Over the next few weeks here at ChrisWeigant.com, we will be going through a period of upgrades and system maintenance. This (hopefully) will not require a major redesign of the site layout, so after we're done you should see a site very similar to what you are looking at now. We will try our best to keep disruptions and interruptions to a minimum, and will strive to deliver our regular daily columns (except on the weekends, of course). However, to kick off this season of uncertainty here, today's column will, regrettably, be posted much later than normal.

If you have been experiencing any problems with the site in the past, or if you have suggestions for improvements in general, please use the Email Chris page to let us know. And if you experience any problems during the upgrade period, please also do not hesitate to let us know about it. Any major disruptions in service will (hopefully) be preceded by a Program Note similar to this one, to warn our readers what to expect.

Thank you, as always, for your patience and understanding.

-- Chris Weigant

As 2009 draws to a close, the politically wonky among us begin to turn our eyes towards the 2010 election landscape. Congressional midterm elections will be taking place less than a year from now, meaning (while some might consider it laughably premature) it is time to pay some attention to the upcoming races.

But as I sat down to write about this very subject, I found that fellow Huffington Post blogger Dylan Loewe had already done a stellar job with the subject. So, rather than taking the angle Loewe has already excellently explored, I will instead merely excerpt his seven pieces of advice for Democrats who are worried about the upcoming midterms. These are just the titles of his seven tactics, I should point out -- Loewe further explains each one, in detail. I highly recommend reading his article in full to see exactly what he's talking about, because all of them are worth the attention of anyone concerned with Democrats' chances next year..

Continue Reading »

Before we get to all of that boring political stuff, we tune in to what the mainstream media has decided is the official Thing Everyone Should Be Talking About This Week. I refer, of course, to Tiger Woods. Woods, as we all know by now, had an altercation recently involving, in whatever mix you choose to believe: (1) an SUV, (2) a fire hydrant, (3) a tree, (4) his own driveway, (5) a golf club (how perfectly apropos!), and (6) his wife. Of course, there may have been a (7) or even (8) involved as well ("The Other Women"), but they were indirect players, at best, in the actual altercation.

To which I would like to throw my own wackadoodle conspiracy theory into the midst, since we're all having such fun obsessing over the incident. Consider, for a moment, two of Tiger's major sponsors: Nike and Gatorade. Why would I bring these up, you wonder? Because I think Tiger's under a subtle form of mind control, which may have caused him to consider extramarital hanky-panky as a good idea. Allow me to present two facts to support my tinfoil-hat thinking.

Continue Reading »

At first glance, it seems like nobody's happy with President Obama's new Afghanistan strategy, announced Tuesday night before an audience of West Point cadets. Voices from the left and right (for different reasons, of course) are decrying the president's decision as not what they wanted to hear. Hard-liners are attempting to score political points, from both sides of the aisle. But when you strip away the heated rhetoric, what remains? To me, the core question becomes: "Is Obama's new policy a good thing or a bad thing, and does it have a chance of working?" OK, that's really two questions. And, for now, I think the answer to both is: "Maybe." Maybe, and then again, maybe not.

Continue Reading »

November wasn't a particularly good month for President Obama in the polls. Not disastrous by any means, but not very cheerful either. Obama laid relatively low in the public eye last month, wanting to be seen (one assumes) as conferring seriously with his advisors over his new Afghanistan strategy. Which, unfortunately, translated into "not wanting to be seen" by the public.

But, by doing so, his approval numbers continued their gradual slide downwards this month. And, although not reflected in our once-a-month snapshot, the truly worrisome thing for the White House is that for the first time, Obama's numbers flirted with going below 50 percent. This isn't an enormous deal (as, for instance, going below 40 percent would be), but it is still a big red flag to politicians, because it means you don't have the job approval of over half of the public.

So we begin today by taking a look at all of this and what it means, followed by our continuing march backwards through previous presidents (to see how their numbers line up with Obama's). This month, we take a look at Jimmy Carter's term in office.

Updated charts of how Obama compares to G.W. Bush, Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, and Reagan are available (as always) at the ObamaPollWatch.com site.

Continue Reading »

I know I'm supposed to be writing about Afghanistan today, in advance of President Obama's speech tonight, but I am still waiting to hear what the man has to say before analyzing it, so you'll just have to join me as I wait and see.

Instead, I would like to note a curious reversal in "the other war." For seven years (not counting the first one, of course), Afghanistan has been labeled the "other war" or even the "forgotten war." The media flocked into Iraq when we invaded, covered the story's arc as it went from gung-ho to miserable, all the while largely ignoring Afghanistan. Who can really blame them? President Bush was obsessed with Iraq, and Afghanistan was seen (rightly or wrongly) as a problem which had already been solved. Of course, now we know different, what with the Senate placing the blame for allowing Osama Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora squarely at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration's entire rush to get into Iraq. But ever since the Iraq invasion, Afghanistan has been a mere afterthought, in the media's eyes, in the public's awareness, and in the White House as well.

Continue Reading »

The White House has always been a magnet for all kinds of lunatics, so it's not surprising that a pair of wannabe reality show stars attempted to crash a party last week. What surprised everyone, of course, is that they got in. This shocked the media and politicians alike, because together they compromise the "inside the Beltway" set -- who become more than a little bit afraid when the "common folk" intrude on their shindigs. Hence the widespread and breathless coverage of this story for nigh on a week now. But, I repeat, the White House has always been a giant magnet for lunatics and other invaders throughout America's history.

Continue Reading »

Because yesterday's column was a wee bit un-holiday-spirit-ish, I offer up my thanks today. I am thankful for the web. I am thankful that I can sit in front of a machine and have at my fingertips perhaps not the sum of human knowledge, but a pretty close approximation (the closest the race has ever seen since, perhaps, the library at Alexandria).

Continue Reading »

I was kind of hoping I wouldn't have to address this subject, but an etymological battle in Washington seems to have just been stirred up further, meaning I just have to jump on top (so to speak) of the semantic debate.

I speak of whores. That's right, whores. Prostitutes. Hookers.

Because some in Washington have apparently latched onto these terms either as a favorite insult to hurl, or as a faux-controversy (while giving Oscar-worthy performances of having the Victorian vapors over hearing the words). Following close behind are charges of "sexism" and "insensitivity" and probably a few other "-isms" to boot.

To which I say: "Oh, Puh-LEEZE."

Continue Reading »

Certain Democrats in Congress, in advance of President Obama's announcement of his new Afghanistan strategy, have come up with a rather novel idea -- to actually pay for the wars we're fighting, by passing a "war tax." The idea is an interesting one, in several ways. At this point, it doesn't appear to have enough support to actually pass, but that could change quickly as Democrats make the case for it to the public.

The idea itself is a basic one -- pay for the costs of war now, instead of endlessly borrowing money in order to do so. A few weeks ago, the White House leaked an interesting factoid -- it costs one million dollars to put one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year. This is a nice round number, and gets people to think about the war in a new light -- how much it costs.

We've already spent over a trillion (that's with a "T") dollars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. None of it was paid for through new taxes -- the first time in American history we have gone to war without at least attempting to raise the money to pay for it. This is part of the reason why the federal government is running such a huge deficit right now.

Continue Reading »