Gas prices jumped more than 18 cents over the past two weeks to a national average of $2.79 a gallon of self-serve regular, a national survey said Sunday.
Let me cry for you...gas is currently $3.43 at it's most expensive spot in town and has been over $3.00 a gallon for weeks.
John McIntyre at RCP doesn't buy the notion that I've been peddling this week that John McCain's Presidential campaign may as well be over. In a radio interview this week he did not predict such but would neither rule out a Kerry-esque turn of events in 2008 for Republicans.
Like Kerry in 04, McCain was supposed to be next in line for his party's nomination and like Kerry, McCain is struggling to stay in the top tier of candidates here in the early part of the campaign.
We all know what happened to the Democratic front-runner in '04, and again while not predicting such a scenario, McIntyre wouldn't rule it out. Neither does K-Lo:
I'm Not Putting My Money on This [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Craig Crawford floats McCain dropping out:
If presidential campaigns had such a thing as an honorable discharge, Sen. John McCain could get one.
The Arizona Republican’s White House bid has gone from bad to worse with this week’s news that he lags well behind leading candidates in both parties for the almighty dollar. McCain’s aides say that he inexplicably held only two fundraisers in the first two months of 2007.
No wonder that his first-quarter earnings put him at $12.5 million in contributions, compared with $15 million for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and $20 million for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
In short order, McCain has gone from presumed front-runner to enduring rumors that he might not even stay in the race. If he dropped out, McCain can always blame his support for the unpopular Iraq war — highlighted by his recent trip to the region — and exit with dignity.
They would call this a coup:
Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
God love Tom Maguire:
The fact that Saddam did not succeed in purchasing uranium from Niger is a separate issue from the question of whether his agents made the attempt. That seemingly simple bit of logic has stumped Joe Wilson and his admirers for years, and evidently baffles the WaPo today.
Indeed.
A wonderful message from President Bush to Senator Kerry today:
President Bush used Congress’s Easter break today to defy Democratic lawmakers and appoint three officials who have already drawn heavy criticism on Capitol Hill.
The president used recess appointments to install Sam Fox, a major Republican donor from Missouri, to be ambassador to Belgium; Andrew G. Biggs of New York to be deputy commissioner of Social Security, and Susan E. Dudley of Virginia to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the office of Management and Budget.
Naming the three while Congress is in recess allows Mr. Bush to avoid the Senate confirmation process. The recess appointments allow the three to remain in their posts until the end of 2008, virtually the end of Mr. Bush’s second term.
Mr. Bush’s use of the recess appointment device, which is authorized in the Constitution, was an unmistakable gesture of defiance against the newly empowered Democrats. He has previously used the tactic to install judicial appointees unpopular with Democrats and to seat John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.
Today’s recess-appointment gesture was another sign that he will not easily surrender to lame-duck status despite the Democrats’ control of Congress.
Mr. Fox, a wealthy businessman active in Republican politics, contributed $50,000 to the Swift Boat campaign that attacked Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War record during the 2004 presidential race. Senator Kerry got a measure of revenge last month as he needled Mr. Fox in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Senator Kerry was of course very proud of himself after trashing Fox--but politely so--at his Senate hearing last month. Today leaves the good Senator left reflecting on what it's like to lose to Bush a second time.
I can't imagine how good it must have felt for the President to sign that appointment.
This combined with this story from the other day are a pretty clear indicator that Senator McCain's presidential ambitions are effectively DOA at this point. From Dean:
“Lagging in fund-raising and under fire for his support of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain is overhauling his campaign finance operation and delaying the official announcement of his candidacy, his aides said Tuesday.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. Team McCain has actually concluded that he’s “under fire” for his steadfastness on Iraq? How could they be so obtuse? McCain’s reliability on Iraq is quite frankly the only thing that’s keeping him afloat in conservative Republican circles. Or let’s put it this way – McCain’s not considered viable because of McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy or his reputation as a loyal Republican.
This reads eerily like the mis-interpretation of Bush's approval numbers. When Bush's approval ratings sunk into the low 30's and high 20's, everyone assumed that the country had wised up and everyone was turning on the war; not so.
Here-to-fore steadfast supporters of the war were displeased at the seeming lack of will to prosecute the war. Folks haven't noticed but approval on Iraq has inched up, a result of good news coming from the Surge.
I'm with Dean on McCain. We're seeing the same kind of phenomenon here.
There is no more left-wing/Democratic opposition to Iraq. We see and hear it all, there are no Iraq-war foes in hiding. These people wobbling on McCain are Republicans and the good Senator has given us plenty of reasons to wobble.
But he doesn't have to take our advice (and rarely does). If the Senator wishes to turn left over Iraq, he is welcome to. He'll have no-one to blame other than himself when his numbers tank, however.
Getting an invitation to join a custom league only to go through the registration process only to have the commissioner (and erstwhile blog-mate) that invited you close the registration before you finish.
Advertising is, at it's heart, a business about relationships. Everything we do helps or hurts our working relationships. When our working relationships are good, problems are few but when problems are many, it's entirely too likely that the relationship isn't as good as it ought to be.
Sometimes those relationships end. An account leaves or, at the extreme, you cut them off. Or, occasionally, an advertiser requests new blood. That happened to me this morning.
I only caught two things as the conversation was ongoing; 1. my name and 2. "I want a new rep." With my dander already up, I inquired of my manager exactly what was going on.
When I learned the specifics of which account it was I offered gladly to turn it over. In my mind I already had the file put together and ready for handing over to the next unsuspecting slob.
Then I got angry; these people have been nothing but difficult for the entire time I've called on them. They routinely find ways to slow-pay, under-pay and not pay at all. They want a new rep?! They can have a new rep.
They want a new rep? Well, I want a new advertiser. One that doesn't send us the wrong copy then blame us for running the wrong ad.
I want a new advertiser. One that doesn't demand we write off more than half the money we've billed in the last 12 months.
They want a new rep!? I want a new advertiser. One that pays their bills...on time. Or even at all.
They want a new rep...? Don't get me started.
Didn't need to hear experts weigh in on this. I could have told you it was a stupid idea:
The early onset of Daylight Savings Time in the United States this year may have been for naught.
The move to turn the clocks forward by an hour on March 11 rather than the usual early April date was mandated by the U.S. government as an energy-saving effort.
But other than forcing millions of drowsy American workers and school children into the dark, wintry weather three weeks early, the move appears to have had little impact on power usage.
"We haven't seen any measurable impact," said Jason Cuevas, spokesman for Southern Co., one of the nation's largest power companies, echoing comments from several large utilities.
That may come as no surprise to the Energy Department, which last year predicted only modest energy savings because the benefits of the later daylight hour would be offset.
For example, households may draw less electricity for lights at night, but will use more power in the early in the day as they wake to darker and chillier mornings.
Duh.
I give you Gale in Santa Maria, in all his mindless, rambling ridiculousness:
George, you've done enough damage to me, and to our children, and you are going to have to leave!
I'm filing for a divorce today. And there will be no child visitations! You sent our children to war without enough training, without enough supplies, without body armor or armor to protect their vehicles. We've done enough bake sales to buy our children body armor.
Every time I hear you say the words, “Support our troops,” I am thinking, then why don't you?
We do support our children. We support them coming home. And when they do come home, we want to see them, whether they are in a body bag or a coffin or a wheel chair. We deserve to see the results of your immoral war. You can't hide that from us any longer. And the ones who are alive but injured need every bit of medical and psychological help they deserve. They already paid the bill when they enlisted to defend us.
So, George, it's time for you and Dick to step down, to get out of our sight. This isn't a vote of “no confidence,” it is a kick out the door. In a just world, you and your sidekick would be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
But we don't have time for that. We have a lot to repair in this country and in the world. Be a man and leave!
I'm filing for divorce...
Reason #291 to make war for oil: Just paid $40 for a tank of gas. And it's only April...
Yes, I am kidding. There are better ways to get what we need. It sure felt good to write though, 'cuz I'm crabby!
Via Instapundit:
IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL . . . er, until the long haul actually, you know, happens. Here's what Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden said in 2002:
Although no one doubts our forces will prevail over Saddam Hussein's, key regional leaders confirm what the Foreign Relations Committee emphasized in its Iraq hearings last summer: The most challenging phase will likely be the day after -- or, more accurately, the decade after -- Saddam Hussein.
Once he is gone, expectations are high that coalition forces will remain in large numbers to stabilize Iraq and support a civilian administration. That presence will be necessary for several years, given the vacuum there, which a divided Iraqi opposition will have trouble filling and which some new Iraqi military strongman must not fill.
So, it was a project for a decade then. But now it's cut-and-run. (Via The Corner).
When the going gets tough, the tough get running...er...um...
I had occasion yesterday at work--for reasons already forgotten--to speak with my sales manager about Surf Beach. I referred him to the web for some information about the only beach access in town.
In the course of his search we came across this set of archived photos, courtesy of Lompoc History Museum, via the city's website. I learned all kinds of things.
I didn't know that Teddy Roosevelt came rolling through town in 1903, stopping for a brief appearance at the Surf Depot. I didn't know about the Shriner's train wreck in 1907 or the eerily similar wreck near town 70 years later.
But what I really didn't know--and am quite grateful to learn--is that you can fish with just a roll of string and a rifle.
McCain is toast:
In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.
Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.
Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”
“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.” He claims, however, that Downey is grossly mischaracterizing their exchange: “We certainly didn’t discuss in any detail about the senator’s political plans and any discussion about party-switchers, generically, would have been limited to the idle gossip which was all around the city about the [Democrats’] aggressive approach about getting any GOP senator to switch in order to gain the majority. Nothing more or less than that.”
Downey said Weaver is well aware that their discussion was much more than typical Washington chit-chat.
“Within seconds” of arriving home from his lunch with Weaver, Downey said he was on the phone to the most powerful Democrats in town. One of the first calls he made was to then-Senate Minority Leader Daschle.“I did take the call from Tom [Downey],” Daschle said in an interview. “It was Weaver’s comment” to Downey that started the McCain talks, he added. Daschle noted that McCain at that time was frustrated with the Bush administration as a result of his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primary.
Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain “had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority … [A lot of issues] were on the table.”
Absolutely not so, according to McCain. In a statement released by his campaign, McCain said, “As I said in 2001, I never considered leaving the Republican Party, period.”
As Dean Barnett puts it: Nevertheless, this incident illustrates a perfect storm of McCain’s shortcomings in a way that none of his other bi-partisan adventures do. The vanity, the immature pique of anger, the utter indifference and disloyalty to the people who voted for him and the party that supported him – they’re all on naked display. And it ain’t pretty.
This story if true, and honestly even if it isn't, demonstrates to Republicans everywhere just why McCain isn't the guy. The problem is that he even appears capable of what The Hill has described, not even whether he actually did actively pursue a switch.
Memo to the good Senator: Party loyalty matters.
Stan in Santa Maria takes a different--and I would argue refreshing--tack in this gripe-fest about the recent increase in gas prices on the Central Coast:
For gasoline consumers to better understand the cost of a gallon of gasoline, a few facts may help clarify what goes into making up the price that we pay at the pump.
California mandates that all gasoline must meet higher standards than required by federal standards. Thus, the gasoline produced here is available in very limited quantities from sources outside the state. When our supply and demand is out of balance, due primarily to refinery maintenance and occasional process interruptions, our specially formulated gasoline must acquired at then-prevailing prices and shipped in from out of state. Buying commodities at near-term spot market prices is not cheap. In addition to our state-mandated boutique gasoline formulation, our air-quality gurus have mandated that we also must add ethanol to each gallon. Ethanol is not produced here and must be acquired and shipped in from Midwestern producers. Ethanol requires special tank cars, storage in special tank facilities and blending into the finished gasoline, adding about 15 cents to the cost of a gallon.
Our fuel formulation requirements are not enough to cause our higher prices and, indeed, there is more to the story. A significant part of the price we pay at the pump is for taxes. California is among the higher-taxed states and, true to form, we pay among the highest gasoline taxes in the country. State and local taxes add about 24 cents a gallon, while the feds collect another 18 cents. Taxes make up about 20 percent of the price at pump and, guess what, the county sales tax is effectively indexed to the total price because it is charged on top of all the other costs and taxes! I wonder why we don't hear much about gouging from our local politicians?
So, when we feel the need to complain about high gasoline prices, let's not forget to direct some of our unhappiness toward local, state and federal politicians and air quality elites as well.
Hugh interviewed former speaker Newt Gingrich earlier today. I look forward to listening to the entire thing when the chance arises. In the interim, I read the transcript and I must say, it was another fine example of what and why I love Newt Gingrich.
He's intelligent, conservative and not afraid to call a spade a spade. The best example of that was this exchange that Hugh noted in his own post on the ongoing crisis involving Great Britain and Iran:
HH: Super. It wouldn’t be a debate, just a conversation. Now let’s get to the first major issue of the day, which is Iran. Mr. Speaker, if the United Kingdom feels obliged to use force, if diplomacy fails to get their people back, will you applaud?
NG: I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation, or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There’s only one. And the second is to simply intercede by Naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran…
HH: Would you do, would you urge them…
NG: And say to the Iranians, you know, you can keep the sailors as long as you want, but in about 30 days, everybody in your country will be walking.
HH: So how long would you give them, to give them that ultimatum, the Iranians?
NG: I would literally do that. I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you’d prefer to show the planet that you’re tiny and we’re not, we’re prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.
HH: I agree with that 100%. Would your recommendation to the United States President be the same if Iran seized our forces?
NG: Absolutely. I mean, the reason I say that, it is the least violent, least direct thing you can do. It uses our greatest strength…you know, the mismatch in Naval power is absolute. And so you don’t have to send troops into Iran. Everybody on the left is waiting for conservatives to say things that allow them to run amok and parade in San Francisco, and claim that we’re warmongers. I want to avoid war by intelligently using our power to eliminate the option of sustaining an economy, so that the Iranian dictatorship will be shown to be the hollow dictatorship it is, so the people of Iran decide they’d like to have a decent government with real electricity and real gasoline, so they overthrow it. And I want to do that without risking a single American life, or being engaged in a single direct confrontation. And Naval power lets you do that.
Sounds an awful lot like Newt read the scenario examined here back in December from the desk of Arthur Herman. It is, as is pointed out, direct and while not without risk, the option with the highest likelihood of success. Not just because of Iran's inability to stop it but because also of our ability to execute it.
And as for pushing Iran over the edge, aimed at driving it's government from power--we ought give serious consideration to just about every idea aimed at accomplishing that.
This one in my own back-yard:
It was announced earlier in the week that the always-popular Summer barbeque series is returning...in March.
Scuttled as last summer wound down, the ever-popular weekly workplace barbeque returns for the summer in early spring as sunshine begins to invade our little piece of the California coast.
I thank Global Warming for bringing back this fine tradition for an extra two months this year!
Who Links Here
