Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
I was too busy to write today because I was doing my taxes. "But Chris," I hear you ask, "isn't April 15th supposed to be Tax Day?" Well, yes... yes it is. But October 15th is the new official "Tax Day For Lazy Procrastinators." It used to be August 15th, but at some point Congress apparently decided that wasn't quite lazy enough for some American taxpayers, so they gave us two extra months.
Will Republicans go the way of the Whig Party? Well, we're not really going to answer that question in any meaningful way today, we're going to instead focus on the question itself. Because this question isn't really all that apt a parallel to draw in the first place. Most people today just use "go the way of the Whig Party" as an amusing way to say "disappear as a national political party." But a truer parallel to history would be to ask the question: "Will today's Republicans revert back to being the Whig Party?" Or, perhaps: "Will the Tea Party eventually go the way of the Whig Party?"
Today I thought it be a good idea to take a break from the budgetary staredown and run a repeat of a column I wrote all the way back in 2007. Now, sometimes what seems like a bright idea when I write a column winds up sounding pretty silly, even a few months later. But this one has stood the test of time, I think, and it is currently relevant because President Obama actually weighed in on the debate recently, when asked about it in an interview.
A paean, my dictionary informs me, is "an exultant song of praise or thanksgiving." The reason I'm offering up such praise today is that it is officially National Punctuation Day. [Who knew punctuation had its own day? Andy Warhol would likely have been amused, one suspects.] But just to warn everyone up front, we're veering off from political discussions today in order to have a punctuation discussion instead. I almost titled this article "A Pedantic Punctuation Paean," but you're going to have to look that word up yourself to see why I thought it was a bit too much. But if an article on punctuation sounds unbelievably boring to you... well, there's always kitten videos a-plenty out there to watch on the internet, right?
The politico-media empire which writes the rules of the Washington "What Serious People Are Saying" game have apparently decided that the government shutdown is now melodramatically going to happen. Cue ominous organ music blast (dum Dum DUM!). The key word in that opening sentence is "melodramatically," because our government can now be seen as nothing more than a continuing soap opera. Call it "As The Boehner Turns," or perhaps more appropriately "The Boehner And The Restless."
This isn't a changing-of-the-seasons article, it is in fact an article marking the withdrawal of Larry Summers for nomination to the head job at the Federal Reserve. I suppose I could have made it both, but then I would have had to title it "Summer's Out: Summers Out" which somehow just seems even more confusing. All kidding aside, though; liberals, lefties, progressives, and populists alike are heaving a giant sigh of relief at this news. Larry Summers has now realized he very well could lose a Senate confirmation vote and so he decided instead to take his name out of consideration for the appointment.
Reading Putin's piece took me back to the halcyon days of the Cold War, but it seems most other people commenting on it either have shorter memories or are just too young to remember what I'm talking about.
Beyond cute phraseology, though, the Colorado recall shows once again why many Democratic politicians consider gun control legislation so politically dangerous. Back in the 1990s, gun control (the assault weapons ban in particular) proved to be a motivating factor in many Democratic politicians' defeat at the polls. The pro-gun side is well-organized, well-funded, and fervent in its beliefs. The anti-gun side, not so much (even with Bloomberg's new organization). For many voters, guns are a litmus test in voting. But only really on the pro side -- for antis, it may be an important consideration, but it is rarely a deal-breaker when it comes time to vote.
The speech Obama just gave was a balancing act in several respects. I heard post-speech analysis by David Brooks on PBS, and he came up with an excellent way to put the problem Obama faced -- a "Goldilocks moment." How much of an airstrike would be "too much" and how much would be "too little," in other words. The other big balancing act was between calling for military action and pursuing the diplomatic solution.
Due to the fact that Congress is still on vacation and also due to the fact that it has largely been a one-subject week in the political world, we are going to pre-empt our regular talking points for a discussion of where the country seems to be on the question of attacking Syria. But first, let's wrap up the week and hand out our awards, as usual.