Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
[This column is as appropriate today as when I wrote it. The only thing that needs changing is what is considered "astronomical" for a barrel of oil. Analysts are now predicting $200 or $300 a barrel (or even higher) were America or Israel to attack Iran. But I think that all the other points are still as valid now as when I originally wrote this last fall.]
At the very least, it would be worth pointing out what we could face if we (or Israel) attacks Iran. An unnamed oil market analyst on NBC last night put the price of a barrel of oil after an attack on Iran as "name your price," and then went further with "$300, $400 a barrel." Put in perspective, this would be around $10.00 to $13.50 per gallon to fill up your car. If your tank held 15 gallons, this would cost you from $150 up to almost two hundred dollars for a single fill-up.
President Bush is in the news today declaring, in essence, that North Korea need no longer be considered as part of his "Axis Of Evil." With absolutely no proof whatsoever, Congress is now supposed to remove North Korea from the list of countries which are considered state sponsors of terrorism. So much for all that fiery rhetoric Bush used to use about terrorism.
Anyone who thinks that the treatment Barack Obama has gotten from the media during this campaign is remotely the same as the treatment John McCain has received just has not been paying much attention. Because this pro-McCain prejudice has been both pervasive and unremarked-upon throughout almost the entire news media during the entire campaign season. McCain has even joked that the media is "his base" of support. It was a funny line, but there is an enormous truth at its core: the media has been hard on Obama but unbelievably light on John McCain. And this has to stop. Now. Because the election might just hinge on the media's portrayal of the two, so now is the time to point out the uneven nature of the press coverage to date on the two candidates. In time for the mainstream media to correct itself before the general election season really heats up.
President Bush is desperately trying to tie the hands of the next president by negotiating a Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq's government before the end of his term. Unfortunately for Bush, it's looking less and less likely that such an agreement will happen on the timetable he has set. Fortunately, this means that the next occupant of the Oval Office will be able to negotiate his own agreement, rather than being stuck with Bush's.
Every time I visit an unabashedly pro-Hillary website and read the comments posted thereon, I keep thinking: Which side are you on? Will you, out of spite of losing, vote for a man who is the exact opposite of the candidate you supported so fervently? Will you tempt fate with the future of abortion rights in this country? Will you really vote for a man who sees 100 years of American troops in Iraq as a viable outcome? Is your belief in Barack Obama's defeat in November enough for you to contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy that leaves the White House in Republican hands for the next four years? Hillary didn't win, she lost the nomination. Are you really that upset with Barack Obama (whose platform is virtually identical to Hillary Clinton's) that you would vote against everything Hillary has been fighting for? Even if she told you not to? In short, what kind of Democrat are you?
Well, no, actually, I made that up. The Leader of the Free World did not, in fact, quack like a duck. It was the product of a (gleeful) overly active imagination on my part. I apologize for such frivolity.
Rollins is not very upbeat about Republicans in general, George Bush, Republicans' chances in 2008, or indeed the whole future of the Republican Party. He says the party "has kind of lost its way." He bemoans the fact that young people are flocking to the Democratic Party as a "death knell for the long term." George Bush has to realize "he's no longer on the ballot." As for the Bush administration, "the quicker this page is turned by many Americans, including a lot of Republicans, the better." He later returns to this point, and makes it even more forcefully: "This administration is pretty tired right now and I think even the most die-hard Republicans are ready to move on."
He gave this speech, complete with Hitler reference, in a speech to the Knesset, Israel's governing body. This isn't the first time he's dragged Hitler into a political speech, as I pointed out last November. But it is the first time he's used the Hitler argument in Israel, to the best of my knowledge.
It was a telling sign that neither Democratic candidate saw fit to visit Punxsutawney before the Pennsylvania primary. Nobody wanted the press to remember Bill Murray's Groundhog Day in any way, shape or form. But even without stump speeches next to Punxsutawney Phil, it's hard not to think of living the same day over and over and over again when looking ahead to the nine contests that remain. Because nothing much is likely to be decided by them.