Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
This month Obama poll watchers got some good news, and some bad news. This was capped off, at the end of the month, by the Washington punditocracy making an incredibly stupid comparison between polling for Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter -- which we will address at the end of the column (complete with a "guess the president" graph quiz, for your amusement).
Collins is, I remind everyone, nominally a member of the Republican Party. She's right -- this could defuse a major talking point for Republicans, and do it in a very elegant way. As I said, Democrats should be beating a path to her office door, to quickly work this idea up into legislation that Democrats can support. It is one of the best ideas I've heard all year, and it deserves serious consideration not only because the idea itself is so workable, but also for the sheer politics of it all -- this could take away a big GOP talking point, right before election season begins. Democrats: take note! Please....
We'd like to begin today with an issue that we regularly get incensed about here, mostly because it flies under the radar of just about everyone -- including the entire media universe. Because for once, Democrats are making the attempt to use the issue to make some political hay (even though, in this regard, they're admittedly almost as bad as the Republicans).
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement seems to be at a crossroads. The path it chooses to take next may be the deciding moment for whether it declines into irrelevance or grows beyond its current boundaries into something larger.
While predictable, this reaction is absolutely ridiculous. Every single talking point the Republicans came up with on the subject shows their almost complete lack of understanding of the basic concepts of democracy -- both here at home, and abroad. Which is why these points need refuting, one by one.
It has been a big week on the foreign policy front, with the death of Libya's dictator and President Obama's announcement today that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of this year (leaving roughly 150 to guard the embassy). But before we get to all of that, I've got some domestic advice for the president's re-election team.
Too busy researching today to write, even though it is a momentous day in Libya. I'll be commenting on this in the near future, most likely, but for now this will have to do.
The issue of what, exactly, "three co-equal branches" means in American government -- and, more importantly, what happens when two of them disagree -- goes back a long way. Further than Franklin Roosevelt, further even than Abraham Lincoln. The first president to truly tangle with the Supreme Court was actually Andrew Jackson, who fought the court on two separate issues: Jackson's policy of "Indian removal," and the Second Bank of the United States. The first one is where Jackson responded (according to legend -- he may not have actually said this) to a court ruling against him: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" By doing so, Jackson was stating his open defiance of a Supreme Court decision, and pointing out that the Executive Branch actually controlled the levers of federal power, and not the Judicial Branch.
The end of the American military's involvement in Iraq is almost upon us. Someone in the White House recently leaked what should have been apparent to everyone all along -- that the Pentagon is preparing to withdraw all our remaining troops from Iraq, by the end of this year. Less than 200 will remain, to guard the embassy, but all our other brave men and women in uniform will be home to celebrate the dawning of a new year.
Last week (as with this week) the subject de semaine was "class warfare." The comment which inspired this week's mini-rants contained a simple, repetitive concept: "When [something outrageous pushed by Republicans happens], nobody calls it 'class warfare'. Maybe we should."