Good News Saturday-the economy.

Today’s subject is the booming economy. Yesterday, we learned that the U.S. remains at full employment. June saw another 132,000 new jobs created by the booming economy, with 8.2 million new jobs since August of 2003. Unemployment remains the quite low 4.5% and has been consistently lower than any decade over the last forty years.

Yesterday’s job report highlights the booming Bush economy. Even after the worst exogenous shock experienced by the American economy, 9.11.01, the corporate crises, and the two worst natural disasters in American history, and the increasing cost of energy, the following is the Bush economic record:

Real after-tax per capita personal income has increased by 9.9 Percent – nearly $3,000 per person – since President Bush took office. Real wages rose 1.1% over the 12 months ending In May 2007, faster than the average rate during the 1990s, and it means an extra $729 in the past year for the typical family with two wage earners.

The US economy has now experienced over five years of uninterrupted real growth, averaging 2.9% per year since 2001. Real GDP grew a strong 3.1 percent in 2006.

Productivity Growth has averaged 2.8% since the first quarter of 2001, at the commencement of the Clinton recession following the energy shortages and market declines of the late 90s. The Bush era productivity growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

Manufacturing expanded for the fifth consecutive month In June 2007. The Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index rose to 56 in June.

The federal budget deficit has declined by 165 billion dollars during the last two years. Record federal tax revenues explain most of the decline.

Last week as shown much good economic news indeed. Nonetheless, the mainstream media would have you believe that we are nearing economic panic in the United States.

Liberal but fair coverage of the Iowa immigration debate

Although the source is usually on the other side of the aisle, an editor at the liberal American Prospect recently published this most fair-minded article about the immigration debate in Iowa.

Liberals rarely reach beyond xenophobia to describe the Republican, particularly Heartland conservative, attitudes about the complex subject of immigration but Ms. Franke-Ruta has looked behind the template.

I would, however, disagree with the author on one of her conclusions, most of us think that Hollywood liberals remain the face (in Rosie’s case, quite literally) of the cultural sprint to Gomorrah, as her own writings have illustrated.

Thanks to GFR for reminding the voters why Iowa excels as the national hiring committee for our future presidents.

Independence Day Topic-The Great Eight

In honor of the day of our Nation’s birth (more or less), and with so many jockeying for that “44” on the jersey on both sides of the aisle, let us take stock of the historic competition.

As we tune in the political channels on this our 231st Birthday we are presented with quite a Presidential Menu. The Dems have to answer the question-keep “All in the Family” or switch over to “The Fresh Prince”. We Rs also have quite a vast menu. Rudy (whose more like Costner in the Untouchables, with just a touch of Nathan Lane from the Producers) is clinging to a lead over the laconic and devilishly clever Arthur Branch, with Mitt campaigning “Down and Derby”.

The Real Sporer fancies himself a historian and his choices well informed. We call this the “POTUS Great Eight” and the following get my vote:

8) Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower-ended the Korean War on our terms; maintained prosperity and kept the conflicts low intensity and light on casualties. A third term for Ike and no Castro.

7) Thomas Jefferson-the ironic pacifist who sent the country on its first imperial war, doubled the size of the Nation and created political dominance for almost a generation.

6) Harry Truman-remember this Democrats and other jihadists, he left office at 19%. America was calling and we got George W.

5) Ronald Reagan-won the Cold War, comrades, and damn near single handedly at that while turning around a depression. The most elected two term President in history, won 94 states.

4) TR-the bio says it all, "Theodore Rex" America’s greatest Renaissance man, created modern America and the two ocean navy and the Canal through which to provide global dominance.

3) FDR-although he brought socialism to America he also saved the world. Hard to top that one.

2) George Washington-not the "Father of His Country" for nothing. He's the reason we have not yet become the socialist one party state for which Evita pines on the balcony of the Casa Rosada up in Chappaqua.

1) Abraham Lincoln-Be honest, when you have a mental impression of the face of God it looks a lot like Abe's in the Lincoln Memorial.

So voice your opinion as to the "POTUS “Great Eight”. If you disagree with the Real Sporer, on this one, you might generate some real debate by giving voice to the basis of your disagreement.

Public Service Announcement Part 2-Calendar of Presidential Visitors

Our jihadists friends over at Century of the Common Iowan have a great calendar of Presidential wanna-be’s bi-partisan travels through Iowa during the Independence Day events.

We hope to have Real Correspondents at several of the appearances.

Public Service Announcement-3 new links.

We discovered three new sites on interest.

The first is a very good Tom Tancredo blog. We are trying to put together a good set of campaign specific blogs to link so if your candidate has a good one, send it to me and we’ll take a look at linking it.

The second is “Sphere”. This is a very good blog reference site and most handy for the compulsive talker.

The third is an interesting slice of the very liberal left Essential Estrogen. EE is a well written liberal blog. My only criticism is the content control. The author is clearly sufficiently clever to handle repartee.

All are now linked below left. Enjoy the reading.

Sunday Talk Review-Face the Nation (CBS)-Lugar likes Lalaland

Bob Schieffer opened with an impromptu interview with a Scotland Yard counter terrorism expert named John O’Connor. The important conclusion the actual expert urged was the constantly threatening nature of the War on Terror and its capacity to strike anywhere, any time. That is the sad reality of our time however much we all wish it weren’t.

Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana) then appeared to discuss his almost childlike vision of future Iraq policy and ended up proving why our own Senate accomplishes so little, under either party. The Senate, hidebound in debate at almost all times, is where process is elevated over substance; logical consequence and reality are subordinated to the false premises necessary for a process-oriented dialogue and good law goes to die.

Lugar laid out a plan where the US would convene a diplomatic panel of all of Iraq’s neighbors to discuss Iraq and then use the opportunity of the discussions to withdraw most combat forces while leaving some force (of undefined size and composition) behind to enforce whatever comes of the diplomatic negotiations. So when the Iranians say they need the US out now (so they can dominate at least southern and eastern Iraq); and the Syrians say that they need the US out now (so that they can dominate at least western and central Iraq); and the Turks say they want the US out soon if not now (so they can dominate Kurdistan); and the Saudis say that they will further militarize Sunni groups when the US leaves to prevent the Shia militias from exterminating the Sunnis; and none of the neighbors have any intention of so policing Iraq as to prevent Al Qa’eda from finding safe haven, whatever do you say Dick?

I’d also like to ask for some definition for the residual US military role? What does “support” mean. When a bomb goes off we don’t clear the neighborhood? We don’t let the Shia militia overthrow the legally elected government and massacre their leaders like Hamas did last month in Gaza? If we leave a force behind there will still be casualties-only those will be murder because we won’t be trying to win, just hanging around.

Lugar was critical of the Iraqis inability to resolve difficult political issues like revenue sharing, etc… in an environment of violence and hatred. The United States Senate hasn’t passed meaningful energy policy in 35 years and no one is threatening to kill them for the “wrong” decision. Lugar is demonstrating weakness, in both policy and politics, and weakness never wins.

Sunday Talk Review-Meet the Press (NBC)-Leahy ignored Cheney at Nation’s peril.

Unsurprisingly, Russert lead off this morning with Mike Chertoff. The interview was brief. Russert opened with questions about links between the Glasgow bombings and Al Qa’eda or other international terror. The program was obviously taped before Gordon Brown and Fox broke the news of the links between Al Qa’eda and the latest actual and attempted attacks in the UK. The dialogue about plans to increase security over Independence Day, etc...were pointless. Of course, no operational details were discussed.

Russert asked the same question as Wallace about car bombs, as if they were a new terror weapon. Chertoff again reminded the viewer that car bombs are a historical weapon of terror and we have ways of dealing with them.

Then the show turned to Sen. Pat Leahy and the Democrat attempts to weaken the Bush Administration’s program of 100% success in preventing terror attacks in the United States since 9.11.

Leahy continued the amorphous attacks on the Bush Admin about secret wiretaps, etc…. It strange, but the Dems have never produced a single decision to support their proposition that the President’s plan is illegal or rests on infirm legal principle. They’ve lost every court battle on the subject so naturally they require the viewer to just assume, like an article of faith, some malevolence from the monster George W. Bush.

Leahy and Russert jumped right on the Nixon parallel. Wow, dig up Richard Nixon and compare W to Nixon. Now there is a new approach for the Dems, is it not? Leahy then went on to misstate the scope of executive privilege in a further attempt to attack the Administration. Nixon’s name rolled off Leahy’s lips a number of times. Liberal nostalgia is in full bloom this season as, in their waning days of political life, the old guards of absurdity are returning to Watergate and Vietnam. You know that Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Boxer and Feinstein are praying for another Kent State to burnish their legacies.

Leahy continued the canard about partisan criminal prosecutions. I wonder why Russert never asked the question-name one partisan criminal prosecution. Democrats have never been able to describe even one actual political prosecution; they just make the accusation in the absence of any factual basis therefore. But then, when did facts intrude into liberal thought?

Leahy did prove one thing this morning; he badly needs to follow Dick Cheney’s advice more frequently.

The panel discussion began right at 10:20. Three known Democrats, Broder being the least offensive, jumped right on the Republican “blame” for defeating the immigration bill. Did I sniff glue this morning or was the bill not unpopular? After months of advocacy for it, the comprehensive plan that died this week was at 30% on the day it failed, and that was as popular as it ever got. Even Democrat polls showed the unpopularity of the bill. Never mind that organized labor fought hard to stop the bill and the likely civil war that will happen if we remember to exploit our adversaries divisions, leave it to NBC to find the theoretical dark cloud surrounding the vast political silver lining represented by defeat of the immigration bill.

The political discussion was tame. Russert almost wept when the extent and intensity of Hillary’s negatives came up. Most surveys show that over 50% of likely voters would never consider voting for Hillary. David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network confirmed reasons for Rudy’s consistently good numbers among evangelical voters, significantly his commitment to Roberts/Alito type judges. Given the first full term of the Roberts/Alito court I think we know why.

Russert did earn some respect here at the Real Sporer by covering yet another of the Democrat House leadership’s grotesque hypocrisies. After spending millions of dollars attacking Republican Congressional pay raises the Democrats gave themselves a pay raise last week. One cannot call them liars per se, however, they only promised a “change of direction”. So when it comes to pay raises, like earmarks, the change Pelosi, Murtha and Emanuel meant was a lot more of it.

Sunday Talk Review-Fox News Sunday (Fox)-Chertoff on Terror, Liberal Reactionaries

Chris Wallace demonstrated the difference between a journalist and propagandist in his interview of Mike Chertoff. Wallace began asking probing questions about specific issues surrounding Glasgow. Wallace aksed about the ABC report that we (the US) knew about dangers at Glasgow-which Wallace again described as “misinformation”. The Brit PM, Gordon Brown, linked the attacks to Al Qa’eda today and Chertoff declined to disagree.

Chertoff again made the most important point-are you listening Spotlight-the terrorists want to kill us, they can strike anywhere at any time and the most simplistic of plots can become very deadly. Cars filled with thousands of nails could kill hundreds of people if detonated in the right place, like outside on of the Farmer’s Markets in Des Moines, for example.

Chertoff also reminded the viewer that car bombs aren’t a product of the Iraq campaign, they’ve been around for years, like the first WTC bombing in 93 (Al Qa’eda-remember the powerful Clinton Admin response) and the even more loathsome domestic terror attack in Oklahoma City.

The immigration discussion was better than the one George S. instigated. Wallace provided the opportunity for Chertoff to discuss the Administration’s not insubstantial improvement of border security and immigration enforcement. I’m not sure why the Bush Admin doesn’t talk this up every day, and every day for the last two years, is beyond me. Chertoff did point out that a fence isn’t the only answer-he described a tunnel that was recently discovered.

Wallace asked a great question, would the Admin send component parts of the recently deceased bill to Congress, like the ID cards, etc… Chertoff put the burden of change back on Congress to pass legislation that further empowers and funds immigration enforcement.

The program picked up in a discussion of the “Fairness Doctrine”. Mike Gallagher, conservative talk show host, stated the obvious that the reintroduction of the 1949 “Fairness Doctrine” as an attempt by whiny liberals to silence the opposition.

Mark Green, President of Air America (currently in bankruptcy court) went into the usual liberal jabberwocky that the Fairness Doctrine wasn’t “government regulation” it merely required broadcasters to go through licensing hearings at which their licenses would be based on the broadcaster’s willingness to present ideological diversity in its broadcasts or face license revocation or denial. That is like saying decapitation does not kill a person; it merely removes their head and prevents the transmission of nervous function to the body.

Green’s entire argument is based on talk radio’s conservative prevalence. Green feels that the market has not determined the nature of talk radio and that some unseen force, implicitly Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy, has conspired to “censor” liberals on the radio waves. Green actually went so far as to compare a private broadcaster’s refusal to air liberal talk radio to segregated baseball. These limited repertoire of left wing news and argument-race, Iraq and fear of the government-that Green himself furnished the basis for liberal radio’s failure-people don’t want to listen to nightmare fantasy of self-loathing and pessimism with which the liberal press already dopes the body politic, like a steroid injection into the body politic. In a larger context-Green also unwittingly illustrated the proximate cause of the network news shows and other MSM like the Big 3 news magazines and major newspapers declining audience over the last decade or more.

The panel opened with a discussion of the Supreme Court. Without rehashing every word, Mara Liasson made the most important point-George W. Bush will impact America for a generation through his conservative Supreme Court appointments. Whenever a conservative who finds aspects of the Republican Party or our candidates and agenda to be insufficiently conservative, say the words “Roberts” and “Alito” and then “”Breyer” and “Ginsburg” and you reason you will know what you have to do on Election Day.

Juan Williams provided the “reactionary” liberalism this morning. His complaint about the partial birth abortion decision as some radical revision of the constitutional structure was just silly. Nothing in Roe creates a right to partial birth abortion-such a reading is not possible. Same with the Seattle and Louisville school plans-they were strictly based on and the law passed with large bipartisan majorities, yet somehow in liberal world Court dangerously restricted rights. How?

Juan went down the racism road on the immigration bill, of course. Britt refuted the racism nonsense by observing that he didn’t hear the word “Mexican” and he didn’t hear the word “Hispanic” when listening to objections to the compromise bill but that he heard the word “illegal” to describe objections to the bill. Yeah! In fact, those of us who opposed this bill need to answer every accusation of racism or lack of compassion just like Britt-and as Tom Tacredo did yesterday – with a very aggressive counter-attack that our concern and compassion is for the “legal” immigrant of Hispanic, or any other, ancestry. By the way, I know there was no Sporer or Sklavonetes on the Mayflower or at Jamestown and I’m guessing that there were no Tancredos or Kristols either. Don’t call us racists because we honor our legal migrant ancestors and our legal migrant neighbors who have made us what we are and what we will be.

Sunday Talk Review-This Week (ABC)-Chertoff leads off, Leiberman homers and Brazille fans.

The program opened with George Stephanopoulos questioning Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The line of questioning focused on probing theories by which, you guessed it, the Bush Administration could be blamed for the Glasgow attack because the US had some information of dangers with the Glasgow and Prague airports. Chertoff answered that George S. could “rest assured” that American intelligence is shared almost instantaneously with our British counterparts. Chertoff said that the ABC report regarding Glasgow was “misinformation”.

The other line of questioning tried to make Chertoff admit that the Glasgow and London plots were not serious, “amateurish” is how he described them. Chertoff simply pointed out that a pre 9.11 plot to hi-jack airplanes with box cutters would also have been described as “amateurish”.

George S. continued to press for some detailed discussion of the intelligence community’s response to the Glasgow attacks. Chertoff bobbed and weaved and avoided, quite rightly, any operational discussion. He did concede that there would be more air marshals on American flights out of Glasgow for the near future. Now’ there is a surprise (not).

Lieberman articulated the difference between the “Iraq clock” and the “Washington clock”. Joe said that the new “surge” program was clearly working; violence is down significantly in Bagdad and Anbar province. He referenced the success at putting the enemy to flight in Diala. Lieberman also described the difference between current and historic efforts as significant because we now have what appears as sufficient manpower for us to clear and Iraqi forces to hold the areas we clear. Lieberman didn’t outright say it, but the implication was obvious, that the continued and constant drumbeat that Iraq is lost is dangerous to the country. Yeah!

Lieberman described the current efforts in the Senate to order the retreat of American troops as “outrageously wrong”. Lieberman said that the situation was most like the 1930s in that it is reality that Iran and Al Qa’eda will be the winners of US premature withdrawal from Iraq. George S. ran out liberal talking points after that answer and the conversation kind of dried up.

The panel opened with a discussion of the recent Supreme Court decision in “Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al”. Donna Brazille described that the decision as “Orwellian” so she must have been up late last night reading the liberal handbook for change “1984”. Of course, such a description is a non-sequitar to Justice Roberts’ conclusion that, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.". Perhaps Brazille should have read the Constitution where she won’t find the word “diversity” but she will find the words “equal protection”. Needless to say, Brazille some how thinks the opposite and that continued use of race in school apportionment is necessary to American life-the problem is she cannot say why. It’s just another part of the liberal philosophy of division and distortion-as the Dems made clear in the sheep pasture they called a debate last week.

The panel then turned to a discussion of the campaign. By design or just fortuitous coincidence, George S. supported our earlier article about John Edwards. George S. showed a clip of the Elizabeth Edwards ambush of Ann Coulter and the panel went on to discuss the Edwards’ use of Coulters comments as a fund raising device. The commentary wasn’t complimentary to Edwards.

Fairness factor-30%.