William Katz: Urgent Agenda
SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.
---------------------------------------------
Our next subscription drive will be in October. However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time. Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going. Subscribe in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
Answers to last week's "Current Question" are here. The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.
--------------------------------------------
OUR AUDIO COMMENTARIES HAVE BEGUN. TO LISTEN, GO HERE.
Our new audio commentary for October 1st has been posted - What does Sarah Palin have to do in the debate tomorrow night?
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2008
UPDATE AT 9:52 P.M. ET: The Senate has just passed the bailout bill, which goes to the House. The senators are now standing around microphones praising each other, and complimenting their wonderfulness. I am moved to tears when I realize the greatness of these brave men. Who were Jefferson, Adams, and Lincoln compared to these boys? Yes, I'm being cynical.
MS. IFILL REGRETS
Posted at 9:02 p.m. ET
Gwen Ifill, master journalist and Washington monument, has condescended to comment on the controversy surrounding her participation in tomorrow's vice-presidential debate. To review, it has been revealed that Ms. Ifill is writing a book, to be published on inauguration day, dealing with black politics in the age of Obama. The book could be huge if Obama wins. It could sell three copies if he loses. One publishing authority estimated that Ifill has about $350,000, or more, riding on the outcome of the election. And here she is moderating a vice-presidential debate.
The term is conflict of interest. In the real world that's serious. In journalism it seems to be a minor issue.
NEW YORK (AP) - PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, moderator of the upcoming vice presidential debate, dismissed conservative questions about her impartiality because she is writing a book that includes material on Barack Obama.
Ifill said Wednesday that she hasn't even written her chapter on Obama for the book "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is to be published by Doubleday on Jan. 20, 2009, the day a new president is inaugurated.
Let me get this straight: We shouldn't worry because she hasn't written the Obama chapter yet? Yeah, that makes sense - if you're 12.
"I've got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I'm not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation," Ifill said.
The problem, my dear, is your reputation.
"The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I've done my job."
By that time the damage will have been done. And, by the way, how do you define your job? I hear silence.
Ifill said Obama's story, which she has yet to write, is only a small part of the book, which discusses how politics in the black community have changed since the civil rights era. Among those subjects is Colin Powell, secretary of state in the Bush administration.
The book is called "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." And Obama is a small part? Why is his name in the title?
The host of PBS'"Washington Week" and senior correspondent on "The NewsHour" said she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book.
That should disqualify her right there. Nothing more need be said.
Ifill questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.
"Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?" said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, "I don't know what it is. I find it curious."
How do you respond to anything that silly? And why aren't journalists held to the same ethical standards as other public figures?
This diminishes the journalistic profession. It can't be diminished much more this year.
October 1, 2008. Permalink 
UPDATE AT 4:17 P.M. ET: John McCain has now commented, marshmallow-style, on the Gwen Ifill dustup. I said earlier at Urgent Agenda that he should not ask her to withdraw, despite her obvious conflict of interest, because then she'd be turned into a martyr, and a racial one at that. McCain wisely has not asked her to pull out. However, his comment was entirely too deferential, something he has a habit of doing:
Fox's Carl Cameron asked John McCain today if he thought that PBS journalist Gwen Ifill should recuse herself from moderating Thursday's VP debate in St. Louis.
"I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional," McCain said.
"Does this help that if she has written a book that's favorable to Sen. Obama?" McCain asked. "Probably not."
I would have preferred something more neutral, rather than the "highly-respected professional" bit. She's highly respected only by some. I would have preferred McCain expressing annoyance that he had not been told about Ifill's book deal, but that it was too late to make a change and that the public would judge.
I want Ifill to be seen as the damaged goods she is. Rush is shouting it out. A bit more shouting from the McCain side would have helped.
POLLS
Posted at 3:42 p.m. ET
The polls seem to have stabilized. The problem is, they've stabilized with McCain in the worst position since Obama's Democratic convention boost.
Today's trackers: All four are out. The only surprise is Gallup, which has Obama up four, as opposed to six yesterday, and eight the day before that. However, please note that Gallup's tracker has a reputation for swinging more widely than others. We reported earlier that Rasmussen has Obama up six, no change, Hotline five, with Obama down one point, and Battleground two, no change.
Three other polls, completed on September 29th, have Obama up four, six, and seven points.
So, with all these numbers, what can we say? Obama is probably up around five points nationally. However, so many states were so close before this latest runup in Obama's numbers, that some have tipped into his column. The Real Clear Politics electoral college estimate has Obama up 86 EVs (electoral votes).
Caution: These are just snapshots. Some of the polls reflect conditions over the weekend. Some of the state polls may even extend back into last week.
So much depends on the vice-presidential debate tomorrow night, moderated by leading Obama supporter Gwen Ifill. It will be seen as a referendum on John McCain's judgment. If Sarah Palin bombs, there could easily be a further slide in the polls, possibly making the election out of reach for McCain. But if Sarah holds her own, McCain can begin the climb back. If she triumphs, and puts the focus back on McCain's "brilliant" choice, anything is possible.
The election is a calendar month from Saturday. We can't know if economic conditions will settle down. And we can't know if Al Qaeda has some gift waiting for us.
Interesting times.
October 1, 2008. Permalink
BULLETIN AT 10:07 A.M. ET: From Greta Van Susteren:
I confirmed for us here on GretaWire: the McCain campaign did NOT know about Gwen Ifill’s book (I think I told them when I made my efforts - emails about midnight - to find out!) I am stunned….the campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair - in law, this would create a mistrial.
Big story here, if the McCain camp exploits it. They should be very loud about this today. They've been treated outrageously. Ifill should offer to withdraw as moderator of tomorrow's vice-presidential debate, but won't. The McCain people, though, should not try to force her out. Gwen Ifill has been deceptive, and is now damaged goods. If she tries to trip up Sarah tomorrow night, it will show. In a way, this whole thing is good news for McCain. The press bias is obvious. The deception is obvious. They can use this moment.
UPDATE AT 9:47 A.M. ET: Rasmussen's tracker is out, and shows Obama with a six-point lead. He's been up in this poll five or six points for six days. Rasmussen says the race has stabilized.
COMMENT: This lead is impressive, and can lead to an electoral-college landslide. But it's a lead that can be overcome. A lot is riding on the vice-presidential debate tomorrow night. If McCain can finish the week four or so points behind, with a month to go to election day, he can turn this around. But he's got to come out fighting and stop being just one of a hundred senators.
FRED ON SARAH
Posted at 9:03 a.m. ET
I've always liked Fred Thompson. He wasn't at his best as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, but he's a feisty, clear-headed commentator who writes and speaks his mind.
Here, going against the current conventional "wisdom," he makes a compelling case for Sarah Palin. I'm glad someone did it. Agree or disagree, he makes some excellent points, and gets in some deserved swipes against the political and journalistic establishment:
When John McCain selected Governor Sarah Palin, as his running mate, the Democrats and their far-left constituency let out a primal scream that could be heard from sea to shining sea. How dare he choose someone that they and their pals in the media had not had a chance to vet (i.e. libel, slander, and otherwise and otherwise eviscerate). Ah, but it was not too late. These seekers of “a new kind of politics” poured torrents of malicious abuse upon her and her family.
Plane loads of scandal mongers, lawyers and other truth seekers became more numerous in Alaska than the polar bear, as they rallied local Democrats and disgruntled Republicans to their cause.
Love it already, don't you?
Here was a woman who chose to have children and a career. Aging Washington socialites weighed in with newly discovered sensitivity for mothers with careers outside the home. Here was a woman who became upset because her ex-brother-in-law had tasered her nephew and threatened her father. The Democrats and their friends had to save the country from a woman like this.
And, more good stuff...
For a while there it seems the fact that so many uninformed yahoos (average people) love her was going to drive the main stream media nuts. They had a hard time grasping the fact that people like her because she is precisely the kind of politician that everyone has been saying they’ve wanted.
But they didn't want her, Fred. She's a threat to their world.
Naturally, there was a backlash to the treatment of Governor Palin and cooler-headed critics have largely concentrated on what they claim is her lack of qualifications. Of course much of the criticism of her qualifications reveals the application of the same old double standard. Less accomplished governors in times past have been considered to be perfectly “well-qualified” as VP picks.
Glad someone brought that up. Fred quotes Palin critic David Brooks as wondering whether Sarah has the prudence for high office. He counters:
One can hardly disagree with the desirability of our leaders having the qualities that Brooks describes (putting aside the question of how many of our leaders who are not Sarah Palin have demonstrated these qualities). But there are other important qualifications, such as will, courage, and determination. Frankly, an infusion of these qualities into our body politic is desperately needed – not just to raise hell with the establishment, but to speak the hard truth about unpleasant choices facing our country. To push for choices that will, in the long term, benefit our country, our children and our grandchildren. In other words, things which “prudent” leaders are all too often reluctant to do.
Ah yes. Wasn't "prudence" the rallying whisper of Bush 41, who left no fingerprints? Finally...
Wall Street and Washington were full of people who were “qualified and experienced” in the field of finance. Sen. Barack Obama, for one, has a great deal of experience in the housing field. So do many of his closest advisers. I would have traded some of that experience for a few more leaders with less experience and more courage to buck the establishment and tell the truth about what was happening.
This brings me back to Governor Sarah Palin, and why I say that courage and political will are at the very top of the “qualification” requirements for today’s leaders. So the question is, how does Sarah Palin compare on that score with Biden and Obama, for that matter? Very well, I’d say.
Oh, do I wish the McCain people could write like that. Or think like that.
Unleash Fred. Maybe he should be coaching Sarah.
October 1, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 8:16 A.M. ET: First tracker of the day is out. Battleground has Obama up two, same as yesterday. We await Rasmussen, later this morning.
NOTE AT 7:41 A.M. ET: Another classic of biased reporting. Please go to the New York Times website and compare the pictures of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, printed side by side. Biden looks the determined statesman, standing, vigorous, making a point. Palin is sitting down, looking clueless and vacant. Sarah may not be the greatest interviewee on Earth, but she's proved in her career that she's sharp, capable and respected. Not by The Times, though. These side-by-side photos are entirely inappropriate.
OUTRAGEOUS
Posted at 7:14 a.m. ET
I'm so glad that Drudge has made this his major story this morning. If this isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. It turns out that Gwen Ifill, the PBS "journalist," and moderator of tomorrow's vice-presidential debate, has a book coming out on inauguration day titled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." Clearly, that book is vastly more valuable if Obama wins. In addition, Ifill's behavior on the air in covering Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the GOP convention was the subject of complaints to the PBS ombudsman.
I've looked at Ifill's work for years. An objective reporter she is not. I recall that, after radical leftist Cynthia McKinney lost the Democratic nomination for her congressional seat one year, Ifill went on the air, two nights in a row, to talk about "groups," read that Jews, who financed her opponent. She never once mentioned that McKinney had been heavily financed by Muslim groups. She's that kind of "reporter."
Greta Van Susteren discusses the conflict-of-interest issue at her website, here:
Here are questions for you: is it a conflict of interest since she is writing about Senator Obama and wants her book to sell (i.e. make money)? Should she be moderating the debate this Thursday?
My answer: it all depends on whether she disclosed it to the McCain - Palin campaign and they said ok. Or if the book is not friendly to Senator Obama, then the same disclosure to him and ok from him. That is the way it is done in the legal business — called full disclosure. (I suppose, regardless of friendly or not to either candidate, full disclosure to both was necessary. ) Otherwise? it is a conflict of interest and the offended ticket should pull out of the debate…or she should. By the way, it could be a book about an important issue …but that does not take away the issue of conflict.
Well, the book certainly won't be unfriendly to Obama. So the question is, "What did the McCain team know and when did they know it?" If they knew about this conflict and still approved Ifill, they're too incompetent to be alive. If they're learning about it now, they should be in an uproar. But I doubt if they will, because Ifill is African-American and, you know, they don't want to make an ugly scene.
Sometimes you make an ugly scene. This is an outrage. Ifill should withdraw herself, but I can't imagine her doing so. It would make it look as if she did the right thing only once exposed. After all, she knew she was writing this book.
The story must be played. If Ifill moderates, people will look at any slight toward Sarah Palin very differently if they know of Ifill's conflict.
The level of in-the-tank-for-Obama journalism going on has been stunning. This one is in a class by itself.
You can hear my audio commentary on press bias by going here.
October 1, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 6:55 A.M. ET: From The Hill: The billionaire financier George Soros, a major Democratic financial backer, is floating his own rescue plan among Democratic lawmakers who are uncertain what to do in the wake of a surprise defeat of a proposed $700 billion rescue package proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Soros has outlined his plan in an opinion editorial in the Financial Times and circulated a concept paper among decision-makers. Specifically, the liberal philanthropist has proposed that government funds should be used to recapitalize the American banking system by purchasing equity in banks and investment firms.
COMMENT: Watch this one very carefully. Soros is a shadowy international operator and a hard leftist. Any proposal of his should be suspect . It may go nowhere, but it would seem to lead to government control over private institutions. Soros is the first man Barack Obama went to for financing when he started his presidential campaign. I'm not liking this.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
NOTE AT 10:51 P.M. ET: Please be sure to go here for the latest Obama groupie outrage. The use of children in political campaigns is always problematical. But this is way over the top. We don't do this in democracies. But, of course, who ever said that everyone in American politics likes democracy.
THE ANCIENT
Posted at 7:50 p.m. ET
The New York County (Manhattan) district attorney is Robert M. Morgenthau. He is 89. Yes, you read that correctly. He is also the son of Henry Morgenthau, FDR's secretary of the treasury. On money matters, Bob Morgenthau knows, and he remembers. Here, for the Wall Street Journal, he discusses a matter we've alluded to here - the secrecy, and the knowledge gaps, regarding our financial woes. This is short, and well worth reading:
A major factor in the current financial crisis is the lack of transparency in the activities of the principal players in the financial markets. This opaqueness is compounded by vast sums of money that lie outside the jurisdiction of U.S. regulators and other supervisory authorities.
The $700 billion in Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's current proposed rescue plan pales in comparison to the volume of dollars that now escape the watchful eye, not only of U.S. regulators, but from the media and the general public as well.
We make no charges here, and we even drop no hints. But I still want to know how this huge financial crisis struck right in the middle of an American presidential campaign. Morgenthau is suggesting how hard it is to find out.
There is $1.9 trillion, almost all of it run out of the New York metropolitan area, that sits in the Cayman Islands, a secrecy jurisdiction. Another $1.5 trillion is lodged in four other secrecy jurisdictions.
Some of that money could be used to advance political causes, without our ever knowing it.
Most recently, two Bear Stearns hedge funds, based in the Cayman Islands, but run out of New York, collapsed without any warning to its investors. Because of the location of these financial institutions -- in a secrecy jurisdiction, outside the U.S. safety net of appropriate supervision -- their desperate financial condition went undetected until it was too late.
I find it fascinating that the political players are not calling for much of an increase in information. When John McCain called for a blue-ribbon commission to investigate what's happened, he was either ignored, or ridiculed. The ridicule came from Barack Obama.
We have to learn from our mistakes. Any significant infusion to the financial system must carry assurances that it will not add to the pool of money beyond the safety net and supervisory authority of the United States. Moreover, the trillions of dollars currently offshore and invested in funds that could impact the American economy must be brought under appropriate supervision.
If not supervision, then at least scrutiny. I want to know, for example, how much of this money is controlled by hostile powers.
If Congress and Treasury fail to bring under U.S. supervisory authority the financial institutions and transactions in secrecy jurisdictions, there will be no transparency with the inevitable consequences of the lack of transparency -- namely, a repeat of the unbridled greed and recklessness that we now face. Because of the monolithic character of world financial markets, a default crisis anywhere becomes a default crisis everywhere.
Whether you agree or disagree with Morgenthau's call for more regulation, his call for more information should not be controversial. I'm especially concerned about this issue should Obama be elected. There is a rim of secrecy around his life, even his political views. The name Obama and the word "openness" are not usually used in the same sentence, and they won't be.
Open the books, please.
September 30, 2008. Permalink
UPDATE AT 7:14 P.M. ET: A new ABC News/Washington Post poll actually has some good news for McCain. Last week this poll had Obama up nine. Today it has him up four, a five-point drop. Now, it's only a poll. There's a margin of error and all the other stuff we warn about. This change has not been verified by other polls. So please be careful. But I hope it's true.
TRACKERS
Posted at 2:38 p.m. ET
All four trackers are now out. Three - Gallup, Rasmussen, Hotline, show Obama up six points. Battleground, which had been the holdout, and which had McCain up two yesterday, now has Obama up two.
This lead can be overcome, but it will take enormous effort, and great luck to do it. Initially, much will depend on Sarah Palin surprising us Thursday night and becoming Sarah again. I'm hopeful, but only guardedly so.
Then McCain must go on the attack, and raise the most profound questions about Obama. The press will hate him, but how big is the reporter vote?
September 30, 2008. Permalink
INFERIORITY UPDATE AT 2:16 P.M. ET: STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - The man who announces the Nobel Prize in literature says the United States is too "insular" and ignorant to compete with Europe when it comes to great writing. In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, Horace Engdahl said Tuesday that "Europe still is the center of the literary world."
COMMENT: Steinbeck, Hemingway, Saul Bellow, Edna Ferber - hacks all. I'm so glad the Europeans are pointing it out.
UPDATE AT 11:12 A.M. ET: The Hotline tracker, just out, has Obama up six. It had him up five yesterday. So, in both Rasmussen and Hotline, Obama gains a point.
UPDATE AT 10:12 A.M. ET: Rasmussen reports Obama up six. He was up five yesterday. Obama is now at 51 percent. Breaking the 50-percent mark is a major step. I suspect that what we're seeing is more a revulsion toward the party in power in the White House than any rational conclusion that Obama could actually solve any of our problems.
UPDATE AT 7:54 A.M. ET: Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- The cost of borrowing in dollars overnight jumped the most on record, the British Bankers' Association said. The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, rose 4.31 percentage points to 6.88 percent, an all-time high, the BBA said today. It was at 2.95 percent a week ago.
UPDATE AT 7:52 A.M. ET: Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stock futures rose, signaling the Standard & Poor's 500 Index may rebound from yesterday's 8.8 percent plunge, after lawmakers said they intend to salvage a $700 billion bank-rescue package. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. advanced more than 5 percent as Judd Gregg, the Senate Banking Committee's ranking Republican, and Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, said a deal would eventually pass. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the banking committee, said senators may deal with the bill tomorrow.
COMMENT: Barack Obama? What precisely has he done other than talk? Rarely have we seen such slickness, lacking in such substance.
ANTICIPATION
Posted at 7:38 a.m. ET
It's a strange time. With all that's happening, there is actually very little information of value out there. The MSM seems more interested in reporting the partisan combat in Congress than in examining exactly what has gone wrong economically. The reporting is plentiful, but thin, except in a few outlets like The Wall Street Journal. Most journalists unfortunately seem rather baffled, and that includes some financial reporters.
It reminds me of an old story about the financial adviser to presidents, Bernard Baruch. Baruch was once asked by a reporter if anyone actually understands the international monetary system. Baruch replied, and the quote is approximate: "There are only two people who understand the international monetary system. One is a junior clerk in the Bank of England, and the other is an assistant secretary in the Treasury Department in Washington. And unfortunately they disagree."
There's a good lesson there. We have to try to understand the problem before we try to solve it. It's up to the press to dig, to investigate, to knock down or confirm conspiracy theories, and to report to the public. I don't think we're getting too much understanding.
Consider a survey done for the Washington Post and ABC News. The answers are scattershot, unfocused:
Most Americans see the current financial situation as a "crisis," and there is overwhelming concern that the failure of the House of Representatives to pass the economic recovery package will deepen the problem, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
But the poll also revealed significant public concern with the bill Congress rejected yesterday, as few voters said the package did enough to protect "ordinary Americans," and nearly half said it did not go far enough to shore up the nation's economy.
The public attitude seems to be "on the one hand, on the other hand."
Overall, voters split about evenly on the failed bill -- 45 percent supported it, 47 percent opposed it. Among the reasons for the tepid public reception is that there is a roughly even divide about whether government efforts will prevent the financial situation from deteriorating further still.
Blame is spread all around, but the GOP takes the greatest hit.
Asked to assess responsibility for the legislation's failure, 44 percent said Republicans were the reason, 21 percent said the Democrats and 17 percent said both sides were responsible.
That perception may cost John McCain the election, and that is the tragedy, for he was one of the first to warn of the impending economic implosion. I don't recall Mr. Obama doing much of anything, which seems to be the story of his life.
Despite the negative assessment of the current financial situation, four in 10 remain optimistic about the state of the national economy over the next year and six in 10 are bullish about their family's financial situation. But pessimism about personal finances has climbed over the past two years, and now stands at more than double its level in December 2006.
What is needed in the presidency now is a giant, not a kid. We may get the kid.
September 30, 2008. Permalink
SADNESS
Posted at 6:49 a.m. ET
The New York Sun, one of the great experiments in modern journalism, ceases publication today after a six-and-a-half-year struggle for survival. A thoughtful, high-level, conservative paper in New York, it made an impression far out of proportion to its size. It has always faced economic difficulty, but trying to raise capital in the last month finally did the paper in.
The Sun will be missed. Those of our persuasion will now depend on The Wall Street Journal, under Rupert Murdoch's well-financed direction, to take on The New York Times directly, and teach it some needed lessons about journalism.
The death of a newspaper is always sad. The death of this particular one is a particular setback.
September 30, 2008. Permalink
"What you see is news. What you know is background. What you feel is opinion."
- Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
of The New York Times.
SUBSCRIPTIONS:
Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary. Why subscribe to something you're getting free? To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all. Subscriptions sustain us. Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account. Credit cards are fine.
FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:
IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:
SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:
POWER LINE:
It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.
To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.
THE CURRENT QUESTION
This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines. The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked:
Last week we asked,
How would you explain to an angry, disillusioned foreigner why Barack Obama lost the election?
You can view the answers here.
How should Sarah Palin be used for the remainder of the campaign?
If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs. We try to print every reply, if space allows. Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published. This question will stay up through Sunday.)
CONTACT:
YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:
If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com
If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com
If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com
If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com
FAVORITE SITES
Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker