Michele Bachmann takes stands impulsively when they fit her predetermined ideology, pushes forward aggressively and single-mindedly to expand the intellectual argument, but she becomes so wedded to her position that reality no longer matters.
Americans need to elect a president in 2012 who is a self-made person with a track record of doing more than throwing empty words and money at problems. No more smooth-talking, self-serving presidents surrounded by Wall Street types and lobbyists.
The people trying to wake us up to the realities of global warming have taken to calling themselves "climate hawks." In the field of Republican presidential candidates, we are seeing a new breed emerge: climate chickens.
We should support the president in his reelection -- but we should do it strategically by arguing for conditions which will make his reelection more than a personal victory. 2012 should be about much more than giving Barack Obama his second term.
A president elected on the combined strength of dazzling oratory and improbable personal biography has proved more deft at saving his political career in times of great crisis, than crafting a bold vision of American democracy in the 21st century.
Last night's jobs speech by President Obama was the kind of political moment he needed. But I also fear it was also a gigantic bit of Kabuki theater -- a bold, promising vision destined to achieve very little.
If Sarah Palin could, as a third-party candidate in the 2012 election, draw anywhere close to Ross Perot's result in the 1992 presidential election, in which he obtained 18.9 percent of the popular vote, her reputation would remain solid.
Obama will have the resources to defend in the face of a Republican primary campaign which, as things look now, will likely devolve into a contest to see who can portray President Obama in the worst light.
Rick Perry, presumably, is spending Labor Day weekend in intense debate prep. He ought to. Debating requires a specific skill set, one that this otherwise savvy politician has so far failed to develop.
Are they owned by the oil companies, or are they willing to break from some of the GOP's largest campaign donors? Do they agree with 98 percent of scientists, or are facts mere inconveniences to be pushed aside for ideology and ambition?