McDonald’s Coffee the Best…

I simply can not agree that McDonald’s coffee is up to the standards of Starbucks. While Gevalia Breakfast Blend is my personal favorite, McDonald’s coffee lacks in the depth of flavor and overall quality of Starbucks and other premium coffee.

February 7, 2007 — THE world of caffeine got a jolt last week when Consumer Reports tested Starbucks coffee against fast-food chains’ lowly joe and the winner was … McDonald’s. Beating out Burger King and Dunkin’ Donuts along with the ubiquitous Seattle swill, the Golden Arches serves a brew that’s – according to CR – “decent and moderately strong” with “no flaws,” although “it lacked the subtle top notes needed to make it rise and shine.”

Memo to Consumer Reports: It lacks those notes because it’s a fast-food cup of coffee.

More on this controversy

Breakfast Wars

Our Cowardly Congress

The United States Senate has been experiencing an outbreak of total cowardice. Many of these liberals, with Hagel and company included, should simply cut off the funds for the war. There are plenty of dollars to “redeploy” the troops over the next six to nine months.

More on this cowardly congress:

February 7, 2007 — President Bush Monday survived the first attempt by congressional Dem ocrats to undermine the U.S. mission to Iraq – a bid to declare “no confidence” in his ongoing troop surge.

So far, so good.

But the Democrats, busy little beavers as always, are readying another effort to score political points at the expense of the president’s strategy – and America’s fighting forces, too.

Senate Democrats could muster only 49 of the 60 votes they needed to invoke cloture, cutting off a GOP filibuster of a symbolic resolution that would have expressed disagreement with the troop-surge plan.

Senate GOP leaders were prepared to let the resolution move forward – if Democrats agreed to permit votes on two measures more supportive of the president. No deal, said the Dems.

Actually, that’s just as well.

Any resolution – short of an unambiguous endorsement of the troop surge – would be irresponsible.

Besides, Democrats (and Republicans who side with them) just had their chance forcefully to oppose the war.

If they have a beef with the Bush strategy, why did they overwhelmingly vote to confirm the nominations of Gen. David Petraeus as chief U.S. commander in Iraq, and of Adm. William Fallon to head the overall U.S. effort in the region? Those officers not only endorse the troop surge, they’re the ones charged with carrying out the policy.

As Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who remains a beacon of light on Iraq, told his colleagues: “We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in Gen. Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle.”

Lieberman Calls Out Shallow Senators

Joe Lieberman has it exactly right when it comes to the foolish posturing of the United States Senate. For those who say that Thespis Journal is too partisan-here is your bi-partisan support for common sense. 

OUR nation has reached a critical crossroad in the war in Iraq. A new course has been chosen; a new commander is in place – and a new strategy has begun to be put into action on the ground by our troops.

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war. But that is not the debate this resolution invites.

The resolution before us won’t stop the new strategy from going forward. Instead, its sponsors say, it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them.

We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know if we support the plan they’ve begun to carry out.

We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking.

And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about taking responsibility. It is the opposite – a resolution of irresolution.

Nancy Reagan Presents Award

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Former President George H. W. Bush received the 2007 Ronald Reagan Freedom Award at a Tuesday night gala, joking the 40th president was a “tough act to follow.”

“I wish I had a little Ronald Reagan in me when it came to communicating with the American people,” said Bush, who served as Reagan’s vice president. “Had I been blessed with my predecessor’s remarkable skill, who knows? I might still be employed.”

Earlier Tuesday, Reagan was remembered on his birthday at a graveside ceremony at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Museum in Simi Valley.

Former First Lady Nancy Reagan did not attend that ceremony, saying she was a bit under the weather and wanted to reserve her energy for the Tuesday night gala, in which she presented the award to former President Bush.

Mrs. Reagan, in a sparkly silver dress, smiled and waved to the crowd as she was escorted to the stage to place the medal around Bush’s neck. She did not give remarks, although she issued a statement earlier in the day that said: “It’s hard to believe that Ronnie would have been 96 years old today.”

In his acceptance speech, Bush said he cherished the time spent alongside Reagan. “Working with Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest joys of my life,” Bush said.
Statement by Mrs. Ronald Reagan on the Occasion of Ronald Reagan’s 96th Birthday Celebration