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.

WEDNESDAY,  AUGUST 11,  2010

REID TAKES HEAT – AT 7:31 P.M. ET:  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is taking much heat today for an outrageously patronizing statement he made about Hispanic Americans.  Fox News has the story:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is taking heat after he told a crowd of supporters Tuesday that he doesn’t know "how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican."

Reid's comments were quickly criticized Wednesday by one of the GOP’s rising stars — Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles who is running for U.S. Senate in Florida.

In an interview with Fox News, Rubio called Reid’s remarks "outrageous" and "ridiculous" and said "this kind of outrageous speech in politics is continuing to spread."

"You know, Americans of Hispanic descent, you know what the strongest issue there is? That is economic empowerment, upward mobility," Rubio said. "There’s only one economic system in the world that that’s possible in, time and again, and that’s the American free enterprise system.

"And the reason why Americans of Hispanic descent should be Republicans is because the Democratic leadership is trying to dismantle the American free enterprise system," he continued. "The point is he’s wrong."

Reid's comments reflect the "identity politics" mantra of the Democratic Party:  You vote only as a member of a group, not as a concerned American. 

Reid's campaign, meanwhile, has defended his remarks, saying in a statement Wednesday that "Sen. Reid has long enjoyed the support of many Hispanic Republicans in Nevada and he appreciates that support.

"Sen. Reid’s contention was simply that he doesn't understand how anyone, Hispanic or otherwise, would vote for Republican candidates because they oppose saving teachers’ jobs, oppose job-creating tax incentives for small businesses, oppose investments in job-creating clean energy projects, and oppose the help for struggling, unemployed Nevadans to put food on the table and stay in their homes."

Harry, when you're in a hole, don't keep digging.

It's hard to assess how much damage this comment will do, if any.  I suspect there'll be some polling among Hispanic citizens of Nevada to see how they react.  Reid is in a tough fight for reelection with Sharron Angle, a less-than-stellar Republican who has allowed Reid to close the polling gap.  We'll follow the race to see if Reid's gaffe causes him to slip back once more.

And I'll be looking for comments by my conservative Hispanic friend, Silvio Canto Jr.

August 11, 2010     Permalink

AND NOW WE EXPLAIN THE PRESIDENT'S LOW RATINGS – AT 7:20 P.M. ET:  We're now well familiar with Mr. Obama's tin ear.  Sending Michelle on a lavish trip to Spain isn't the work of a man who has that ear to the ground.

Well, welcome to Tin Ear City.  The president has just issued his presidential statement on the occasion of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.  Here's a quote from it:

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country.

Uh, yeah.  I was just thinking yesterday about Islam's great respect for diversity – like forcing President George W. Bush, who was visiting Saudi Arabia, to go to an American aircraft carrier offshore to celebrate Christmas, not allowed in "the kingdom."

Look, you want to be courteous in these statements.  You want to be gracious.  But couldn't the president rephrase that message, and speak of the "goals" of justice, progress, tolerance and dignity?  As Christians and Jews, people who've been called crusaders, cross worshippers and the sons of apes and pigs by radical Muslims, we think a groveling, over-the-top message to the Muslim community is inappropriate.  There are certainly many Muslims who do practice a tolerant and decent form of Islam.  But we tire of having to show "respect" for the Islamic world, when no respect is returned.  There are ways to say that in a message while being respectful.  I wish the president would have found the route.

August 11, 2010      Permalink

YIKES – AT 9:36 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen's daily tracker has some very grim news for the president: 

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% 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 -22 (see trends).

This matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president.

I have to believe that Michelle's excellent Spanish adventure played a role here.  It did not go down well with the public.  She should consider weekend outings with lunch boxes the next time she gets the urge to travel.  Bus trips are available.

I can't imagine the president's "strongly approve" number getting much below 24%, because you're down to the president's hard-core, kamikaze base.  If he starts losing the true believers, he's lost forever.

Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

Rasmussen cautions that these are one-day numbers.  They can be higher or lower tomorrow.  Still, they paint a portrait of a president in deep trouble. 

Rasmussen keeps track of press coverage of Mr. Obama, and reports that this coverage got dramatically more favorable in the past week.  Can't figure that.  Maybe the media is falling in line to support the Dems during the upcoming election campaign.

August 11, 2010      Permalink

I'M AFRAID THIS IS RIGHT – AT 9:08 A.M. ET:  The Politico tilts liberal in its analyses, and that must be considered when reading.  However, I think this analysis of yesterday's primaries is largely true, and should be unsettling to our side:

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, who have been starved for good news through much of 2010, finally received a generous helping Tuesday night.

Republicans, meanwhile, were left with several new reasons to wonder whether all the favorable national trends showing up in polls are enough to overcome local candidates who are inspiring little confidence about their readiness for the general election 12 weeks from now.

In each of the four states that held primaries Tuesday, the GOP either nominated or gave an overnight lead to candidates tarnished by scandal, gaffes or some other significant vulnerability.

Sorry to say, but that is correct, as we noted last night, when early returns were coming in.  In Colorado, where a Democratic Senate seat is very vulnerable, the GOP could have nominated the solid Jane Norton, but instead chose the buffoon Ken Buck, who should not be allowed near a microphone.  In Connecticut, the GOP voters had a choice of some decent candidates for the Senate seat being vacated by Chris Dodd, but chose Linda McMahon, an entrepreneur from the pure, saintly world of professional wrestling.  Connecticut could conceivably have elected a Republican to the Senate.  The state regularly elects Republican governors.  But McMahon may tip too far on the embarrassment scale.

Previously, GOP voters chose the semi-whacked out Sharron Angle for its Senate candidate in Nevada, running her against Harry Reid.  Harry Reid's defeat had been a foregone conclusion.  It no longer is.  And the nomination of Rand Paul in Kentucky is a further embarrassment to the party, since Paul is a libertarian, not a Republican. 

Congressional seats are obtained one by one by one.  People in each state or district size up their local candidates.  No matter what national trends are in play, a party has to have good candidates running locally to win.  My fear is that we'll wake up the morning after election and find that the Democrats still control the Senate because the Republicans blew key races with nutso candidates.  That does not seem to be a major problem in the House, but the Senate is pretty important.  Think Supreme Court nominations. 

Overconfidence is rushing over the GOP.  Let's get rid of it, fast.  There's a lot of work to do, and some of the people up front may not have been the best choices.

August 11, 2010       Permalink

NOW JUST WHO DO YOU THINK IS MAKING MONEY ON THIS? – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  We now have some actual engineering tests on that menace of the road, the Toyota.  Remember Toyota?  Unintended acceleration?  The end of civilization?

Think again.  From The New York Times: 

DETROIT — The government’s investigation into complaints of sudden acceleration of Toyota vehicles has found no evidence of flawed electronics in 58 of the vehicles that crashed, federal regulators said Tuesday.

An examination of the crashes also found only one instance in which an accelerator pedal became trapped under a floor mat, and none in which a pedal became stuck or sprang back too slowly, according to a preliminary report to Congress.

Oh dear, what will a trial lawyer do?

Toyota has recalled nearly nine million Toyota and Lexus vehicles worldwide to correct problems involving floor mats and sticky pedals, and lawmakers and some drivers have long suggested that a malfunction in the electronic throttle control system of the vehicles might explain some of the reports of sudden acceleration.

Though federal officials said the investigation was continuing and they had not yet drawn conclusions, the raw findings support Toyota’s contention that electronics were not at fault and that many of the reports of sudden acceleration might actually have been instances of human error — drivers mistakenly pressing the gas pedal instead of the brake.

Yeah.  Maybe that's why we don't hear much about "unintended acceleration" any longer.  The accelerators have had their 15 minutes of fame.

Ah, but the other side:

Toyota’s critics remained skeptical. Sean Kane, a Massachusetts safety consultant working on behalf of plaintiffs in lawsuits against the carmaker, said the event data recorders in the crashed vehicles — known as E.D.R’s and the primary source of information for the federal investigators — were unreliable and not scientifically validated.

Lawsuit?  Did I hear lawsuit?  Why do I think that's what this whole "scandal" is about?

The public wants to believe that E.D.R.’s are independent witnesses,” Mr. Kane said. “These are not aircraft black boxes, and they rely on the same electronic systems that are suspect to begin with.”

It's the black boxes!  That's what it is!  Let the lawsuits begin!

There are millions and millions of Toyotas on the road.  If they really had a problem with the dreaded unintended acceleration, we'd be hearing of cases every day. 

I'd also like the names of those drivers who don't know that you can stop a car by putting it in neutral and applying the brake, or even shutting off the ignition. 

And, by the way, I've never heard of a case of a reporter's Toyota going out of control.  It's always those people out there, who want money damages.

August 11, 2010      Permalink

CALIFORNIA, HERE I...ON SECOND THOUGHT, I WON'T BE COMING – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  The whole image of California used to conjure up images of optimism, good weather, movie stars, and aircraft plants that actually made things.   Consider California today:

The federal Bureau of Economic Analysis said personal incomes of Golden State workers fell by that amount in 2009 compared with the previous year – the state's first year-to-year decline since World War II. In the Sacramento region, income was off about $800 million.

The bureau said 2009 income statewide totaled $1.56 trillion, down about 2.5 percent from $1.6 trillion in 2008. The 2009 level also came in just under the 2007 total.

California's decline was a third more than the national 1.8 percent personal income drop, reflecting the relative intensity of the state's recession.

COMMENT:  And the fact is that there's nothing on the horizon that will save California.  One of the state's greatest burdens, illegal immigration, does not look as if it's going to be fixed soon. 

Oh, and by the way, where are California's colleges and universities in all this mess?  Are there no practical ideas coming out of those great centers of dissent and obnoxia? 

They used to say that what happened in California would soon sweep across the country.  I hope it's no longer true, but I fear that it might be.

August 11, 2010     Permalink

TUESDAY,  AUGUST 10,  2010

PRIMARY RESULTS – AT 11:45 P.M. ET:  The Georgia "endorsement" battle between Huckabee and Ginrich-endorsed Nathan Deal and Palin-endorsed Karen Handel, for the GOP governor's nomination, is essentially a dead heat, with 99% of the votes in.  This may well be decided by absentee ballots. 

In Colorado, news organizations are calling the race for the GOP Senate nomination for Ken Buck, an insurgent, who has apparently defeated Jane Norton, who had the backing of the national Republican Party and John McCain.  Buck will face incumbent Senator Michael Bennet.  I'm uneasy over this one.  I think Norton would have easily defeated Bennet.  Buck is a loose cannon.  Republicans have great chances this year, but in several crucial states they have nominated problematical candidates for the Senate. 

August 10, 2010

PRIMARY RESULTS – AT 10:15 P.M. ET:  Some primary results are now in:  In Connecticut, wrestling executive Linda McMahon has won the GOP Senate primary, and will face, or arm-wrestle, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, in the general.  Blumenthal, a man of corpse-like stiffness, was exposed as having lied about his military record, but is still favored over McMahon.  Dems will focus on McMahon's career as a wrestling magnate, as wrestling does not make a pretty picture.

In Colorado, incumbent U.S. Senator Michael Bennet has won the Senate nomination, defeating Bill-Clinton-endorsed Andrew Romanoff.  The GOP race has not been decided. 

More later.

August 10, 2010

THE MAN SPOKE THE TRUTH – AT 7:47 P.M. ET:  We are not famous here for praising White House Press Secretary Bob Gibbs.  But the man has spoken the truth:

The Obama administration's most public face, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, has tried to climbed down from angry remarks he aimed at leftwing critics, calling them "crazy".

In an interview with The Hill newspaper in Washington DC, Gibbs revealed frustration at attacks on the administration from liberal Democrats and others on the left, in terms likely to make relations even worse:

"I hear these people saying he's like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy."

The press secretary dismissed the "professional left" in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality."

Like anyone else who speaks the truth in Washington, Gibbs later tried to walk back his remarks, calling them "inartful."  But what he said was plainly true.  There is a left fringe in the Democratic Party, similar to the Marxist-leaning leftoids whom Harry Truman tossed out of the party in 1948.  And yes, they want the Pentagon eliminated.  They wouldn't mind seeing the Bill of Rights put into mothballs as well.

There is now anger and fury among the nuts.  Keith Ellison, the self-proclaimed "moderate" Muslim congressman from Minnesota (what a joke) has demanded Gibbs's resignation.  Other leftoids are similarly inclined. 

I'd like to see Obama back Gibbs.  I don't think Gibbs stands any chance of being fired, but, given the general tone and cowardice of this administration, he may be given a tour of the underside of the bus just to keep him on message.

I'm relieved to know someone in the White House understands the left.  It's about time.

August 10, 2010     Permalink

PRIMARIES TONIGHT – AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  There are primaries in four states today – Georgia, Connecticut, Colorado, and Minnesota. 

The Georgia Republican gubernatorial nomination race will be a test of endorsements.  Nathan Deal is endorsed by Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, but Deal has some ethics problems.  Challenger Karen Handel is backed by Sarah Palin, although Handel is considered the less conservative of the two candidates.

Connecticut will probably see Republicans putting the gun to their heads and nominating Linda McMahon as U.S. Senate candidate, to go up against Richard Blumenthal, the highly defective Dem entry who fibbed about his Vietnam record.  Republicans have a chance to take this seat in a normally Democratic state, but Linda McMahon's record is largely with the World Wresting Federation, which she started with her husband.  Not exactly stellar credentials.  Her main claim to the nomination is that she can finance her own campaign.  Money talks.  It spoke too loudly in this case.

Colorado will have establishment Republican Jane Norton, backed by John McCain, in a race for the GOP Senate nomination against rebel Ken Buck, a prosecutor who leads Ms. Norton by about ten points.  Here is a case where a Senate seat is clearly winnable, but Mr. Buck may simply not be the man the people of Colorado want to send to Washington.  Republican rebels have succeeded in nominating several problematical Senate candidates already – Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky.  Buck might be the third.  The GOP winner will face either incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet, the Obama choice, or Andrew Romanoff, endorsed by Bill Clinton.  That race itself is fascinating, another test of endorsements.

I don't know much about the Minnesota contests, and they don't seem nationally significant, so I won't comment.

We'll naturally note the results later on.

August 10, 2010     Permalink

"WHY, LITTLE OLD ME?" SHE EXCLAIMED, "WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THAT?" – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  There is a boomlet for Hillary Clinton.  Of course, she and her allies have nothing to do with it.  It's the will of the people, don't you see?  From John Fund at The Wall Street Journal:

As President Obama sinks in the polls, Democrats and liberal pundits inevitably are searching for a scapegoat. The most likely victim appears to be gaffe-prone Vice President Joe Biden, who has become the focus of speculation that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just might replace him on the 2012 Democratic ticket.

Former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, his state's first African-American governor, touched off the controversy. Writing at Politico.com last week, Mr. Wilder argued that Mr. Biden's tenure has been undistinguished and chock full of "too many YouTube moments." He charged that Mr. Biden "has continued to undermine what little confidence the public may have had in him."

By way of contrast, Mr. Wilder says that Hillary Clinton has excelled in her role.

And so the buildup continues.

John Heilemann, a reporter for New York magazine, said the major obstacle would be to "figure out a way for Biden to slide aside happily" and suggested that Mr. Biden replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State.

Along the way, Mr. Heilemann outlined why President Obama just might want to have a steadier hand at his side for his re-election campaign: "The Republican attack on Obama is going to revolve around 'too liberal,' but also 'too incompetent.' . . . They're going to say, 'Look, you hired this guy. He was too young for this job. He didn't know what he was doing. He didn't have the experience, and look what's happened.'"

Hmmm. Sounds a lot like the campaign Mrs. Clinton ran against Barack Obama in 2008, complete with that infamous commercial asking voters who they wanted in the White House when a 3 a.m. crisis call came in.

COMMENT:  Fascinating, of course, but there are some problems with the script.  First, Hillary would be running as v.p. candidate as part of Obama's try for a second term.  Second terms are notoriously unsuccessful.  Why would she want to be first mate on a sinking ship?  As secretary of state, or even as a private citizen, she distances herself from Obama's mistakes.

Second, the ticket could lose, probably finishing Clinton in national politics.  A new group of younger Dems will step forward for 2016.

Third, Clinton may project an image of "competence," but her tenure as secretary of state hasn't produced a major success.  She could wind up being less than an asset.

Fourth, the public may revolt against the "dynasty" factor.  Her husband has been president.

Fifth, Obama may veto the idea.  He'll certainly know that Hillary would spend her four years as vice president measuring the Oval Office drapes, and doing little else.  Who needs this?

Sixth, the image of Hillary, already Her Pushiness, pushing aside Joe Biden, may not be helpful.  The guy's got feelings, and public sympathy may actually display itself.

Seventh, the notion that being vice president gives Hillary an automatic presidential nomination in 2016 may not turn out to be valid.  The public may tire of her.  Two terms as first lady.  A term and a half in the Senate.  A term as secretary of state.  A term as vice president.  Got any other pitchers in the bull pen?

But it is an intriguing possibility.  We'd like it just because it gives us so much to write about.  It's show biz.

August 10, 2010     Permalink

IRAN ON THE MOVE – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  There is much talk about the administration's next step on Iran.  With all the sanctions business and the tough rhetoric, little if anything has been achieved in stopping, or even slowing, the Iranian nuclear program.  And now comes this:

VIENNA — Iran has activated equipment to enrich uranium more efficiently in a move that defies the U.N. Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday.

The Vienna-based nuclear watchdog said Iran has started using a second set of 164 centrifuges linked in a cascade, or string of machines, to enrich uranium to up to 20 percent at its Natanz pilot fuel enrichment plant. Another cascade there has been producing uranium enriched to near 20 percent since February.

If enriched to around 95 percent, uranium can be used in building a nuclear bomb. At 20 percent, it can be turned into weapons-grade material much more quickly than less-enriched uranium.

Tehran denies it has such aims and says its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only. But some in the international community — the United States and its allies — aren't convinced.

COMMENT:  No, and Iran hasn't been very convincing. 

The question is, after the recent imposition of new sanctions, whether we have a Plan B.  If sanctions fail once more, what are we prepared to do?  Much of Europe would shudder to think of anything more drastic than sanctions, especially now that polls show Angela Merkel's center-right German government to be increasingly unpopular.  If it is replaced by the left, you can kiss strong action against Iran goodbye, at least action from Europe.

With American elections coming up, Obama would actually benefit from a harder line, even if his party won't go along with it. 

But it appears certain that 2011 will be an utterly crucial year for Iran policy.  Either sanctions will work, or will fall apart.  If they fall apart, the next move may well be up to the U.S., perhaps acting alone.  Britain?  We'll wait and see.  The new government of alleged conservative David Cameron is strange indeed.  A new, high-level executive appointed to the Foreign Office had to resign a Foreign Office post earlier after having an affair with a member of the PLO.  That inspires confidence, doesn't it?

One thing Obama will probably have going for him in 2011 is a Congress more supportive of strong action against Iran.  Whether he'll know how to work with that Congress is another story.

August 10, 2010      Permalink

A REVOLT FROM WITHIN – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  A federal agency knows it's in trouble when its own employees turn against it.  From the Washington Times:

The union that represents rank-and-file field agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has unanimously passed a "vote of no confidence" for the agency's leadership, saying ICE has "abandoned" its core mission of protecting the public to support a political agenda favoring amnesty.

The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 7,000 ICE agents and employees, voted 259-0 for a resolution saying there was "growing dissatisfaction and concern" over the leadership of Assistant Secretary John Morton, who heads ICE, and Phyllis Coven, assistant director for the agency's office of detention policy and planning.

The resolution said ICE leadership had "abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing U.S. immigration laws and providing for public safety," instead directing its attention "to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty and the creation of a special detention system for foreign nationals that exceeds the care and services provided to most U.S. citizens similarly incarcerated..."

And...

The statement also noted that:

• The majority of ICE's enforcement and removal officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing U.S. immigration laws outside of the jail setting.

• Hundreds of ICE officers nationwide perform no law enforcement duties whatsoever because of resource mismanagement within the agency.

• ICE detention reforms have transformed into a detention system aimed at providing resortlike living conditions to criminal aliens based on recommendations not from ICE officers and field managers, but from "special-interest groups."

COMMENT:  A worthwhile story to read.  This is one union that seems fiercely independent, and not a rubber stamp for the Obamans.  I hope conservative media gives the announcement a great deal of coverage.

August 10, 2010     Permalink

FROM THE POLLSTER'S MOUTH TO YOU KNOW WHOSE EARS – AT 8:13 A.M. ET:  A Republican Senate?  It is, to some, but a dream.  It's an important dream, though, for the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices and ratifies treaties, two processes that could do long-term fatal damage to the essence of America.

But a Republican Senate may be possible.  From The Politico:

It’s a hope so audacious that few Republicans will even acknowledge it out loud: the possibility that the balance of power in the Senate might be up for grabs in November. The GOP would have to take 10 seats, knocking off virtually every targeted Democratic incumbent and sweeping the open seats held by both parties.

A new poll conducted for American Crossroads, the independent conservative group founded by Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, suggests the 2010 landscape might be just volatile enough to give Republicans at least a chance at that prize...

....taken together, the results suggest Republicans have an opening to make substantial gains this fall, even to the point of putting the Democrats’ 59-seat majority in peril. In eight seats currently held by Democrats – Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Washington – Republican candidates average an edge of seven points over their Democratic opponents, leading 47 percent to 40 percent.

In five Republican-held seats – Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio – GOP candidates hold an average lead of eight points, 45 percent to 37 percent.

But let's be careful about interpreting the data:

...the poll doesn’t mean Democrats are likely to lose the Senate – it doesn’t even mean definitively that the Senate is in play. For Republicans to take control of the chamber, they would have to win every seat named in the survey, plus two more from a list of Democratic incumbents topped by Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold and California Sen. Barbara Boxer. Republicans would also have to maintain control of Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr’s seats, which Democrats have vowed to target.

However...

To American Crossroads, however, the point of the poll is the big picture: the voters who will ultimately decide the fate of the Senate campaign are mad as hell, and seem unlikely to take it anymore.

COMMENT:  The reality is that the election is almost three months away, several lifetimes in politics.  This White House will not fold easily.  The scare campaigns – Republicans will take away your Social Security, Medicare, and even your Viagra – have only just begun.  And Democratic giveaways may provide crucial votes in key states.  If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul will vote for you. 

Republicans must run as if they're 20 points behind.  And they must come up with a positive program to present to America.  Most important, they must provide a photographic portrait, so to speak, of an America run by Obama Democrats, starting with a bankrupt Treasury.

August 10, 2010     Permalink