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 Republican House leadership just released the tentative work schedule for the House of Representatives for the next calendar year. It contains only 109 days of actual work. That's for the entire year, folks. That is less than 30 percent of the days a year actually contains. To be fair, it is almost 42 percent of the average number of workdays in a year (in other words, discounting weekend days). But still -- 42 percent?!?

Stated another way, 109 days is one day short of 22 work weeks. There are, in case anyone's forgotten, 52 weeks in a year. This conveniently leaves a whopping 30 weeks off -- 150 work days -- for vacationing and fundraising and campaigning and for all the other things these so-called "public servants" do in their voluminous spare time, instead of the job we are paying them a six-figure income to perform.

Continue Reading »

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.

As always, addressing the subject of what I prefer to call the "99 Percenters" movement should or shouldn't do next is fraught with emotion, because one of the strong messages emanating from lower Manhattan is "Don't tell us what to do -- we're doing fine on our own, thanks." Which is why I don't write about the subject all that often, as it can be a minefield for anyone who can't claim street cred of camping out overnight in the park. But several disturbing trends seem to be emerging, which if not addressed could doom the movement to irrelevancy. So I feel it's time to offer some unsolicited (and possibly unwanted) advice.

Continue Reading »

Due to a mixup in scheduling, there will be no column today. Our apologies, but hey, Monday's column should really have been a two-parter, and we've got pumpkins to carve for next Monday, so it's a busy week all around even without the snafu.

Call today a rare "open thread" here. I'll even toss out a subject for discussion, how's that?

What do you think the next phase of the Occupy Wall Street protests will become? We seem to be in a critical moment where the choice of what path to walk next will be a crucial one. In the spirit of honoring all protest (which we try mightily to uphold here), I would ask even people who don't agree with the protests to offer up constructive criticism as to what should their next move be. What, in other words, would you offer up as advice to the protesters themselves, at this point?

Again, our apologies for the scheduling problems, and regular columns will resume tomorrow.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

A recent CBS News-New York Times poll on the Republican nomination race has some stunningly bad news for Rick Perry. The poll, taken in the past few days, has Perry in fifth place, with only six percent support. Here are the percentage numbers for the whole field:

25 -- Herman Cain
21 -- Mitt Romney
10 -- Newt Gingrich
8 -- Ron Paul
6 -- Rick Perry
2 -- Michele Bachmann
1 -- Rick Santorum
1 -- Jon Huntsman
14 -- undecided

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.

Continue Reading »

President Barack Obama announced late last week that all United States troops would be coming out of Iraq by the end of this year (with the exception of a very small contingent in the embassy) -- exactly as President George W. Bush had agreed to, three years ago. Republicans, predictably, condemned the president's decision. Not "the presidents' decision" mind you, but just President Obama's decision to follow the timetable for withdrawal that Bush originally agreed to.

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.

When we started the Iraq War, the ostensible reason for doing so -- weapons of mass destruction -- turned out to be non-existent. The Bush administration quickly shifted rationales, and our reason for invading became "regime change" and then "providing Iraq with a democratic government." That last goal has been met, and it is what is causing all the problems now. If the United States had just installed our own puppet strongman, we wouldn't have to deal with the messy realities of Iraqi democracy. Someone should remind the Republicans of this basic fact. We fought -- and many died -- to achieve democracy in Iraq. It disrespects that mission, and that achievement, to deny its realities now.

Let's take a look at the Republican reactions to Obama's announcement of a full withdrawal from Iraq -- which will bring all the troops "home for the holidays." None of them hold the slightest bit of rationality, or even basic understanding of the concept of democracy.

Continue Reading »

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.

So, to the folks planning the "Obama 2012" effort: Spend some money. Please, please, spend some money right now. Buy an ad or three. By doing so, you can change the whole flavor of the political debate overnight.

This is, I will fully admit, fairly unconventional advice, so allow me to explain. Conventional thinking would be to carefully husband your financial resources right now, allow the Republicans to burn themselves out attacking each other, and then flood the airwaves with pro-Obama ads after the primary season is over (or even after the national conventions take place next year). This way, you'll have an enormous advantage over the Republican candidate in terms of money in the bank when the true campaign starts.

But Obama's team doesn't have to be bound by this conventional thinking, for a couple of reasons. The first is their target of one billion dollars in fundraising. If they meet (or even come close) to this massive amount of money, it will be far more than has ever been spent in a political race before -- and far more (most likely) that Obama's Republican challenger will be able to raise. So there's not going to be any reason for penny-pinching, in other words. Secondly, airing these ads doesn't have to cost a whole lot (relatively, of course). Steal a page from the late Steve Jobs' playbook (the famous "1984" Apple ad), and pay for only one airing of your ad... say, in the middle of the first quarter of a Sunday night football game. The media will take care of re-airing the ad many times, meaning a single ad buy is all that will be necessary -- which wouldn't cost all that much. Thirdly, the Obama campaign already has plenty of money in the bank, so paying for the ad right now won't be a problem, either. Alternatively, perhaps the Democratic National Committee could run the ad, if you wanted to funnel the election money in a different way.

Continue Reading »

[Program Note: 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. This article was corrected after it first ran, see the original for notes on the correction if interested (the corrected version -- without the "Correction" notices -- is what appears below).]

[Originally published 8/22/11]

President Obama, when he first announced the United States' intervention in the Libyan revolution, was assailed from all sides for his war plan. Five months ago, both Democrats and Republicans were offering up pointed criticisms for just about every aspect of Obama's decision. Whatever Obama did, there were large numbers of both Republicans and Democrats quite willing to loudly second-guess him. Including Representative Dennis Kucinich (a Democrat), who called President Obama's actions "an impeachable offense."

Continue Reading »

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.

Herman Cain is becoming increasingly boxed in by his 9-9-9 plan. To his credit, he's done his best to push what is unquestionably a bold idea onto the public's consciousness. The problem for him is that every economist who does the math (who is not actually in Herman Cain's employ) concludes pretty much the same thing: this plan would massively raise taxes on the lowest earners, and massively slash taxes on the highest earners.

Continue Reading »

[Program Note: I don't have time to fully develop this theme today, due to spending all day researching. But I was struck by the comment when I heard Gingrich make it on Face The Nation last Sunday, because I had just read an extraordinary quote on the same matter. Today, an article appeared which delved into the past, but not far back enough to fully flesh out the subject. So I thought I'd toss this out there for further debate.]

This past Sunday, Newt Gingrich made an extraordinary statement on CBS' Sunday political chatfest. This was, apparently, a restatement of an even stronger position he had just taken.

To see the original statement, and a discussion of the history behind it, please read Lyle Denniston's column in today's Huffington Post.

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.

Continue Reading »

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.

This story broke over the weekend, but not much attention has been given to it by the media as yet. The Associated Press reported: "...a senior Obama administration official in Washington confirmed Saturday that all American troops will leave Iraq except for about 160 active-duty soldiers attached to the U.S. Embassy."

This should not be surprising news to anyone. Just before President George W. Bush left office, he signed a Status Of Forces Agreement (S.O.F.A.) with Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki of Iraq. This agreement contains the key sentence: "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." Which is exactly where we find ourselves now.

Continue Reading »