When it comes to our relations with Palestine, no news is good news – especially while Israel is bombing ‘em. For as long as I can remember, when America steps in to “encourage dialogue” or “build a roadmap” it’s a boon to Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, or whatever rabid creatures are running the Palestinian territories at the time.

Over the weekend, it seemed like Dubya and the State Department were content to sit back and let Israel defend herself. No more:

At a briefing for reporters in Crawford, Texas, where President Bush is spending the holidays, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said U.S. diplomacy is aimed not at a cease-fire in name only that could break down in days or weeks – but one that is lasting:

“We have got to get a commitment from Hamas that they would respect any cease-fire and make it lasting and durable,” said Johndroe. “And, so, until we can get that assurance – not the United states, but until Israel can get that assurance from Hamas -then we’re not going to have a cease-fire that is worth the paper it’s written on.”

When has any agreement with Hamas been worth the paper it’s written on? When has any Palestinian group respected a cease-fire for longer than it takes to replenish their rocket supply?

It’s no surprise that CNN downplays the random rocket fire endured by Israelis month after month, while lamenting the plight of ravaged Palestine. It’s no surprise that the UN and European Union rush to tut-tut Israel’s “disproportionate” response to ongoing terrorism. And sadly, it’s no surprise that the President and the State Department can at best be relied on for a few days of silence before pitching in another $85 million and pleas for useless diplomacy.

It’s disappointing that President Bush gave in to all the hubbub about bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler bringing Earth to a screeching halt. What many pundits have said about the relatively small amount of money indicating Bush is punting the issue to the Obama administration comes as no relief. If you weren’t convinced this whole mess should be sorted out by bankruptcy courts instead of the President and Congress, look no further:

No matter the steps Mr. Obama takes, he is likely to seek a range of opinions. That is what happened in June 2006, when he invited a group of environmental leaders to meet with him to discuss legislation that would increase fuel economy.

At the time, none at the meeting knew that Mr. Obama planned a presidential bid, said Mr. Becker, who was then representing the Sierra Club.

He said that Mr. Obama told them: “If you guys think this is helpful, then I want to go ahead and push this. But if you don’t think it’s helpful, I’ll drop it. I don’t have to do this.”

Excellent. I’ve always said the Sierra Club and other “environmental leaders” should have more influence over our auto manufacturing companies. This is why my feelings on the car industry meltdown have been and remain to be let them burn. Insistence that we “bail out” GM, Chrysler, or anyone else with taxpayer funds is based on the inherently broken assumption that the companies as they are can be rescued, if only Washington had more control.

Even in the New York Times story there are a few blips of common sense:

Mr. Obama said he would provide up to $3 billion to Detroit auto companies and their suppliers to retool their factories in order to produce smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Still, with gasoline prices falling again, it is unclear whether consumer demand will shift so dramatically to small cars.

Emphasis mine. Luckily, not much time is wasted considering market influences in a story about the myriad ways government can fix the industry. More money for ethanol! Higher CAFE standards! And –shoot, that’s the extent of the Obama Plan for Hippy-Happy Cars. I will be surprised (and pleasantly so, to be sure) if the end result is anything but a slower “meltdown” with billions of taxpayer dollars thrown after what GM and Chrysler have already blown.

Surely by now you’ve seen the clip of the Iraqi reporter throwing his shoes at President Bush. As with everything else for the better part of a decade, it’s clearly a sign that Bush wrecked America’s former homecoming queen status in the Arab world. You’ll also learn, if you skim the comments (and sadly, some of the contributors’ content) on posts at Politico, the Washington Post, etc, that this proves:

• President Bush is ruining the lives of John and Suzie Q. Iraqi!
• President Bush’s security is terrible because of how incompetent he is!
• President Bush is Saddam times ten!
• Other, even less coherent truths that are obvious to everyone except The Neocons!

When I saw the clip, it seemed like a perfect summary of Bush’s presidency. Something gets thrown at his face; he smiles, ducks, and returns to what he was doing. Byron York noted several wonderful quotes from an Air Force One press conference following the incident:

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, my opening statement: I didn’t know what the guy said, but I saw his sole….I’m pretty good at ducking, as most of you will know —

And:

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think you can take one guy throwing shoes and say this represents a broad movement in Iraq. You can try to do that if you want to. I don’t think it would be accurate.

QUESTION: Well, then, separately from him —

THE PRESIDENT: That’s exactly what he wanted you to do. Like I answered on your question, what he wanted you to do was to pay attention to him. And sure enough, you did…

[There was a noise on board the plane.]

THE PRESIDENT: The other shoe just dropped. Look, I’m going to be thinking of shoe jokes for a long time. I haven’t heard any good ones yet.

Isn’t one of the President’s daughters still single? I’m holding out hope.

A headline that gave me a laugh earlier today, from the AP: Chilean cardinal: Madonna rouses ‘impure thoughts’.

It’s true. For instance, when I think of Madonna, I think “Wow, Madonna sucks.”

And then amazingly, the puff piece gets weirder, as we learn this guy so concerned about citizens getting riled up over a wrinkly, washed up pop star voiced these concerns during a service honoring Augusto Pinochet. Based upon this story I can only conclude all Chileans are insane.

So much for the House seriously deliberating that automaker bailout bill and not jamming it through today. Michelle Malkin has a summary of Republicans voting Yea and everyone who voted Nay. Local news tonight made mention of the House passage and pending fight in the Senate, followed by a blurb from Barney Frank.

I have trouble not cursing at the image of Barney Frank, and it’s near impossible when they show him speak. Is this man really our go-to source for how government and markets should interact? Were he anything but a United States Congressman, Barney Frank would have resigned in shame or at least shuffled into the background decades ago. Thanks again, voters of Massachusetts.

Wee. More bailouts. “Save” those companies, Congress! Yeee-haw, a “car czar,” there’s the solution to the American car industry’s woes! I really hope this works well for Chrysler and Cerberus. American taxpayers owe them… something, apparently?

Forget some of that local election silver lining… saw this headline yesterday about the Kilroy/Stivers race:

Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy won a hotly contested central Ohio congressional race by a little more than 2,000 votes Sunday after elections officials tallied provisional ballots in the district’s largest county.

Boo. Another Democrat riding the autumn wave of Obamentum.

The district saw one of the nation’s most fiercely competitive races, with Kilroy spending more than $2.5 million and Stivers spending more than $2 million during the campaign.

I’d be interested to see how much out-of-state groups spent portraying Stivers as the devil’s banking lobbyist. Given that you couldn’t turn on a TV in central Ohio from September until election day without seeing an anti-Stivers commercial I’m willing to bet it’s a, shall we say, large number. But then, since Kilroy is known for having Hillary Clinton’s glowing personality with none of her political prowess, it’s hard to argue with the political reasoning for negative advertising.