April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
So, reading Sen. Pat Toomey’s discourse on what a threatened refusal to raise the debt ceiling would really mean, in practice - a clumsier, more painful way to force necessary spending cuts than if the spenders would just agree to legislate them - I fail to see how such a threat differs from the administration and e.g. Sen. Barbara Boxer threatening the economy (and specifically and regulated entities with Washington representatives) with EPA cramming down the ‘global warming’ agenda in a more clumsy, more painful way if these lobbies and Republicans (and a few dozen elected Democrats) refused to negotiate surrender on cap-and-trade legislation.
Other than that one carried lurid threats of not only financial ruin but the end of the world, while the other just warned of economic consequences.
These people do not come to this debate with clean hands.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?