We found out earlier this week that our friend Victor Davis Hanson suffered a ruptured appendix in Libya and had to have emergency surgery in a Red Crescent clinic. Hugh Hewitt interviewed Victor yesterday on his experience.

Hewitt: Professor Hanson, I understand you had a close run thing in Libya last week, and we're awfully glad that you're back in the States.

VDH: Yeah, I did. I had a ruptured appendix, and emergency surgery, and eight days later, somehow I made it back to the States, and very lucky.

Hewitt: Well, you're going to have to give us a first-hand report about Libyan health care.

VDH: Well, you know it's very interesting. I started having some problems, about 24 hours, and then because the country has just been opened up to Americans. There's nobody really there. There's no Embassy, and nobody has any experience with it, Qaddafi's Libya. But I got a government person to escort me, and they found a Red Crescent clinic at Two in the morning. They found a doctor who was trained in Cairo, and he basically gave me an excellent diagnosis, and said I had about ten hours to either fish or cut bait. And he operated, took out the mess, and gave me some pretty strong antibiotics for peritonitis. They don't give you opiates there, or any post-operative pain killers, because...

Hewitt: What, no drugs???

VDH: No drugs in Qaddafi's utopia. But the funny thing was that oddly enough, even though it was a bad experience, there on my back, I got a lot of people from the Libyan government that came to talk to me. And it was very amazing what they said. I mean, the country has just been opened up to cell phones, internet, satellite dishes, and it's a very small country. Very large territorially, but only five, six million people. But they're very, very pro-American. They really want better relations with the United States, as much as they can talk freely in that state.

RadioBlogger has the full transcript, which goes in to more detail about his experience in Libya as well as VDH's take on the state of play on Iran and in the war.

We wish Victor all the best with his recovery.

Posted by John McIntyre at 02:15 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Aldermen in that toddlin' town, Chicago, have banned the sale of foie gras, the goose- and duck-liver delicacy. Or as one anti-fatty-liver blog puts it, the "delicacy of despair."

Foie gras now joins smokin' in public places, handguns and nuclear weapons as verboten in Chicago.

What's next, a ban on not just the sale, but also the possession of foie gras? Carrying concealed foie gras? Second-hand foie gras?

Won't the ban simply push the sale of foie gras into the suburbs? Just like Chicago's decision to be a nuclear-free zone decade ago turned suburban Cicero into a nuclear zone?

At least Chicago's aldermen will be able to boast: "Ain't no foie on us."

Posted by Dennis Byrne at 01:27 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Voters in Washington state's 8th district have never elected a Democrat. So why is WA-8 on the DCCC's list of targets this November? Good question. One reason is that the district went slightly in favor of John Kerry in 2004 (51-48) and Al Gore in 2000 (49-47). Another is that Democrats think they have found a credible challenger to first-term Republican Dave Reichert in former Microsoft project manager Darcy Burner. One final bright spot is that with help from the DCCC and the Internet left, Ms. Burner out raised Mr. Reichert in the first quarter of this year, $334,000 to $268,000.

But that's about where the good news ends. In 2004, Mr. Reichert ran 4 points better than Mr. Bush in the district, retaining an open GOP seat by beating popular radio talk show host Dave Ross 52-47 in a race many thought would be closer. Mr. Reichert is also dominating the money race: he raised more than a $1.1 million last year, causing his campaign manager to declare in January, "A war chest of this size will put this race out of reach." Mr. Reichert holds 2-1 cash on hand advantage over Ms. Burner, notwithstanding her Q1 performance.

Ms. Burner and the DCCC want to portray Mr. Reichert as too conservative for the district and a rubber stamp for President Bush who is extremely unpopular in Washington. But that will also be a tall order: Mr. Reichert has demonstrated an independent streak during his freshman term, voting against his party on the Terri Schiavo resolution and drilling in ANWR, the latter being an issue voters in the Evergreen State are unlikely to hold against him no matter how high gas prices might climb this summer.

For his part, Mr. Reichert wants to exploit the "stature gap" with Ms. Burner. He is a 30-year law enforcement veteran who rose to prominence by helping capture the Green River Killer in 2001. Mr. Reichert is also the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security, making him one of only six members in the history of the House to head a subcommittee in their freshman term. Republicans are eager to contrast their candidate with the 35-year old Burner, whom they describe as a political neophyte and "part time liberal activist" who should be running for city council, not Congress.

The reality is that despite all the rhetoric, Washington 8 is not a top tier pick up opportunity for the Democrats. This is a seat that will only flip if they have a big night in November, and even though that is where some Democrats hope they are headed, right now it remains little more than a possibility.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 06:01 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has President Bush's job approval sinking to a new low of 36%. Coupled with a 3-point drop in Rasmussen's daily tracking poll (which is a big one-day move for the Rasmussen poll) Bush's job approval in the RealClearPolitics Poll Average dropped below 35% for the first time ever, at 34.8%.

As I wrote last week when the FOX News poll showed the President's approval at 33%, this might be the beginning of a more serious deterioration in Bush's poll numbers. CNN's poll this week registering 32% is hard to gauge given it is a new polling firm and it is their first poll. All in all, below 35% in the RCP Average is a problem for the President and indicates loss of core Republican support.

One ray of good news for Republicans in the NBC/WSJ poll is while Bush's support ticked down 1-point to a new low, the generic ballot for Congress (the way Peter Hart and Bill McIntuff ask it) registered a 7-point bounce towards congressional Republicans. In their previous poll (taken Mar 10 - 13) Democrats held a 13-point edge in who the public wanted to control Congress, compared to only a 6-point lead today (45-39). Given that Democrats always poll a little more favorably in this question, that result is bad news for Democrats dreaming of taking over the House.

But before Republicans jump for joy they should remember that this is one isolated poll and all of the other generic polls continue to show Democrats more solidly ahead. The RCP average has Democrats leading by 10.8%.

It will be interesting to see what the new round of major polls coming out soon will indicate on the generic ballot. It's possible that Republicans in Congress have picked up overall support from the immigration issue, where the President has not, because he has been closer to the McCain/Kennedy approach and out of step with many in the GOP.

Posted by John McIntyre at 05:44 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Over the past generation, Republicans and Democrats have battled to a draw on issues ranging from taxes to abortion. Both sides have poll-tested, focus-grouped, nuanced answers for these issues and supporters have lined up with the party of their choice.

Even the War on Iraq takes place against a political backdrop that all participants in the process understand--Democrats need to oppose the War while fighting a perception that they are weak on national security. Republicans want to focus on the global threat of terrorism rather than specifics in Iraq.

Immigration is entirely different.

It's not the most important issue to voters (except in a few Southwestern States) but it could shake up the nation's political equilibrium more than the economy, Iraq, or any other contemporary issue. Our latest polling shows that a pro-enforcement third party candidate could attract more support than a generic Republican presidential candidate in 2008 (and also be tied with the Democrats). Conservatives divide equally between Republicans and the third party candidate. Moderates divide equally between Democrats and the third party candidate. (This should be taken as an indication of the issue's power rather than a literal projection of election outcomes).

The issue has power because politicians from both parties have ignored it for a long time and haven't begun to figure out the nuances or context of the debate.

Most current discussion by elected officials starts with a focus on illegal aliens. For most voters, that's letting the tail wag the dog.

The best place to start is with the bigger picture where most Americans agree. We've been polling state-by-state on this issue all month and consistently find agreement on a few key points.

1. Most Americans in all states want a welcoming national immigration policy that lets our nation assimilate new people into the national melting pot. Our polls have consistently found strong support for a policy goal that welcomes everybody except criminals, national security, threats, and those who want to live off our welfare system.

2. Just as important, most Americans also want a policy that emphasizes enforcement first. They want the nation to gain control of its borders and enforce existing laws before other reforms are considered.

3. As a pragmatic step to support the first two points, most Americans want to build a barrier along the Mexican border.

These goals are not at all contradictory. In fact, they flow naturally from the fact that we are a nation of immigrants, a nation of laws, and a nation of pragmatic problem solvers.

Where does this leave the 11 million or so illegal immigrants living and working in the USA? Unfortunately, they are the pawns in the current debate, but not the central issue.

Let's hope there's a leader out there ready to focus on the bigger picture of the immigration debate... a picture that is welcoming, enforceable, and enforced.

If that person doesn't step forward, it's easy to envision an outcome that only a political junkie could love. Imagine that the nation remains bitterly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Then, a 3rd party candidate campaigns on immigration, picks up a few Southwestern states, and prevents either party's Presidential nominee from winning a majority of the Electoral College. Not a pretty picture.

Posted by Scott Rasmussen at 12:19 PM | Email Author | Permalink

The greatest story never told? It's still the booming American economy--spurred by lower tax rates, accommodative money, huge profits, big productivity, plentiful jobs and a general free-market capitalist resiliency.

Some folks are bellyaching and gnashing their teeth about oil and housing; but you know what? Housing is softer but is holding up just fine. Today's Wall Street Journal says its time to buy a home in Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, rather than the east and west coast. Good point. As for gas at the pump, it averaged about $2.40 in March and about $64 for crude oil. But this was not an economic impediment. Production, retail sales, and employment were all very strong in March. Very strong indeed.

Today's durable goods report was off the charts strong. Airplanes, transportation, metals, industrial machinery, computers, even motor vehicles and car parts. But wait. The key point: business investment in capital goods was unbelievable. New orders for core cap-ex, (ex defense and aircraft) have grown 9 percent at an annual rate and 12 percent over the past year. That is a leading indicator of future business spending.

And there's more. Backlogs of unfilled orders increased over 12 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter--the best in two years. This key measure is a leading indicator of the new orders leading indicator, a very important forecasting tool for business economists. With this kind of real world corporate activity in the pipeline, it shows that highly profitable businesses will be doing a lot of hiring in the months ahead in order to expand plant and equipment capacity. Just what the doctor ordered.

At these lower tax rates, capital is still relatively inexpensive and investment returns are unusually high. What's more, President Bush's mid course correction on energy policy is going to stabilize, or even reduce, upwards pressures on the price of oil and retail gasoline.

Regrettably, Mr. Bush included a lot of liberal-left greenie gobbledygook about price gouging inspections and oil company investments. But he may have included that to stop a windfall profits tax from coming out of Congress.

All this oil addiction stuff smacks of Jimmy Carter's malaise. But, according to Washington analyst James K. Glassman, over the past decade, big oil has invested roughly equal to their profits. In fact, according to Mr. Glassman, between 1991-2005, ExxonMobil's total investment totaled $210 billion (actually exceeding the company's earnings). So government should stop beating up on XOM and their brethren.

Confiscating Lee Raymond's bank account will not produce more energy. Nor will breaking up oil companies as per Sen. Chuck Schumer's goofy idea. And a windfall profits tax will only lower energy exploration and investment.

The point is free markets work. Rising prices from the global economic boom will lead to more conservation, less consumption, and more production. That is, if government steps out of the way, deregulates sufficiently, and finally allows drilling in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, sets up LNG terminals, and creates nuclear power facilities. Just look at the deregulated boom in Canadian oil sands production.

On the positive side, Mr. Bush did suspend the ethanol tax mandate forcing gasoline distributors to participate in one of the great energy policy bungles of all time. Neither ethanol refiners nor transporters were anywhere near ready to implement this misguided policy mandate. Lee Raymond and other industry leaders warned Energy Secretary Sam Bodman about this. Bodman deserves a "F" for terrible execution and management.

No one's even sure if ethanol is worth the candle. Many believe the energy used in the production of corn based ethanol gasoline is actually greater than the energy produced by this stuff. This ethanol tax snafu is responsible for at least the last 50-cent increase in gas pump prices. Too bad Mr. Bush didn't abolish the ethanol tax altogether, rather than just suspending it for the driving season.

However, Bush's decision to finally stop the crude oil fill rate for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is another good measure that will relieve upward pressure on oil prices. Missing though, is a total repeal of the 54-cent ethanol import tariff aimed largely at Brazil. This is the energy equivalent of the mistaken steel tariff a couple of years ago that protected producers at the expense of consumers. It's bad policy and it flies in the face of Mr. Bush's own stated principles of avoiding isolationism and protectionism. But at least some good in relieving the ethanol tax and the SPR fill rate will help economic growth.

All of which lead to some important fiscal policy decisions now confronting the White House:

First, it is essential that the tax cut extensions on job creating low tax rate dividends and cap gains be passed in the weeks ahead. This is a must. It will bolster and prolong the business capital investment boom that requires long lead times for planning purposes.

Second, the president must veto the budget busting emergency supplemental appropriations bill that is now before Congress. The Senate is overspending by $15 billion, including a $700 million Railroad to Nowhere in Mississippi. With new Bush White House staff, and a new budget director, now is the time for new toughness and resolve on spending. This kind of move will raise economic confidence and electrify a moribund Republican base.

As the Federal Reserve moves toward additional steps to remove excess money creation and bolster the dollar value relative to foreign currencies and commodities, inflation fighting money policy should be combined with lower tax rate incentives to promote long-term economic growth. This was the Reagan economic model twenty-five years ago, and it will work as well today as it did back then when it launched the long prosperity boom we continue to enjoy today.

To simplify matters, why not just repeal the ethanol tax, repeal the ethanol tariff, repeal the multiple taxation of dividends and cap gains, and get rid of the death tax while you're at it? Now there's a program of long run economic growth.

Posted by Lawrence Kudlow at 02:01 PM | Email Author | Permalink

As Ronald Cass wrote three weeks ago on RealClearPolitics, expect to hear the call for Justice Scalia to recuse himself to continue as liberals try and find ways to silence the conservative justice:

The game now is to find a way of making it seem that Scalia's personal life and conduct commit him to positions on important legal issues in a way that interferes with his ability to decide matters impartially - not because Scalia has in fact done so and not because his accusers care about impartiality. Instead, the game matters because Scalia is the leading voice for a set of legal propositions that run counter to the political, social, and constitutional agenda of the dominant voices in almost every major element of America's Speaking elites.

That is why Justice Scalia's comings and goings, his associations, his speeches, all have become the focus of media attention. It is not simply his Catholicism that is an issue. It is anything he says and does that can be grist for a demand that he step aside from a case where his participation would matter.....

It reflects a dedicated effort to make him a news item in hopes of disqualifying him from deciding, or limiting his influence on, those very issues.

Today New York Times editorial board member Adam Cohen chips in his little part to keep the liberal tap-tap-tap against Scalia going:

Justice Antonin Scalia has gone too far -- and he keeps on doing it.

He made national headlines recently for making a gesture that may or may not be obscene. If it wasn't obscene, it was certainly coarse and undignified.

He recently called those who disagree with his unconventional views of the Constitution "idiots."

His public statements often make him sound more like a political partisan than a judge. He is particularly bad on the subject of Bush v. Gore, the decision that put President Bush in the White House, a low point in the Supreme Court's history that Justice Scalia should not be pulling down any lower.

Worst of all, Justice Scalia refuses to abide by the basic principles of recusal, the law that forbids judges from hearing cases in which they are not impartial, or will not be viewed as impartial. A few weeks ago, he took part in a case involving the rights of detainees after making inflammatory statements that seriously called his fairness into question.

As Cass says, these are not one-off comments, but part of an overall liberal strategy to diminish Scalia's influence and ratchet up public pressure for him to recuse himself from cases where they fear Scalia's conservative vote. Cohen continues with his screed against Scalia, which at its core is all about Scalia's conservative judicial philosophy and not his out of court "actions." Does one really believe that if Scalia held the same judicial philosophy as William Brennan or Ruth Bader Ginsburg we would be hearing these complaints from Cohen? I don't think so.

Cohen stoops even lower with a veiled hint that Scalia is suffering some sort of aging related mental infirmity when he writes:

The rate of Justice Scalia's disturbing words and deeds is increasing -- now, it seems, he can be counted on to embarrass the court publicly roughly every few weeks. There is debate among court-watchers about why this is happening.

A little later Cohen suggests that some of the motivation for Scalia's "actions" that he finds so offensive might be in response to not getting the Chief Justice nod or a changing PR strategy, but I still read the earlier paragraph as laying the seeds for a "Scalia is Losing It" attack.

Finally, Cohen proposes a new recusal process where "an alternating panel of three justices" would vote on recusal motions. It is interesting how in the last 50 years while the Supreme Court has had a liberal or split bench, the recusal issue never came up. But now that judicial conservatives are close to a majority on the court, suddenly we get ideas about how three justices should be able to vote certain justices off cases.

Expect the liberal attacks on Scalia to continue. This is not an isolated article, it is a deliberate strategy by the left.

Posted by John McIntyre at 11:14 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The GOP isn't the only political party that has it bad at the moment. Yesterday an ICM poll showed support for Tony Blair's Labour party sinking to a 19-year low in advance of local elections next week. The Tories garned 34% (flat versus last poll), Labour 32% (-5 vs. last poll) and the Lib Dems were at 24% (+3 vs. last poll). The Guardian characterized the Lib Dem showing as "a remarkable improvement for a party mired in scandal at the start of its own leadership election two months ago."

Labour has suffered from, among other things, umseemly revelations involving "cash for peerages" and has been unable to mount an effective attack against new Tory leader David Cameron. In yesterday's Telegraph, Rachel Sylvester panned Labour's most recent round of ads attacking Cameron saying, "Labour's latest campaign shows how little the governing party understands how to take on the new-look Opposition."

Adding to Labour's woes is news that between 1999 and 2006 the government lost track of more than a thousand convicted foriegn criminals (including 3 murderers, 9 rapists and 5 child molesters) who were released from prison and should have been deported but weren't. Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke tendered his resignation for the second time over the blunder yesterday afternoon and Tony Blair again rejected it.

(Clarke also has drawn fire for this column he penned in The Guardian on Tuesday slamming the press for its "lazy and deceitful" characterizations of the Blair government's efforts to improve national security. The Guardian responds with its own scathing editorial today).

All in all, it's been a very rough go for Blair, Brown and Labour recently - and there don't seem to be indications things will be getting better any time soon.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:25 AM | Email Author | Permalink

According to Howard Kurtz, Tony Snow is in as the new White House Press Secretary:

Fox News commentator Tony Snow agreed last night to become White House press secretary after top officials assured him that he would be not just a spokesman but an active participant in administration policy debates, people familiar with the discussions said. [snip]

Snow, 50, is particularly interested in economic and immigration issues. He intends to insist on greater access for White House reporters, said sources familiar with his plans. He has described the press corps as a beast that must be constantly fed. In a December 2000 column in the Washington Times, he referred to "Democrats and journalists (but I repeat myself)."

Of course the left will slam this move as further proof of the theory that FOX News is just an extension of the Bush administration, but it makes sense to put an accomplished professional (both as a broadcaster and as a debater/pundit for conservative ideas) with a genial attitude like Snow behind the podium. He should be a big improvement for the White House.

On to the other Snow. Taegan Goddard speculated on Monday that Secretary of the Treasury John Snow might be resigning this week after cancelling a guest lecture at Harvard scheduled for Friday. Talk of Snow's departure has been swirling for a while and former Kellogg CEO and current Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez is rumored to be among the top replacements.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:17 AM | Email Author | Permalink

"Nothing kills a political honeymoon faster than the word taxes." - Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, explaining why New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine's negatives shot up to 42% in the lastest Qpoll after registering at only 14% in January.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:10 AM | Email Author | Permalink

President Bush did himself some good by suspending the ethanol tax--at least for the duration of the driving season. He also did some good by stopping the fill rate for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Gas prices slipped lower today, as did crude oil.

The biggest factor in rising energy prices is still the world economic boom. And of course, various political saber rattling from inside nuclear ambitious/anti-Israel Iran and leftist President Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. But around the edges, the president's mid-course correction for energy policy will at least stabilize the situation as everyone then waits for the upcoming hurricane season.

One action President Bush should have taken (and could still take) is to end the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol (which basically means Brazilian ethanol.) Why the U.S. government should protect the already heavily subsidized ethanol industry at the expense of American consumers is hard to fathom.

Energy Secretary Sam Bodman actually defended the tariff earlier this month saying it was necessary so that foreign producers "can have no advantage over American companies." Holy smokes, this is the energy version of steel tariffs and it's just as bad an idea.

But all this talk of price gouging is nothing more than the usual political pabulum.

Posted by Lawrence Kudlow at 03:21 PM | Email Author | Permalink

The new Atlantic has a great article by Mark Bowden on the failed attempt to rescue the American hostages from Tehran in 1980. The online editors have set up a special page that has photos, videos, and maps along with Bowdon's cover story "The Desert One Debacle."

It is fascinating to read in light of the very real potential for some kind of special forces action against Iran in the next three years. The "debacle" of that failed Delta Force mission 26 years ago stands in stark contrast to the attitude and competence of the U.S. military today. Reading the article you can viscerally feel the difference in morale from circa spring 1980 versus morale today (notwithstanding a few disgruntled generals.)

This is something our nation's leaders should keep in mind as the country continues to debate the wisdom of what U.S. troops are doing in Iraq. The United States turned its back on the military in the 1970's and you can feel the consequence of that reading Bowden's article. Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of our current action in Iraq right now, we should never again turn our back on the men and women who defend the freedom we so often take for granted.

Posted by John McIntyre at 02:42 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Walter Shapiro reports on his recent sit down with Senator Mike DeWine:

During our interview, I asked DeWine whether he intended to campaign with the president. DeWine gave a little laugh and said, "Time will tell. We'll see." And then the senator retreated to his boilerplate formulation that "this campaign is between Mike DeWine and Sherrod Brown." A few minutes later, as we were exchanging farewell handshakes, DeWine said, "It's going to be a fun race." And then the Republican senator, with an engaging penchant for honesty, paused and added two nervous hedge words, "I guess."

DeWine's race may or may not be fun, but it's almost certainly going to be close. Rasmussen is out with a new poll today showing DeWine narrowly leading Sherrod Brown, 43 -41, which is about where this race has been since Paul Hackett dropped out in mid-February - and probably where we can expect it to stay for some time barring some big event. According to SurveyUSA's tracking poll, after a glitch in February DeWine's approval rating has rebounded modestly to 48% (disapproval 41%) which is more or less where it's been for the last seven months.

In the Governor's race, Rasmussen has a new poll showing Democratic Congressman Ted Strickland extending his lead over Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell to 17-points, 52% to 35%.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 12:21 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, T.J. Rodgers, doesn't seem to have a very high regard for politicians. From an interview in the EETimes Online (Hat Tip: Tom Elia at The New Editor)

EETimes: If you ran for office--say, governor of California--what would be your first piece of legislation?

Rodgers: Let me reject the premise of your question. I have a real job, I create real wealth, real people work for our company. I would never, ever swap my job for a job where I make my living taking money from other people. I would rather be unemployed, literally.

Posted by John McIntyre at 12:21 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Lynn Sweet rips the lid off of what looks to be yet another example of malfeasance by a member of Congress, this time a questionable deal between Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush and communications giant SBC (now AT&T):

An Englewood community center founded by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), a key player on telecommunications legislation, received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T, one of the nation's largest phone companies.

The chief of a congressional watchdog group says Rush's ongoing association with the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation and his role in shaping telecommunications law as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is a conflict of interest. Using charitable giving as a backdoor way to curry favor with lawmakers is coming under increasing scrutiny, figuring in controversies associated with former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who was forced to temporarily step aside as the ranking Democrat on the Ethics panel.

On Wednesday, the energy and commerce panel on which Rush sits is set to vote on a controversial rewrite of telecommunications law co-sponsored by Rush and backed by major phone companies eager to compete with cable television companies.

Rush says he supports the bill because it encourages competition and will benefit low income areas in districts like his by driving down prices. Though that claim is disputed by some, it's certainly a reasonable position to hold and the bill was approved by a subcommittee vote of 24-7 with the support from 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats. The merit of the legislation, however, is beside the point.

Even if there isn't a quid-pro quo - and no one is alleging any such thing - what on earth would allow Rush to think it's acceptable for him to take a million dollars in charitable contributions from a company whose business he directly oversees from his perch on the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet? Spare me the soliloquies about good intentions or what a difference the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation is making in the community, this should be a no-brainer conflict of interest. Let's not forget to throw in the fact that Rush's son works for the Rebirth of Englewood CDC and is, presumably, drawing a salary.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress seem to have taken leave of their senses about what is and is not acceptable behavior for elected officials. As we've seen, Democratic cries of a "culture of corruption" are blatantly hypocritical, and Republicans are offering up a band-aid for a wound that requires a tourniquet.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:36 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Our friend Peter Brookes sent us these comments on the CIA leak case. Peter is a senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation on national security affairs and was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Asian and Pacific Affairs earlier in the Bush Administration.

The allegations against CIA officer Mary McCarthy over leaking sensitive operational intelligence information to the press are deadly serious. Some Democrats, left-wing pundits, the MSM and other assorted Bush-bashers are looking to make this case a cause celebre using political spin, inaccurate analogies and a heavy dose of relativism to justify the accused's actions. Here's what you need to know:

1. The release of intelligence after being declassified by an authorized authority (e.g., the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate by the White House) directly to the public--or via the press--is not a "leak," and is, therefore, legal. The unauthorized release of classified information to the public (e.g., the allegations against Mary McCarthy) is a "leak," and against the law.

2. If an intelligence official is concerned about conduct they consider to be inappropriate/illegal, measures exist to make competent authority aware of the situation. An agency's Inspector General is a good option. Failing that avenue, an intelligence official can always turn to appropriately cleared congressional oversight committees such as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Resigning in protest is also an option; running to the press isn't.

3. The fact that McCarthy is accused of leaking operational (as opposed to analytical intelligence such as that which was contained in the Iraq NIE) is especially egregious. Most serious: the disclosure of operational information (e.g., intelligence sources and methods) can put American operatives as well as our foreign agents in danger. The bad guys read the press, especially the American press, which--unfortunately-- is rife with sensitive information. Moreover, since operational information is so sensitive, its disclosure makes friendly foreign intelligence partners reluctant to share information with the U.S. That can really hurt with the war on terror and the Iranian nuclear program still on the boil.

4. The accused undoubtedly signed a federal government secrecy oath, saying that she understands that she will be entrusted with highly-sensitive information which can cause harm to U.S. national security, and that if she discloses intelligence to individuals not authorized to receive it, she may be prosecuted. The accused is NOT a hero as some would suggest. She not only broke the law, but she violated the special trust she was given to her by being granted a security clearance and access to sensitive intelligence.

5. While U.S. government employees are allowed to have political views, they shouldn't be mixing them with their work. Let's just say her political career is interesting: Clinton NSC staff, moved off by the incoming Bush administration, sizeable cash donations to the DNC, and $2,000 contribution to the Kerry campaign in 2004. It's not clear her actions were politically motivated at this point, but you do the math...

CIA Director Porter Goss is right to hunt down leakers. In some instances, leaks do irreparable damage to U.S. national security in the same way espionage by an American citizen does. It provides sensitive national security information to an unauthorized audience. Leaking to the press, regrettably, ensures the widest dissemination of our nation's secrets. We can only hope that this case will deter others from taking such a reckless course with America's well-being.

Posted by John McIntyre at 07:32 AM | Email Author | Permalink

During the seventeen years between 1986 and 2002, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil averaged $20.53/bbl. In 2003, the average price for oil reached $31.14/bbl., in 2004 it was $41.44/bbl., in 2005 it was $56.47/bbl., and during the first three months of 2006 the price has averaged $63.35/bbl. On Friday, the price rose above $75/bbl., an all-time high in nominal terms.

Most commentary about these price increases have focused on specific issues of supply and demand in the energy markets. In fact, most commentary about any commodity price movements focuses on specific, market-oriented issues, such as Chinese demand, production problems, or weather.

This focus on microeconomic issues misses the impact of monetary policy. In the 1970s, oil and other commodity prices moved up as Fed policy was inflationary. During the 1980s and most of the 1990s, monetary policy was focused on bringing inflation down. It became a widely followed maxim during that period that investors should shy away from "stuff" and focus on value-creating "ideas." This trend accelerated in 1997 when Fed policy became deflationary.

With prices low, investment in commodity production was deterred. As a result, once the Fed started fighting deflation, commodity prices, including gold, silver, copper, and energy products started rising again. Yes, other factors, such geopolitical instability and capacity issues, have played a role. But, the underlying monetary policy environment is still the fundamental driving force beneath these movements.

After adjusting for inflation, the price of oil is still below its peak of $85/bbl. in the second quarter of 1980. Yes, energy prices are rising rapidly, and consumers are spending $244 billion more on energy per year today than they did in 2001. However, total after-tax incomes are running $1.7 trillion higher. In other words, consumers have $1.48 trillion more to spend today - even after subtracting energy costs - than they did in 2001.

When we jump in a bathtub the water level rises significantly. The ocean is another story. The more liquidity in an economy, the easier it is to absorb rising prices. This is why record-high energy price have not caused the economic damage that many expected. Inflation is both a cause of rising prices and a cushion against them.

(Brian Wesbury is the Chief Economist for First Trust Advisors in Chicago, IL)

Posted by Brian Wesbury at 04:45 PM | Email Author | Permalink

My cousin is a member of Carrier Air Wing Fourteen (CVW-14) currently on board the USS Ronald Reagan. Our family gets brief updates from him about every three weeks or so, and he ended his last dispatch with a wry bit of humor on the email situation aboard the Reagan:

"I am on the mightiest warship in the world and we have only two computers that have email. This comes as a pain when there are 19 of us that need to get on. Our email server went down for 10 days just before we pulled in. The ship almost had a mutiny. 21st century and we almost went back to 2 cans and a string. That's the government for you."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 04:11 PM | Email Author | Permalink

In today's Boston Globe, Bryan Bender has a look at Rumsfeld's battle within the Pentagon. Key quote:

''People say he is a hawk, that him and [Vice President Dick] Cheney run everything. He is not some ideological nut," said a former top Rumsfeld aide, who asked not to be named. ''You can have a reasonable discussion with this guy. But this is also a guy who for five years has been tipping the applecart, canceling big orders for the Army, and a lot of people are [angry]."

That brings to mind this passage from Midge Decter's 2003 biography of Rumsfeld where she discusses the enormous fight Rumsfeld set off by trying to cancel the Army's Crusader program. Decter writes:

For a while Crusader became a great cause celebre in Washington. Bets were made, and a number of pundits confidently predicted that Crusader would turn out to be Rumsfeld's Waterloo. They could not, a number of Washington insiders told interviewers, believe that he could succeed in killing the program. For in addition to the Oklahomans, the army - most notably in the persons of Secretary of the Army Thomas White and Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki - rushed to Capitol Hill, and there the secretary of defense and his associates indeed enountered a pitched battle. "It was," Rumsfeld said of the experience, "as if I has shot a little old lady in the grocery store." In the end, Crusader and its supporters lost, and the program was dropped. Later Rumsfeld would observe that the battle over Crusader had been "more important not to lose than it was to win."

RELATED: The Anger at Rumsfeld

Posted by Tom Bevan at 11:47 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Michelle Malkin has launched a new conservative internet video site called Hot Air. Seeing as how I've become maddeningly addicted to bloggingheads.tv, I will most certainly give it a try. You should as well.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 11:22 AM | Email Author | Permalink

For those interested in Alzheimer's there is a great article on the RCP ReaderArticles page submitted by Adam. It is from the May issue of Scientific American "Shutting Down Alzheimer's"

If you haven't checked out RCP's new ReadersArticles feature, scroll down the front page to see the top stories as voted on by RCP readers. Or you can click directly to the full ReaderArticles page from the black and white Nav bar at the top of every page. Once there you can look at all the articles submitted, articles with the most votes. Check it out.

Posted by John McIntyre at 10:50 AM | Email Author | Permalink

John Kerry is back. Enough with the flip-flopping, "I voted for the war before I voted against it" politician we saw in 2004. On Saturday before a "wildly enthusiastic" crowd at Boston's Faneuil Hall, Kerry took the opportunity to celebrate the 35th anniversary of his testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by reestablishing himself as the solidly anti-war, ""How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" protest leader we first came to know in 1971.

Needless to say, the left couldn't be happier to have their winter soldier back. Bob Herbert (Times $elect) called Kerry's speech "important and moving," saying Kerry "gave the impression of a man who had found a voice he'd been seeking through trial and error for a long time, perhaps since that springtime day in Richard Nixon's Washington in 1971."

CBS News' Dotty Lynch cooed that "Kerry stood tall and proud and came to terms with what seemed so right in the 1970s and so wrong in 2004." Lynch continued:

Kerry disappointed many Democrats in 2002 by voting to give the President the authority to go to war and kept frustrating them during his campaign with tortured answers on what the policy should be. But Saturday, he knocked it out of the ballpark as he brought his life and the two wars which define him into sync.

Kerry has the opportunity to lead a movement once again - not by using this as a campaign jumpoff, but by rallying a very angry public to force a change in policy. Richard Nixon worried about Kerry's potential as a leader back in the 70s; maybe the new Kerry will finally prove him right.

So is this is a turning point moment for Kerry, and does it pave the way to redemption in 2008? Hardly.

In an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Saturday arguing the importance of dissent in wartime, Kerry wrote about his testimony thirty-five years ago that "Many people did not understand or agree with my act of public dissent. To them, supporting the troops meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping my mouth shut."

Not exactly. What many people found offensive in 1971, and in the thirty-five years since, wasn't necessarily Kerry voicing objections to the policy in Vietnam but his willingness to publicly condemn the entire U.S. military for heinous crimes like rape and murder which he testified were "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Furthermore, Kerry made those charges based on the testimony of veterans which some have found to be less than credible.

People were offended by his association with a group (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) that met and actually discussed assassinating members of Congress who supported the war. People were offended that Kerry went to Paris and held private meetings with representatives from the North Vietnamese government without U.S. approval and while a member of the Naval reserve. People were offended that Kerry made such a public display of throwing his medals (or someone else's, depending on which story you believe) over the White House fence in 1971 saying they had no value, and he compounded the offense by proclaiming how proud he was of his medals every time an election came rolling around.

Obviously, dissent comes in many forms. Kerry didn't have to do any of these things to voice objection to the war in Vietnam, but he did. His actions thirty-five years ago have proved to have longstanding, and mostly negative consequences which probably aren't going to change no matter how he tries to recast himself.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:30 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Great suggestion from a reader.

Here's an idea that Treasury should consider in any tax reform. Two rules:

1. All representatives and senators shall do their own taxes; and

2. All representatives and senators shall have their returns audited.

You'd see how fast the tax code would get simplified.

Posted by John McIntyre at 08:27 AM | Email Author | Permalink

On Thursday Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S., gave a luncheon speech put on by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the Economic Club of Chicago. I didn't find anything he said on Wahhabism or Islamic extremism new or revealing, as the proof is always more in the actions in the region as opposed to what is said to non-Muslim audiences in Chicago or London. However, Prince Turki did make two remarks that I found interesting.

The first was on the issue of Iran and nukes. Turki reiterated Saudi Arabia's position that the entire region should be free of nuclear weapons, going out of his way to include Israel. This was met with strong applause from approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the audience of roughly 400 people. The issue of Israel's nuclear capability is going to become a big issue as the effort to prevent a nuclear Iran continues to move down the tracks. Israel is never going to give up their nukes, which gives people who are not serious about stopping a nuclear Iran the argument of "Well, why can Israel have nukes but not Iran?" Of course there is an argument against this logic (for starters, Israel's Prime Minister is not talking about wiping out or eliminating other countries), but to many otherwise reasonable people this is seen as a fair question and a legitimate point.

Al-Faisal's other interesting comment - which I found quite encouraging, as opposed to his position on Iran - was about Iraq. The ambassador went out of his way to say that "the political process has been growing steadily since the removal of Saddam Hussein" and that the government being put together in Baghdad is "truly legitimate and representative of the Iraqi people." I found this to be an unexpected boost of support for the U.S. effort in Iraq, and coupled with the news that the stalemate over the new Iraqi PM may be over, perhaps there is reason for some guarded optimism about the eventual acceptance of a unified Iraqi government.

Of course, I'm aware that the Prince and Saudi Arabia may have their own selfish reasons for wanting to see a stable and functioning Iraq. The last thing the House of Saud wants is Shiite Iran essentially take over a Lebanonized Iraq. But regardless of Prince Turki's motivations, the more governments, institutions and people who see the new Iraqi government as truly "legitimate and representative," the higher the U.S. odds of success.

Posted by John McIntyre at 09:44 AM | Email Author | Permalink