Welcome Ann Althouse Readers!  We welcome, nay, we encourage your comments!!!

If this picture is not a photoshop, then Ann Althouse got it right. Sarah Palin is “laughing at how absurdly fascinated everyone is with her.”

One of our commenters mentioned it last night and I found the above picture over on Michelle Malkin’s website.  Loved her commentary.  After spending the weekend with her family, she finds out what’s got the blogosphere buzzing:

The wall-to-wall coverage leads with “exclusive” investigative reports from a HuffPo “independent journalist and foreign correspondent.”

Plus: Breaking updates on the “crib notes!”

Seriously?

What is it about Sarah Palin that gets her adversaries whipped into such a frenzy.  Given this latest froth on their mouths, maybe we should make a crime to say, “Sarah Palin,” in a crowded room full of liberals.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  BREAKING NEWS!!! It’s not a Photoshop.  Karen Schell provides the details!

Actually, in the Zimbio photo album titled “Sarah Palin Attends Campaign Event For Texas Governor Rick Perry” on February 7, 2010 you’ll see the”Hi Mom! Hand” in at least several pictures (Getty Images).

Not a photoshop 

Hi Mom! Hand – photos

Yup, looks like Sarah Palin had the last laugh.  What’ll she write next?

UP-UPDATE:  Now Yahoo! has come down with a severe case of PDS.  Logging on at 7:30 PM PST, their website leads with a piece wondering what was written on Sarah Palin’s hand!

Ever since I saw Quentin Tarantino on TV about the time Pulp Fiction was released, I have been reluctant to watch his films.  He struck me as arrogant, juvenile and just plain rude.  Not a guy I’d like to meet or with whom I’d like to spend time. A few years later, I read a review of his performance in Wait Until Dark on Broadway and thought he had taken the role just to grandstand in his new found fame.

Reviewer Ben Brantley said he had basically just phoned in his part:

Playing a sadistic, murderous thug to Ms. Tomei’s beleaguered young blind woman, Mr. Tarantino seems menacing to nothing except possibly Mr. Knott’s script. Whether raising his voice in deranged fury or softly promising to commit unspeakable tortures, he registers at best as merely petulant, like a suburban teen-ager who has been denied the use of his father’s Lexus for the night.

He seemed the worst type of person, rude and arrogant, convinced he was the greatest there was in any endeavor he attempted.  When I moved to LA and started watching and discussing movies with a circle of Hollywood wannabes, one of my closest friends insisted I watch Pulp Fiction, certain that I would enjoy it.  He even offered to pay for the video rental if I didn’t like the flick.   So, I relented.  And had to agree it was a darn good movie.  Tarantino made brilliant use of his, shall we say, skewed chronology, chopping sequences up and moving them around to keep us engaged.

Now, I certainly wouldn’t call it one of my favorite films.  I don’t think I’ll watch it again.  I do acknowledge that it keep me entertained and was brilliantly made.

I should have remembered that inexperience when Inglourious Basterds was still in theaters.  I didn’t go to see it, not because I had heard it was bad, but because Tarantino kept behaving badly.  Well, a friend loaned me her DVD; I finally got around to watching it Saturday night.  I reluctantly popped it in, feeling I “needed” to see it so I could talk about it.  I was just going to watch a few minutes while I ate my late-night snack.  I wanted to hate it because it didn’t seemed right that someone so rude could make a movie so good.

Well, I didn’t get my wish.  I watched it until I couldn’t keep my eyes open.

And there were some masterful performances.  Brad Pitt was entertaining with near perfect comic timing.  It took me a while to realize how good Christoph Waltz was because I hated his character so much, then I realized that the reason I hated him because he was doing his job.  It did not surprise me when I read that he received an Oscar nomination for this performance.  I do think that two of the women in the movie were shortchanged. Mélanie Laurent was good as Shosanna and I particularly liked Diane Kruger‘s interpretation of a 1940s German film star. (more…)

Not until the end of the article reporting (something of which I had heretofore been aware) that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, “the federal judge who will decide . . . the landmark trial over same-sex marriage” is himself gay, does the reporter see fit to quote anyone critical of the judge.  Instead, he first cites two left-wing gay activists praising the judge.

Now, I know very little about the judge, certainly not enough to call his overall impartiality into question–though the way he has conducted this trial certainly sets off some alarm bells.  It strikes me as odd that he has allowed the plaintiffs to bring in certain witnesses whose commentary on gay marriage would certainly be relevant were the issue debated in the legislature or presented to the people, but is entirely irrelevant to a court considering whether a popular provision in the state constitution violates the federal constitution.

All reports (at least those I have read), for example, show that Jerry Sanders is a fine Mayor of San Diego, but he is no legal scholar.  His remarks on gay marriage belong in a political campaign, not a court of law.  That Judge Walker allowed his testimony as well as other personal stories suggests poor judging.  But, many straight judges would also allow in such “witnesses.”

As a gay man who believes the Judge should have dismissed the case before it even came to trial, I know it’s not his sexuality that’s the issue, but his jurisprudence.*  All that said, should this one man rule to overturn the will of seven million, you can bet the proponent of the Proposition will make an issue of his sexuality.  Indeed, some already are.  Ed Whelan, offering some sound criticism of the judge’s questionable judgments, point outs: (more…)

Jennifer Rubin nails it:

Perhaps if the president or anyone in his administration had ever run a business or been responsible for a payroll, there would be more understanding about the negative impact Obama’s policies (including his mandate- and fine-filled health-care bill) have on those we must rely on to fuel the economic recovery. Unfortunately, this administration is long on academic types and government bureaucrats and short on entrepreneurs. We could use a few about now.

Over at the Huffington Post, Stefan Sirucek has his panties all in a bundle because, well:

Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words “Energy”, “Tax” and “Lift American Spirits” are clearly visible. There’s also what appears to read as “Budget cuts” with the word Budget crossed out.

Oh no! She wrote notes on her hand. My, my, my, my, my, my, my. He files this under “Hypocrisy.”  Huh?  Huh?

So, what’s wrong with that?  She was just reminding herself of the issues she wanted to address.  She doesn’t even have talking points.  And lefties compare this to Obama using a Teleprompter.  I mean, on said device, said Democrat gets the full text of his speeches.  ”The notes,” as the folks on Founding Bloggers put it, “appear to be very innocuous.”  Very innocuous.

These aren’t the answers to questions.  They’re not even questions.  And such scribbling is much less newsworthy than. say, the Commander in Chief mispronouncing corpsman.

Memo to Sarah Palin:  given the obsession of the left in using anything and everything against you, I suggest next time you write, “there’s no E in P-O-T-A-T-O,” on your hand.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse offers:

Isn’t it funny how she caught our attention with her scrawled-on hand? I picture her — hanging out with Todd today — laughing at how absurdly fascinated everyone is with her.

I bet this diva’s right. Just read the whole thing!

For some reason, when I caught sight of this headline, I heard our loyal reader and occasional blogger Sonicfrog saying, “I told you so.”

UPDATE:  The Great IPCC Meltdown Continues

How fitting that the day after the Gipper’s birthday, I learn (via Byron York) that his ideas still resonate with the American people.  This latest Gallup poll confirms what other surveys have been showing since shortly after President Obama and congressional Democrats began pushing their big government initiatives.

Guess Fred Barnes was right about Obama’s “misreading of the 2008 election“:

He and Democratic liberals interpreted it as a mandate for an era of liberal lawmaking and governance in a newly minted center-left America. And they set out to create that era with sweeping initiatives on health care, energy and the environment, and the economy.

Problem is is that these government initiatives don’t find much favor with the American people.  While Gallup found that “about a quarter of Americans felt there was too little government regulation of business and industry“, the ”majority of Americans believed that there was either too much regulation, or about the right amount.”  Indeed, a full 50%, exactly half, thought government should “become less involved in regulating business.”

More Americans unemployed (15 million+ as of January, 2010) than any time since the Great Depression.

More Americans unemployed for longer (8 months vs. 8 weeks) since the Great Depression.

And now a new notch on his belt of Hope & Change:  More Americans on food stamps since records began for the program.

A record 38.2 million Americans were enrolled in the food stamp program at latest count, up 246,000 from the previous month and the latest in record-high monthly tallies that began in December 2008.

Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy groceries. The Agriculture Department updated enrollment data on Friday with a preliminary figure for November.

USDA estimates up to $58 billion will be spent on food stamps this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, with average enrollment of 40.5 million people. Food stamps were renamed the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program in 2008.

Many of our loyal readers and commenters have emailed Dan asking why we put up with trolls like Tano, gillie, ian, raj (presuming it isn’t just the same person)?  Why not moderate or ban altogether these vile, unproductive pieces of human filth that infect dialogue like a cancer destroys healthy cells?

The answer, which Dan repeatedly reminds me, is that in order to know there IS a cancer — you must see it first.  Tano in her comments, for example, perfectly illustrates and reinforces our points here at GayPatriot.  She doesn’t listen, she doesn’t debate, she doesn’t have facts on her side, and she doesn’t express any of the elements of patriotism that were part of the founding of this great Republic.

She is a liberal lickspittle for re-spewing the talking points generated from the elitist copy machines at MoveOn.org and the DNC.  The Powers-That-Be, one might say.  She is just a goose-stepping foot soldier.  One can only feel sympathy for such a creature.  I’m sure there are many others like her in Michigan and across the USA.  Our job is to combat these lies and historic revisionism at every opportunity.

So we will continue to show our cancer for all to see because in this great democracy, we need to know where the ignorance is in order to combat it with the truth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I frequently refer to Ronald Reagan as the greatest president of the second half of the Twentieth Century in large measure because of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s masterful preparation for and leadership during World War II.  Perhaps, because of his Angophilia, perhaps for other reasons, FDR forged a particularly strong bond with the greatest man of the last century, Winston Churchill.   (For whatever reason that relationship served our nation–and Western Civilization–extraordinarily well.)

Their friendship and his commitment to that alliance–even before Pearl Harbor (recall that the Atlantic Charter was drafted nearly four full months before we entered the war)–helped keep the bond between our two nations strong, allowing us to win the war, after overcoming many obstacles and numerous setbacks early in the war

So, despite the failure of FDR’s economic policies to end the Great Depression, I consider him the greatest president of the last century for helping save civilization from Nazism.

Over at Big Government, Burt Folsom offers a different view.  That History professor gives the laurels to the Gipper:  ”Reagan, by contrast [to FDR & Woodrow Wilson], won the Cold War and also revived the American economy from decades of abuse. He was successful both at home and abroad.”

Folsom contends there were three parts to the Gipper’s genius: his vision, his character and his teachabilty:  ”We have to believe in something and we have force of character, but we also have to be ready to modify.”

Read the whole thing and let me know:  who is right, that historian on this blogger?  Like the Gipper, I am willing to modify my views when circumstances call for a change.

In his tribute to the Gipper today on the Corner, Paul Kengor reminds us that W wasn’t the first Republican president the left demonized.  Demonization of prominent Republicans, it’s what the left does:

Reagan was just plain likable. Of all the subjects I’ve studied, few were as universally liked. Sure, Reagan, as president, was demonized by the Left, but that’s what the Left does: indecent, ugly rage. Still, even most liberals muster nice words about Reagan personally.

Central to that likability was Reagan’s humility. The word “I” didn’t dominate his conversation, unless he was poking fun at himself. He was no narcissist. Ronald Reagan was not full of pride; he was thoroughly unpossessed of self-love.

And the Gipper was a plain ol’ nice guy.  He didn’t let the barbs of the media–and there were many–get to him.  I speculate that it was his lady’s love that made him so strong.  The leftists’ barbs bounced right off him because he was confident in his beliefs and strengthened by Nancy’s affection. 

He didn’t need love himself; he got all the validation he needed just from one look in his wife’s eyes.

Kengor concludes with an anecdote about the Gipper’s common touch which shows why our Ron was such a great man.

On the same day I was finishing the second chapter of my dissertation, I was asked to write two pieces on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.  I linked the first here.  Earlier today, Pajamas Media published the second of those pieces.  Here’s the opening.

Seventeen years ago, just days after becoming president, Bill Clinton rushed to fulfill a promise he had made several times on the campaign trail in 1992–he would repeal the ban on gays serving in the military.  At the time, the presdient could have repealed the ban with the stroke of a pen.  It was an administrative directive, not federal law.

Clinton, however, did not lay the groundwork for repeal.  His fellow Democrat, Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga), then-Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an opponent of the ban, held hearings which upstaged the president.  Colin Powell, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Stuff, voiced his opposition.  And Clinton had Barney Frank, an openly gay Democratic Congressman, defending him.  That Massachusetts Democrat had no history of military service and was not well regarded in military circles.  He cast this issue as one of gay rights.

In the end, Frank helped craft a compromise, legislation that would come to be known as Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).  It allowed gay people to serve provided they don’t openly declare their sexuality.  But, it also codified the ban.  No longer an administrative directive, it was no federal law.  The president would need an act of Congress to repeal it.

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest.

Yesterday, when I saw an e-mail from “Equality California” (EqCA) entitled “Prop. 8 supporter’s TV ads start today” in my inbox, I thought the missive’s text might provide fodder for a post allowing me to agree with that left-wing gay group. I mean, why would a Prop 8 supporter run ads for an initiative that voters have long since approved?

The body of the e-mail, however, had nothing to do with Proposition 8. You see, Geoff Kors, Executive Director of EqCA is upset that Meg Whitman, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor of this great state has, in his words,

. . . launched a multi-million dollar media blitz. She is trying to buy the governor’s office with ads that fail to tell the true story about who she really is – an anti-equality candidate who has fought to eliminate the rights of LGBT people in an attempt to drum up conservative support to win an election.

In other words, this accomplished CEO has started running ads promoting her candidacy and she’s not talking about gay marriage.  And while that may get Mr. Kors panties in a bundle, well, I think it’s a good thing.  I don’t think candidates for Governor should make opposition to gay marriage the focus of their campaigns.  Instead, she’s talking about the state’s problems and putting forward her ideas on how to make California golden once again.

Yeah, Meg Whitman supported Prop 8.  And while I like much of what she’s been saying, I’m not ready to endorse her, remaining undecided in the gubernatorial contest.  Before I make up my mind, I want to hear her stand on the state’s landmark domestic partnership program.  I’d be more likely to support her if she addressed that program as Scott Brown addressed gay marriage in his state:  calling it “settled law.” (more…)

Today marks the 99th anniversary of the birth of the greatest American president of the second half on the twentieth century, the greatest of the entire century if we consider just domestic policy.  Born in Tampico, Illinois, Ronald Wilson never lost faith in the American nation — or the American people.  

Or, as the Gipper himself might put it, he always have faith in the American nation and the American people.  He kept his optimism even when times were tough.  When, before his economic policies kicked in and his poll numbers took a nosedive, he kept his good humor, quipping to his pollster Richard Wirthlin that he might have to get himself shot again.

He held the line against growth in domestic spending even as he faced a big-government loving Democratic majority House of Representatives for his entire eight years in the White House.  By building up the military and standing up to the Soviets, calling theirs an “evil Empire,” he brought it down, winning the Cold War without a shot being fired.

He worked closely with our allies, particularly the Brits, forging a strong partnership with his good friend, the Iron Lady, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  He championed freedom and considered himself the luckiest man alive, not because he got to preside over this great nation and helped restore its stature, but because he had won the love of the former Nancy Davis and got to spend the better part of his life with her.

He knew that while he may have been born good, she made him great.

And that’s one reason he was great; Ronald Reagan was grateful for what he had. And we are grateful for his inspiration and his leadership. And for his lady who gave him comfort on the journey and the strength to stand tall for the ideals and ideas which make this nation what it is.

Over a decade ago, when I was active in Republican politics in Northern Virginia, I tried to convince a friendly, socially conservative woman that gay people were capable of mutually supportive monogamous relationships.  No, she assured me, “homosexuals” (she, as I recall, never used the word, “gay”) just couldn’t control their sexual libido (though I think she used another term) unless, of course, they found Jesus and went through an intensive course of “reparative therapy.”

What struck me was not just her intolerance, her parroting of the ex-gay talking points, but the fact that she held to her prejudices even when dealing with a real, live “homosexual” who was trying to tell her about the reality of gay people’s lives.  Reality didn’t seem to intrude on this woman’s narrow world view.

I thought of this woman when I reviewed some of the comments to Bruce’s recent post on The American Divorce Agreement (which had been caught in our spam filter).  Their authors displayed the same sort of prejudice as did that woman who received her opinion of “homosexuals” from people who had limited, if any, knowledge of such a creature.

Only the prejudice our readers displayed was not to “homosexuals,” but conservatives.  It seems they derive their entire knowledge about conservatives from left-wing blogs and the mainstream media.  As I case in point, let me offer you “Auntie Dogma’s” comment in its entirety:

As if! Like the conservative freakshow is SOOOOO going to give you gay “patriots” a bunk on their bigoted ark. You’d be the floorshow, babycakes. You’d be walking the plank the minute they spotted a pod of Orcas.

Bon voyage. Enjoy your new home in Palindia — if they let you in. And remember, you won’t be missed.

Once again, someone assumes that American conservatives exclude gays and would prefer us dead.  Yeah, there are some right-wingers who would do just that.  I referenced one at the outset of this post.

But, since Bruce founded this blog, he and I have been referenced (regularly) on other conservative blogs, included in events for conservative bloggers (I believe he’ll be participating in CPAC later this month) and even offered credentials to the 2008 GOP convention.  I’ve been invited to speak to a local Republican meeting and invited to appear on Pjtv.com.

But, facts just don’t matter to some people. They’d rather see the world through their prejudices.   (more…)

With President Obama’s hyper-partisan Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once more in the news for his, well, direct manner of expressing himself, many who follow politics are asking if it’s time for the president to seek a replacement.

When, right after the 2008 election, then-President-elect Obama tapped the veteran of the Clinton White House to be his Chief of Staff, Republicans (and independents) should have recognized that the Democrat’s post-partisan campaign rhetoric was just that, rhetoric.  In his three terms in the House, the Chicago Democrat (Rahm, not Obama) never showed much of an inclination to forge bipartisan compromises.  He preferred attacking Republicans to working with them.

The president could show that he really means to work in a bi-partisan manner by replacing Rahm with someone less belligerent toward the increasingly resurgent GOP.  Yet, in her article considering where the Chief of Staff is  liability or asset to Obama, Julie Mason thinks he’s keeping his job:  ”his close relationship to the president means his position is largely secure.”

That’s too bad, this is a man whose background is not shaping policy, but promoting his fellow partisans.  His departure would signal a White House less committed to winning political fights and more concerned with advancing the national interest.

GET READY FOR THE LARGEST SNOWSTORM ON RECORD IN WASHINGTON, DC HISTORY

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BALTIMORE MD/WASHINGTON DC
1234 PM EST FRI FEB 5 2010

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-FREDERICK MD-CARROLL-NORTHERN BALTIMORE-
HARFORD-MONTGOMERY-HOWARD-SOUTHERN BALTIMORE-PRINCE GEORGES-
ANNE ARUNDEL-CHARLES-ST. MARYS-CALVERT-LOUDOUN-ORANGE-CULPEPER-
PRINCE WILLIAM/MANASSAS/MANASSAS PARK-FAIRFAX-
ARLINGTON/FALLS CHURCH/ALEXANDRIA-STAFFORD-SPOTSYLVANIA-
KING GEORGE-NORTHERN FAUQUIER-SOUTHERN FAUQUIER-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF…WASHINGTON…FREDERICK…WESTMINSTER…
GAITHERSBURG…COLUMBIA…BALTIMORE…ANNAPOLIS…WALDORF…
ST MARYS CITY…LEESBURG…CULPEPER…MANASSAS…MANASSAS PARK…
FAIRFAX…ALEXANDRIA…FALLS CHURCH…FREDERICKSBURG…WARRENTON
1234 PM EST FRI FEB 5 2010

…RECORD SNOWFALL FORECAST IN THE BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON DC REGION…

…EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WINTER WEATHER CONDITIONS DEVELOPING TONIGHT…

GUSTY NORTHEAST WINDS 20 TO 30 MPH WITH VISIBILITIES FREQUENTLY
FALLING BELOW ONE-QUARTER MILE DUE TO HEAVY SNOW WILL DEVELOP
TONIGHT TO PRODUCE NEAR-BLIZZARD AND EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS WINTER WEATHER
CONDITIONS TONIGHT THROUGH SATURDAY MORNING. TRAVEL IS HIGHLY
DISCOURAGED TONIGHT AND WILL BE VERY DANGEROUS.

Pobres pequeños bebés….

[RELATED STORY:  Climategate Ripping Apart the "Science Community" - via Yid With Lid.

Climate scientist William Sprigg delivered a bold challenge to his fellow climate scientists in a blockbuster address to EUEC 2010 in Phoenix, Arizona on February 2.

Sprigg, an adjunct research professor in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, led the technical review of the first global warming report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990.

In his address to the Thirteenth Annual Energy and Environment Expo, Sprigg took on the ClimateGate scandal and called for “serious reforms” of the global scientific community. He warned of a growing perception that “the IPCC is biased, conflicted, [and] pushing political agendas.”

Sprigg called for a new climate research agency supported not entirely by the government, but in conjunction with the private sector.

“We need to stick to our scientific principles,” Sprigg said, referring at least in part to the critical importance of sharing data with other scientists so that hypotheses and methodologies can be checked and double-checked. “We need to improve our peer preview process, and expand the stakeholders’ role to keep us all honest.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Amidst the frenzy of activity on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell this week, the folks at AOL asked me to write a piece on the hullabaloo and I decided to tip my hat to bloggers with whom we are often at odds, but who, this time, got one right:

While President Barack Obama’s decision to move forward with the elimination of the military’s much hated “don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy has attracted widespread coverage, the reason behind the sudden push hasn’t.

To be sure, some small efforts were made by the administration months ago toward repeal.

In October, the White House approached Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent congressman well-regarded in the military who has long opposed DADT, about developing a means to lift the ban.

The same month, Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network — a group that advocates for gay members of the armed forces — welcomed the appointment of retired Marine Gen. Clifford Stanley as undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness as a sign of the administration’s seriousness of purpose to move forward.

Yet, despite these and other rumblings, there was no evidence that the White House had a strategy (or timetable) to effect repeal.

Click here to read the rest.

Following the news these past two weeks, I have been pretty bullish about the Administration’s new-found commitment to repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).  The president sent signals to Congress and directed his top defense officials to develop a strategy to repeal the ban without compromising the military’s effectiveness.

Earlier this week, Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed his intentions to do just that, telling

the Senate Armed Services Committee he believed the “don’t ask” restrictions—which require gay troops to keep their sexual orientation a secret—could be eliminated without harming military morale, recruitment or readiness.

But, now via Instapundit, we learn that “White House and congressional leaders are sending contradictory signals on scrapping the Pentagon’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy“:

[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi on Thursday did not commit to a clear legislative timeline on “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“It would be my preference to go first with legislation,” Pelosi told reporters. “But we’ll have to examine and see what the model is for what the review is.”

Now, while she may claim she’s waiting for the Pentagon to review this, we can more readily translate her remarks as, “We’re kicking this can down the road.”

Other Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) do have some plans to pursue full or partial repeal.  While it’s nice to see Mrs. Pelosi so concerned about the Pentagon review, perhaps she should consider legislation for repeal to kick in once the Pentagon has produced  plan for its smooth implementation, an implementation that would not compromise morale or readiness.

From today’s Wall St. Journal:

Pfizer Inc. said Wednesday that it plans to cut research-and-development spending by as much as $3 billion by 2012, in an attempt to wring efficiencies following its take-over of Wyeth without sacrificing future product development.  

The New York pharmaceutical giant outlined the aggressive cuts, which represent more than a quarter of the two companies’ combined research budgets in 2008, as it reported fourth-quarter earnings of $767 million, or 10 cents a share, up from $266 million, or four cents a share, a year earlier.

 The drug maker also forecast lower financial targets from the Wyeth deal than it provided last year, sending Pfizer shares down 2.3% to $18.62 on the New York Stock Exchange.

R&D is considered the lifeblood of pharmaceutical companies. Big drug makers like Eli Lilly & Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. are increasing their spending to find new products that can replace aging blockbusters. Yet drug discovery is unpredictable, and industry scientists have struggled in coming up with big new products. Pfizer’s announcement suggests executives believe its research hasn’t been worth the high levels of investment.

Add this news to the fact that I know two major pharma companies have laid off a combined 20,000 employees since November and you have serious signs that one of the last economic innovative engines of America is in trouble.

Thanks Washington.  Anti-industry rhetoric and anti-capitalism policies have direct consequences out here in the real world.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)