Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Every so often, I am so impressed by a comment to one of my columns that I offer to just turn my column over to the author, and let them have my soapbox. This doesn't happen often, usually around once per year.
I've written a few columns so far about the Occupy Wall Street protest, [...]
The author's basic premise is that Romney is a flip-flopper who can't be trusted by conservatives. He'll win the Republican nomination, and then go on to lose to Obama next year. The article (and the hundreds of comments) make fascinating reading.
Barack Obama's job approval poll numbers in October were flat. Very flat. So flat, in fact, that he tied his own "flattest month ever" record, which he initially set back in November of last year. Obama's change in approval and disapproval combined last month totaled only a single tenth of a percent -- which is almost as flat as numerically possible.
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.
Two months ago, Perry led the field with 23 percent (to Romney's 16 percent second-place). Two months ago, Herman Cain was at five percent. Cain is now, to be blunt, eating Perry's lunch (insert your own pizza joke here). Even the Tea Party has all but abandoned Perry in favor of Cain, at this point.
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.
Last night, at yet another Republican presidential candidate debate, Herman Cain was roundly criticized for his simplistic 9-9-9 tax plan by his fellow Republicans. I have to admit, it was a little bizarre (in a "Nixon goes to China" sort of way) to see Republicans disparaging a tax plan for being "regressive." Ron Paul was unafraid to actually use this word, and while several other candidates avoided the term they in essence leveled the same charge: 9-9-9 would wind up increasing taxes on the poor and the middle class. Being Republicans, though, they didn't also speak of the other side of this coin -- the fact that 9-9-9 would lower taxes on the wealthy and really lower them on the ultra-wealthy. But still, it was odd enough to see candidate after candidate speak of their concern for the tax burden of the lower-class and middle-class, since this is usually a Democratic argument. Perhaps all those 99 Percenters out there demonstrating in the streets are getting through to the Republican politicians? Stranger things have happened.