Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
President Obama is looking a lot stronger these days. Today, especially, the president emerges as the big winner in the showdown with John Boehner and the House Republicans. But Obama's been looking better and better all month, so Boehner caving should be seen as just the icing on the cake for Obama.
The Head Elf turns back to his iPad. "Mitch McConnell says he wants some media attention. He complains they all ignore him and run to John Boehner instead. Boehner, on the other hand, wants less attention paid to the fact that he can't control his own caucus."
As always, if you disagree with any (or all) of my picks, feel free to make your own in the comments. The categories are completely open to interpretation, and don't forget that there will be a "Part 2" column next week, so I can likely squeeze things I forgot in there.
Instead, I'd like to gently point out that the same Founding Fathers that achieved this monumental milestone in government (some of them, at least) were the same ones who tried to eviscerate these same basic protections -- within seven years of the Bill of Rights' ratification.
Feel free to suggest anyone or anything you'd like. The only rules of interpretation for what the categories mean are your own. If I think they're the best suggestion I've heard, I may use some of your suggestions in this Friday's column. We'll be returning to this subject next week, for part two, with a whole new set of categories. For now, who would you select for any or all of the following? Post your choices in the comments!
Peggy Noonan, a consummate Washington insider with impeccable conservative credentials, recently came up with a nice turn of phrase to describe Newt Gingrich: "He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, 'Watch this!' " Back in Newt's heyday, the comic strip Doonesbury portrayed Gingrich as a lit bomb with a short fuse, who would occasionally explode with a bang. Right and Left seem to be in agreement on Newt's resemblance to trinitrotoluene, in other words (or, maybe, "Newtroglycerine"?). Which leaves only one key question to be answered: When, exactly, will this "Newtsplosion" take place?
You know, it strikes me that this week may be one politics-watchers look back on when proving the thesis: "Anything can happen in politics, and usually does." I can picture seeing some wise pundit a few years down the road making the historical reference: "Yeah, but remember when Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were leading the polls in the Iowa caucuses? Anything can happen... just anything..."
Two-and-a-half years ago, I wrote the following column, hoping that the Obama administration was going to live up to its promise to have a "science-based" drug policy. I spoke of two examples: medical marijuana, and the "morning after" pill. Today seemed a real good day to re-run this column.
Since the 2012 Republican nomination fight has, so far been marked by its "anything could happen" nature, and since Ron Paul is still very much in the race in places like Iowa, let's explore how he could actually win the Republican nomination. This scenario is unthinkable for many inside-the-Beltway types and mainstream media types alike, but since it is the height of speculation season, a winning Paul scenario is worth considering. Two of them, in fact.
President Barack Obama gave a speech today in a small town in Kansas. The reason he chose this venue for this speech was to draw historical comparisons with a speech given there by Teddy Roosevelt, over one hundred years ago. While you may see some clips of Obama's speech in the news, few will bother to look up the original speech. Which is a shame, and which is why we present it today. We leave comparisons with Obama's speech to others, for now, mostly because the speech itself is a long one. But it is worth reading to the end, to see where the real (capital-P) Progressives stand in American history.