I’m not sure I’ll be blogging tonight, but don’t let that stop you from using this space to comment about the hot Senate races in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas.

Goodbye, Arlen Specter.

And of course, I’ll be paying close attention to the PA Congressional District #12 Special Election (RIP Murtha) where I am praying that Tim Burns pulls an upset.  If this race is of interest, I’d suggest monitoring results AT THIS LINK.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Boosh.

On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.

Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.

The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.

Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?

Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.

- Sarah Palin (via Facebook)

GP Ed Note – I added the BOLD to Palin’s words.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Need a new hat, mug or T-shirt?  Well, we have the online place for you.  The GOProud Shop.

Yeah, it is Shameless Plug Tuesday.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Just a last reminder about Chicago dinner  tomorrow, Wednesday, May 19.  Please let me know if you’d like to join us.

Looks like our New York on Sunday the 23rd will be in Manhattan.

So, will today finally be the day when a Democrat beats Arlen Specter in a contest for a U.S. Senate seat for Pennsylvania?  And if the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat loses, will he continue to caucus with the Democrats?  Will he remain a loyal foot soldier for Obama?

Whatever the case, it does seem Specter himself may be second guessing his decision to switch parties as it’s not turning out exactly as he had hoped.  Had the 5-term incumbent not supported the “so-called stimulus” (while still a Republican), he might have been able to coast to reelection.  Never a man to back something out of principle, Specter (as a Republican) would have swung right, opposing Obamacare and cap ‘n trade to boost his Republican bona fides.  Instead, as a Democrat, he’s been a lock-step supporter of President Obama and Harry Reid.

He’ll vote whichever way is best to save his seat.  And that kind of behavior is becoming less becoming in a politician with people becoming increasingly disgusted with those old Washington ways, you know, the kind that some politician railed against so successfully in 2008.

As to the special election to fill the House seat of the late John Murtha.  I actually think the Democrat Mark Critz has the edge, though I wouldn’t be surprised if Republican Tim Burns manages to pull off a victory–if his Get-Out-the-Vote (GOTV) operation is solid.  Here’s why I think Critiz has the edge.  There are a lot of blue-collar Democrats in the district where Murtha remained popular. Critz was a top Murtha aide who learned the district well when working for the long-serving Democrat.  He is against Obamacare.  He has hit Burns on the tax issue.  And Democratic turnout will be up because of interest in the Sestak-Specter race.  There is no similar race on the GOP side.

That said, other bloggers give Burns has the edge.  I hope they’re right.

Not long ago, some reader sent me something from “Equality California” where its prejudiced leader Geoff Kors was breathlessly reporting that people who opposed gay marriage were motivated by “hate.”  I replied that anything that anything that highly partisan Democrat said should be taken with a grain of salt because he was so keen to find hatred among his ideological adversaries.

Mr. Kors acts as if every person who doesn’t support his agenda on gay issues does so because of some kind of animus against gay people.  Only he doesn’t use such eloquent language, preparing to use various forms of the word, “hate,” either as verb (“to hate”), noun (“hate”,”hatred”), adjective (“hateful”) to describe social conservatives harboring un-PC opinions of homosexuality.

And yet, as per Nick’s post yesterday, Mr. Kors’ prejudice against those who do not share his worldview is, in many ways, the prevailing attitude among the politically educated gay class.  They have determined, as Nick put it, “an uncanny knack for painting opponents of their agenda as being full of ‘hate’.”  

Like Obama Democrats seeking to discredit their opponents by questioning their motives to create an excuse for dismissing their arguments without debating them, gay leftists wish to smear their adversaries so as to press ahead with their agenda without making their case.  

Perhaps that’s it, perhaps there’s something more to it than that.  And were I not traveling and spending time with my family, I might give it more thought.  Perhaps tomorrow when I return to the open road.  

Nick made a great point which bears repetition and re-articulation–and serious consideration.  Why is it that gay leftists wish to paint anyone who disagrees with their agenda as “haters”?  Note how many of their number insist on calling us “self-hating.”

ADDENDUM:  And this relates closely to the point I have made repeatedly wondering why gay marriage advocates prefer to smear their adversaries than make the case for gay marriage.

Sonicfrog’s got the scoop:

The NYT caught a Democrat lying about his service in Vietnam. No, it not another article about John Kerry. Unlike the subject of this article, John Kerry did indeed served in Vietnam. This one is about Democrat Richard Bluumenthal, soon to be ex-Senate candidate running for Chris Dodd’s seat, and, I imagine, also soon ex-Attorney General of Connecticut. 

He reminds asks us to “compare the tone” of the Times article “ to the way the press really went after Bush and Cheney because they never set foot in the war zone”:

The whole article treats the [Democrat] with kid gloves. Question: will the press follow the lead of the Time and go easy on him, or will they lay in to him? After all, he not only got deferments, a-la Cheney, but he has lied about going to war. Bush never did that, yet he was savaged for years for less.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE:  Note the word not mentioned in this article on the subject.  Hint:  people on the left used it a lot to describe the immediate past president (with no evidence whatsoever of its accuracy).

Over at Stop the ACLU, a smart young blogger clears away the fog surrounding Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s record and singles out one of her successes.  Although she has tied her tongue in knots trying to explain dress up her department’s blunders on recent terrorist attacks (and attempted attacks) by radical Islamicists, they have prevented some radicals from staging violent attacks on innocent civilians:

This young man, wise beyond his years says 

. . . conservatives are missing one very important point. Under Napolitano, there have been no right-wing terrorist attacks. When Napolitano came into power, she made it clear how big of a threat conservatives are for terrorism, and she has thus far prevented any conservatives from attacking, evidenced by the number of conservative terrorist attacks.

He’s right.  We should credit Napolitano and her team from preventing those right-wing extremists from staging any terrorist attacks.

Did America witness another Carrie Prejean moment last night?

Miss Oklahoma, Taylor Treat (great name if she needs, um, a different line of work) was asked a question by judge Oscar Nunez (I had to Google him to find out he’s some sort of b-rate commedian and actor) this weekend at the Miss America pageant. Nunez started his question about the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law that, according to him “authorizes law-enforcement authorities to check the citizenship of anyone they believe may be in the country illegally.” At this point, the reaction from the crowd grew to a point he couldn’t ignore, and he implored the audience to “now, listen to the question before you boo.”

Perhaps they were booing because Nunez was (just like the press, and the president) misstating what the law said. Likely he (just like the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security) hasn’t even read it, but will gladly criticize it.

While Treat’s response starts out pretty good (“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America.”), she tends toward the more can’t-we-all-get-along mushyness toward the end.

Meh, what can you do? It’s just a silly beauty pageant.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

More cool election stuff from the Sunshine State:

Transgender GOP candidate takes aim at Wasserman Schultz

If we’re to believe the identity politics of the Left, we should all support Donna Milo because she’s transgendered.

I have a feeling, though, she’d disagree:

“I’m an American. I make my way on the basis of ability. My triumphs are based on my abilities, not on a label or a crutch,” said Milo, a Miami Planning Advisory Board member running to replace U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston, one of the House’s most liberal Democrats.

In fact, judging by her campaign website, she’s a pretty fundamental conservative: Taxes, Regulation, Health Care, Foreign Policy, Energy Policy. Sure she’s got zero chance in such a Left-leaning district (Obama 63%), but she deserves our support. Not because she’s transgendered, but because of her stands on the issues.

Refreshing, I think, that her “Issues” page doesn’t even list LGBTETC. topics. How’s that for progressive!

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

No, I’m not referring to his tan, but to a new Rasumussen survey that puts him back, squarely behind our boy Mario Rubio in the race for Florida’s Senate seat.

You’ll recall that Crist made the determination to duck out of the Republican primary because he was tanking against Rubio for the party’s nomination. He made that move, partly on the pollyannaish pipedream (supported by a few polls at the time) that running as an independent would secure him the seat over Rubio as well as the Democrats’ candidate, Kendrick Meek. In fact, just after leaving the race, his bold step (accurately characterized by my fellow blogger as “opportunistic“) paid off with a quick bounce. But, as Rasmussen reports (get it?):

New numbers suggest that the bounce for the governor is over.

What’s more, the demographics look even worse:

Crist, whose numbers had been in freefall in his primary match-up with Rubio, has been actively courting Democrats. But Meek now edges Crist among Democratic voters after trailing him two weeks ago.

Among Republicans, Crist’s support has dropped from 30% two weeks ago to 23% now. Rubio, the Cuban-American former speaker of the state House, earns 68% of Republicans, up 10 points from the previous survey.

Crist’s lead over Rubio among voters not affiliated with either party has narrowed as well, from 12 points early in the month to three points now.

Charlie is going the wrong direction with Republicans (understandably put-off by his turn-coat ways), Democrats (who have an actual Democrat for whom to vote), and independents (who rightfully see his crass moves, like refusing to return campaign contributions as craven and self-serving). Expect that slide to continue.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

So, this weekend you’ll forgive me for indulging in a little mindless reality TV. Since there are two members of the cast from Colorado, I’ve been popping in from time to time to catch an episode of MTV’s Real World: Washington D.C. online. In viewing the penultimate (don’t tell me how it ends, lemme guess…they each go home?) episode, I was taken aback by how the gay character, Mike, had been so influenced by HRC, where he had been working during the season. (Yes, quite incredible, isn’t it, that a hayseed with no experience and only in town for a couple months could land a gig working at HRC with nothing to offer them but, well, tons of free airtime on an MTV show? But I digress…)

The scenario in question is that Mike’s boyfriend, Tanner, had come out to his parents, who in turn reacted very negatively to the news. You know the story, even if you haven’t watched the show: They want to cut him off…cut off his tuition, take away his truck, etc. “No son of mine,” et. al.

Now, I don’t know this kid Tanner, and I don’t know his parents. But I can imagine they didn’t want their kid to be gay. Frankly, I’d figure that any parents who have an opinion one way or the other on the subject would probably at least generally prefer their kid to be straight. And clearly Tanner’s parents are much more opposed to the idea than, say, mine were. However, I’m not here to defend their opinion of homosexuality, nor to justify their reaction.

What’s striking is Mike’s reaction and his choice of perspective. Now, granted, he’s very emotional, but he can’t help from classifying Tanner’s parents as being full of “hate”. Can we look at that word, “hate“?

The gay Left has an uncanny knack for painting opponents of their agenda as being full of “hate”. But can it be that someone can have a moral objection to something without it being grounded in hate? Is it possible that parents who feel (however misguidedly) that they must straighten out (pun only slightly intended) their kids do so out of a sense of love instead? Again, not to take their side, but why must the gay Left always classify someone who disagrees as not simply wrong but having only hateful motivations? Why must the gay Left attack the person rather than engage what they see as the person’s misguided beliefs? Or is it that to the gay Left, the only source of disagreement must be from sinister feelings within an adversary?

And in a greater sense, we find that it seems easier for the gay Left to demonize their political opponents as having malignant hearts rather than contending arguments. After all, how often do we see anybody who opposes the gay Left dismissed as simply full of “hate”, rather than engaged and questioned about his opinion? How often are those who oppose gay marriage asked simply to defend their position, rather than shouted down as hatemongers? Those who oppose the repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell aren’t given a hearing by the gay Left borg, but rather are castigated as Cro-Magnon troglodytes who simply “hate” gays.

And they wonder why it’s so hard to get their message through.

…and don’t get me started on the use of the word “ignorant”.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

UPDATE (from Dan):   Nick, you’re onto something.  Once met some evangelical Christians when I was traveling in Northern California.  They hosted me in their home and prayed for me, alerted me to places that did conversion therapy, but didn’t force it on me.  They were concerned for my soul.  May need to blog on that.  

Good point about how gay left wishes to dismisses all people critical of gays or any ostensibly pro-gay policy as basing their opinion in hatred.  They just assume animosity.  And while making that assumption, a prejudiced one if ever there was one, they accuse others of being narrow-minded.

Comparing the president to an “untouchable dean” who sees the American people “as a sort of Ivy League campus”, Victor Davis Hanson takes down the president in his latest post on Works and Days.

Given his academic attitudes, it’s no wonder we get “the multicultural bromides, the constant groupthink, and the reinvention of the self that we see so often among a professional class of administrator in universities“.  

Obama has always reminded me of the really smart liberal intellectual I encountered in my undergraduate days, courteous to his ideological adversaries on the right, regularly attending the lectures sponsored by conservative student groups, often preparing himself by reading about the speaker (in days before the Internet when it took a little doing to get such material) and ready with a question based on what he has read.  In short, a nice guy and good conversationalist, open to understanding opposing opinions.

But, what is well-suite for an Ivy League campus may not work so well in the real world.  Hanson echoes some things we have discussed her on the hypocrisy at the heart of the Obama Administration.

This is the strangest presidency I have seen in my lifetime. President Obama gives soaring lectures on civility, but still continues his old campaign invective (“get in their face,” “bring a gun to a knife fight,” etc.) with new attacks  on particular senators, Rush Limbaugh, and entire classes of people—surgeons, insurers, Wall Street, those at Fox News, tea-partiers, etc.

And like the campaign, he still talks of bipartisanship (remember, he was the most partisan politician in the Senate), but has rammed through health care without a single Republican vote. His entire agenda—federal take-overs of businesses, near two-trillion-dollar deficits, health care, amnesty, and cap and trade—does not earn a majority in the polls. Indeed, the same surveys reveal him to be the most polarizing president in memory.

Read the whole thing!

Won’t have much time to blog today as I’m heading out of beautiful Southern Utah (great view from my hotel window of the red rock cliffs, though here with a bit of yellowish brown decorated with trees and scrub brush) and off to see my brother and his four boys in Denver, but caught this while having my breakfast and sipping my coffee.

Jim Geraghty reports that James Huffman and Chris Dudley, the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate and Governor, respectively, in Oregon both “support civil unions for gay couples“.  That does seem to be an emerging consensus of Republicans in coastal (and some Midwestern) states.

Ten years ago, not many Democrats supported state recognition of such unions.  A real sign of progress in America–and the GOP.

I saw this last night live-and-in-person at the NRA 2010 Convention in Charlotte.  Newt had the house rocking the whole time, but this clip was the most memorable.  Outstanding.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I highly recommend Mark Steyn’s Washington Times column this weekend.  He lays out a chilling case that those interested in advancing Political Islam are winning the ideological struggle hands-down.

Islam smells weakness at the heart of the West. The post-World War II order is dying: The European Union’s decision to toss a trillion dollars to prop up a Greek economic model that guarantees terminal insolvency is merely the latest manifestation of the chronic combination of fiscal profligacy and demographic decline in the West at twilight. Islam is already the biggest supplier of new Europeans and new Canadians, and the fastest-growing demographic in the western world. Therefore, it thinks it not unreasonable to shape the character of those societies – not by blowing up buildings and airplanes, but by determining the nature of their relationship to Islam.

For example, the very same day that Mr. Holder was doing his “Islam? What Islam?” routine at the Capitol, the Organization of the Islamic Conference was tightening its hold on the United Nations Human Rights Council - actually, make that the U.N. “Human Rights” Council. The OIC is the biggest voting bloc at the U.N. and it succeeded in getting its slate of candidates elected to the so-called “human rights” body – among them the Maldives, Qatar, Malaysia, Mauritania and Libya.

But along with the big headline victories go smaller ones. These days, Islam doesn’t even have to show up. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has quietly pulled representations of Muhammad from its Islamic collection. With the Danish cartoons, violent mobs actually had to kill large numbers of people before Kurt Westegaard was sent into involuntary “retirement.” Even with “South Park,” the thugs still had to threaten murder. But the Metropolitan Museum caved pre-emptively – no murders, no threats, but best to crawl into a fetal position, anyway.

Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians (AAP) noted that certain, ahem, “immigrant communities” were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo female genital mutilation FGM). So, in a spirit of multicultural compromise, they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice: They’re not (for the moment) advocating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and state laws be changed to permit them to give a “ritual nick” to young girls.

So, our own Attorney General couldn’t even utter the words “Radical Islam” last week during a Congressional hearing.  And liberals/feminists are silent about the chilling of free speech and mutilation of young women due to the PC-handling of Islam.

Enough said.  Read the whole thing.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Please let me know if you can join me in Chicago for dinner this coming Wednesday night, May 19.

Or in New York on Sunday the 23rd.

And now it’s time to start planning the DC leg of the trip.  On Wednesday evening, May 26, I’ll invite you to join me for a debate between the first candidate we endorsed in this cycle, Matthew Berry and Patrick Murray, his rival for the Republican nomination to take out Democrat Jim Moran in Virginia’s Eighth Congressional District.

This debate follows the regular monthly meeting of the Arlington County Republican Committee, starting at 8 PM in the NRECA Conference Center, 4301 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington [Ballston].  This is right at North Taylor Street near the Ballston-MU METRO station.  For a map, go to www.arlingtongop.org.  There is free parking in NRECA garage.  (Enter from North Taylor Street.)

Afterwards, we may gathering at a nearby watering hole to celebrate Matthew’s victory.

And please let me know if you prefer Thursday the 27th or Friday the 28th for our DC dinner.

To RSVP for (or ask about) any of these events, just e-mail me.

During the 2008 presidential campaign–as he did in his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention which secured his celebrity, Barack Obama presented himself as a new kind of politician who could transcend political divisions and and bring together a badly polarized nation.

Since his inauguration, however, he has passed up many opportunities to do as he promised.  On that very day, he could have chastised those who booed his predecessor, saying something like, “While we may disagree with his policies, we should respect the office that he once occupied and that I now occupy.  And let us appreciate also the devotion he has shown to the country we all love.”  Or some such.

Three days later, he bypassed another chance to rise above the fray.

When he met with congressional leaders that Friday, “top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package” (AKA the “stimulus”), echoing concerns (e.g,  in the third debate when he said, “we’ve been living beyond our means“) he made on the campaign trail, he snapped back, “I won.”  Had he said, “I see your point,” he would have showed that he intended to fulfill the promise of his campaign, proven himself to be a unifier, rhetorically at least.  And what if he had floated a compromise idea, offering to retain only the “stimulus” spending that would be dispersed in the following six months.

Then, he could add, while I think the whole package is necessary, let’s see if this helps.  If this doesn’t jump start the economy, then — and only then — we can consider another injection of federal cash.

This way, instead of signing on to a plan crafted in the back rooms of congressional Democrats, he would have shown himself as willing to respond to Republican concerns; he migh have forced a few Republicans to cross over and support the proposal.  Not just that, he would have had a ready-made excuse should we not see the promised decline in unemployment.  ”We didn’t spend enough,” he could have said.

But, he (and congressional Democrats) got everything they wanted.  Like his predecessor, Obama lost a chance to stand up to a spendthrift Congress.

Well, he’s still kowtowing to that Congress: (more…)

When Washington Democrats rushed to overhaul our nation’s health care system, they spent more time considering liberal ideology than real-world experience.  Instead of learning from the mistakes of government-run health care, particularly in states which have tried it, they just assumed good intentions would be enough to create a good system.

Well, before rushing to pass an unpopular bill, they should have look to the Massachusetts,s where in 2006, politicians “created near-universal coverage for residents, which was supposed to ease the traffic in hospital emergency rooms.”  Yet, instead of easing traffic in hospital emergency rooms, according to “a recent poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians,” nearly the opposite occurred:  ”nearly two-thirds of the state’s residents say emergency department wait times have either increased or remained the same.”

And it looks like what happened in Massachusetts may soon happen across the country:

People who build hospitals, however, say newly insured people will still go to emergency rooms for primary care because they don’t have a doctor.

“Everybody expected that one of the initial impacts of reform would be less pressure on emergency departments; it’s going to be exactly the opposite over the next four to eight years,” said Rich Dallam, a healthcare partner at the architectural firm NBBJ, which designs healthcare facilities.

“We don’t have the primary care infrastructure in place in America to cover the need. Our clients are looking at and preparing for more emergency department volume, not less,” he said.

Why is it that those determined to turn to the state for solution to our country’s problems refuse to learn from experience?

During the early days of the 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, I was quietly rooting for Barack Obama.  I then knew little about the freshman Senator from Illinois, but had been impressed with his presence and his gift with (scripted) words.  Only as we started learning about his background did I start to reconsider my opinion of the candidate.

Not jut that, I had at that point, attributed Mrs. Clinton’s success to her choice in husband and always thought she got a free pass from the media.  While I had initially seen her as a hyper-partisan Democrat, I did acknowledge she had impressed many of her Republican colleagues in the Senate by her ability to reach across party lines.  But, at the outset of the 2008 campaign, I wondered if she had anything besides ambition, to borrow an expression from Shakespeare, to prick the sides of her intent.

That said, during the course of the 2008 campaign when the media turned on her and she kept fighting, I became impressed with her tenacity.  I had never previously thought that the expression “strong woman” could apply to the then-New York Senator.  Yet, when I watched her pressing in, even as the media wrote her off, I could not help but admire her determination and fortitude.

Now, to be sure, I don’t always agree with the Secretary of State, but when I see her name in a headline, I no longer assume I’ll be disagreeing with her.   So today,  when I read about her press conference with the new British Foreign Minister, I was not surprised to find myself on the same page as she on Iran:

Iran will continue to defy demands to prove its nuclear program is peaceful unless it is hit with a new round of U.N. sanctions, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday.

Speaking at a news conference with new British Foreign Secretary William Hague, Clinton said negotiators from Germany and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council were making progress every day on a draft sanctions resolution.

She said Iran’s intransigence on the nuclear issue is the strongest argument for a fourth round of sanctions. “We believe that the case is being made perhaps most effectively by the Iranians themselves,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton sounds as hawkish as she often did while serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Now, I do hope the sanctions she and her British counterpart are discussing have teeth.  But, at least someone in this Administration, rhetorically at least, understands that the problem with Iran is that nation’s belligerence and not our attitude toward it.