Coffee, Gasoline; Clinton on Yemen

I continue to pay the equivalent of $12.27 for a gallon of coffee. The extremists on Capitol Hill have yet to call the CEOs of Dunkin' Donuts, Starbucks and other national coffee retailers to the carpet. But, then again, can you gain politically from berating coffee executives on national television?

A gallon of milk is 50% more expensive than a gallon of gasoline. The dairy farmers and the Senators and Representatives from dairy states sure must hate children.

I paid $1.89 for a gallon of gasoline last week. Thank you, Mr. President, for orchestrating a precipitous drop in gasoline prices. The liberal media blamed the President for the impact three hurricanes had on rising prices so I'm assuming the President gets the credit for the decline in prices. Gee, I wonder if the liberal media will give him credit?

In other economic news, unemployment continues to stay at historic lows (5%). Since no one in the liberal media will give President Bush credit, let me do it here; thank you Mr. President (get those income protection extensions passed!).

The Boston Sunday Globe reported today that the American people, President George W. Bush, and Dr. Condoleezza Rice won another round for democracy this weekend; my thoughts for the Editor of the Boston Globe:

Editor,

"In a dramatic turnaround, Sunni Arab leaders are exhorting their followers to vote in this month's elections (in Iraq) . . . (Sunnis seek seats, voice via ballots, December 4, A1)."

exhort - v. urge or advise strongly or earnestly.

In the coming days, the radical Left will diminish the significance of this "dramatic turnaround" because this decision by Sunnis to participate in the democratic process is not consistent with the radical Left's inexplicable desire for American failure in Iraq. (End of letter)

Maybe short and sweet is all that the extremists at the Globe can handle.

I was preparing some commentary on former President Clinton's dire warning should a cease-fire fail in Yemen (endorsed by the Globe, December 4), but then decided to not continue because we all know how the liberal world reacted to President Clinton's dire warnings about Saddam Hussein's reconstitution of his nuclear weapons program and the grief president Bush has endured for doing something to prevent that reconstitution. In other words, why give weight to a new dire warning from a President who's last dire warning was so summarily dismissed by the liberal media?