It must be a little hard to understand, for anyone reading this under the age of about 30 or so, the significance of the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. Because one event has become historical shorthand for an immense change in the dynamics of not just our country, but the entire world. We've all seen the pictures of an exuberant crowd at the Brandenburg Gate (or "Checkpoint Charlie"), seemingly tearing The Wall down with their bare hands. But it wasn't just one wall, or one city, or even one country that the events in Berlin were changing -- it was the entire political makeup of the planet. Because the fall of The Wall signified the fall of the Soviet Union, and an end to the Cold War. And while this was of enormous historical import, I fear that future generations won't really pay much attention to it. Truth be told, I can already feel it slipping away in the American consciousness. Which, while I understand the impulse, I still think is a shame. Because as the Cold War is forgotten, passing into the dusty pages of children's history books, we run the risk of forgetting some of its lessons.

The Cold War was a war of shadows. It only erupted into outright (or "hot") wars in limited ways and limited areas (Korea, Vietnam, various Central American and African skirmishes). The history books do a fine job of marking these flareups (since they have concrete facts like battles and dates), distilling them into a couple of paragraphs for bored schoolchildren to read. But these are mere trees; the forest left unseen was the national fear which every sane man, woman, and child felt for almost half a century -- the fear of instant and total annihilation from a massive nuclear strike. And that is the lesson which is in danger of being forgotten, at least in my humble opinion.

Continue Reading »

I will explain that silly subtitle in a moment, but first we've got to delve even deeper into rampant silliness. If such silliness and unseriousness does not appeal to you, then I strongly suggest you skip down and begin reading with this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Consider yourselves warned.

This column today celebrates a milestone -- triple digits on the odometer! That's right, as hard as it may seem to believe, this is the one hundredth volume of your weekly Friday Talking Points column. For a little over two years now, we've brought you our thoughts on "the week that was in politics," and for a little less time than that, we've announced our weekly winners of both the aforementioned MIDOTW as well as the ignominious Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. And we wrap it all up with some practical, good old-fashioned, home-brewed Democratic spin, our Talking Points for the week ahead.

Continue Reading »

It's been a busy week for this column so far, what with the monthly Obama Poll Watch column on Monday, and the one-year retrospective on Obama yesterday. So we haven't had time until now to adequately examine the election results from this Tuesday. Rolling up our proverbial sleeves (Full disclosure: Living in California, as this column does, we are wearing a T-shirt today and don't really have long sleeves to roll up), let us dive in to reading 2009's off-off-year elections, and make a few reckless predictions about the future, shall we?

The two prevailing views so far seem to be: "Good news for Republicans!" and, alternatively, "Good news for Democrats!" It is possible that neither are true, and yet neither entirely false. There was certainly some interesting news, but it's tough to read amongst all the spin.

Continue Reading »

The day before I cast my vote for Barack Obama, I wrote a column titled "Barack Obama Is Smarter Than Us." By "us," I meant the legions of us lefty bloggers out here, who second-guessed his campaign on a daily basis for nigh on two years. I included myself in that "us" as well -- because, I fully admit, I got incredibly frustrated during Obama's campaign when he didn't do what I really, really wanted him to. Or didn't do it fast enough to suit me.

But you know what? He won anyway.

Here's part of what I wrote back then:

...I have to say, once again, that Barack Obama was right not to always listen to me, and others of my ilk. He knew through it all that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that a purist lefty candidate would not win the White House. So I have to stand up and admit it.

Obama was right. We were wrong. And he has shown he knew what he was doing all along, which makes me even more comfortable casting my vote for him tomorrow.

Continue Reading »

I know I'm supposed to be talking about the off-year (or even "off-off-year") elections happening today, but I really don't think it's worth the effort. I recently heard a pundit on a talk show give the most honest answer I've ever heard to the question: "Do off-year elections reflect upon the president, or the party in power, or national trends?" The pundit answered, with a grin on his face: "Depends on who wins."

This was refreshingly honest, and pretty close to how I feel about off years. Whichever side in the political debate you hail from, if your guy wins, it is a "significant indicator of national..." blah, blah, blah. If your guy loses, it is "just an off-year election, and only reflects on that particular district."

In other words, don't try to make too much stew from one carrot.

Continue Reading »

Is the absence of a trend a trend?

Much like Sherlock Holmes' non-barking nocturnal canine, the remarkable thing about President Barack Obama's poll numbers last month was that nothing remarkable happened. Both trendlines were pretty flat for the month, which was the second month in a row of little movement. Things are not getting much better for Obama's approval rate, but then neither are they getting much worse.

This is good news, of a sort, because what preceded it was a pretty steep drop in the polls for Obama. But for two months in a row now, Obama has stopped this trend. He has, however, not reversed it yet. So, for now "no news is good news" is going to have to be good enough.

We'll dig into these numbers a bit here, and then we continue with our look back at previous presidents, and how Obama stacks up to them, by taking a look at Ronald Reagan's numbers -- which bear a striking similarity to Obama's so far.

Updated charts of Obama compared to G.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.H.W. Bush are available (as always) at my ObamaPollWatch.com site.

But enough of this shameless plugging of websites, let's get on to this month's charts:

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

Continue Reading »

Happy Samhain, everyone, if that isn't an inherent oxymoron.

For those of you who expected (and were, of course, waiting for with bated breath... what the Hell is bated breath, by the way?) Volume 100 of my weekly Friday Talking Points column, I will begin your Hallowe'en weekend by dashing your hopes on the rocks below (bartender!... another one of these... on the rocks, of course), and by telling you you're going to have to wait another week for this auspicious and historical event... because, of course... it is time for this column's annual celebration of all that is terrifying and horrible -- from both sides of the political chasm!

Because today we offer up (instead of the usual FTP drivel), a bone-shaking nightmare for those of the Left and those of the Right. Complete, of course (it wouldn't be a Hallowe'en column otherwise) with photos of my 2009 pumpkins, carved lovingly with a knife that was previously used to... well, perhaps it's best you not know that part....

[Cue: Shrieking teenager, heavy clanking of chains, and assorted eerie moans and groans...]

So, without further delay [Cue: Witch cackling], we open the crypt door to this year's installment of my attempt to scare the Hell out of everyone. As a special treat, we've also got all my pumpkins for the past few years at the end, to remind everyone of what terrified us all in Hallowe'ens past.

[Cue: Creaking hinges...]

Continue Reading »

The phrase "weighing in" has changed over time to mean something along the lines of "adding the weight of your opinion to the discussion." But it's really more apt to look at it from the perspective of boxing, in this case. The weighing-in before a big fight is literally where the two fighters step on the scales so everyone can see what they weigh. Now, before I get in trouble for suggesting an image of the rather diminutive Nancy Pelosi on a scale to your minds, in this metaphor the legislation which Speaker Pelosi just released is what is actually on the scale. Pelosi, in this mental image, is the promoter in the background talking up the virtues of the prizefighter on the scales.

Continue Reading »

Tomorrow is the internet's fortieth birthday. Its creators are even throwing it a birthday party at the University of California, Los Angeles, the origin of the first message ever transmitted over what we know today as "the internet," on October 29, 1969. If you're wondering what the first message ever transmitted was -- the digital age's "Come here, Watson," statement, as it were -- it consisted of two letters: "LO." It was actually supposed to be "LOG," as in "LOG IN," but the receiving computer crashed after receiving just the first two letters -- not a very auspicious beginning, it must be admitted. Still, for poetic reasons, "LO" seems pretty apt: "Lo! The Internet was created!"

Continue Reading »

The problem with having exactly the number of votes that you absolutely need in the Senate is that all it takes is one defector in order to upset the whole apple cart. This was true when the Senate was 50/50 (remember Jim Jeffords' aisle-jumping?), and is even more true now with a fragile supermajority of 60 senators who usually vote with the Democratic Party. Instead of "all for one, one for all" it quickly devolves into rampant prima-donna-ism, as senators realize that it all comes down to their lone vote. We've seen some of this play out already on the healthcare reform debate, but there's going to be more of it to come in the weeks ahead, so we should all get used to it for awhile.

Continue Reading »