After George W. Bush's tenure in office came to a conclusion, Republicans who were hoping Jeb Bush could succeed him in 2008 and 2012 asked me about his chances. "He'd do better, right? He's the smarter of the two, right?" Sadly, as Jeb's 2016 campaign struggles, it has confirmed the responses I gave several years ago. He's not the wiser brother.
This week, the nation waited in breathless anticipation for the expected announcement tomorrow that Jeb Bush is running for president. Bush, who seems more adept at raising money than votes (he hasn't gotten one since 2002, the year his brother called for "regime change" in Iraq), appears to be the Republican most capable of uniting the money wing of the party with the money wing of the party. If nothing else, Bush's extended run-up to actually running demonstrates how pointless and fake so much of campaign coverage is. And the "process journalism" doesn't stop after Election Day. On Friday, President Obama suffered a defeat on fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. But most of the coverage was over the political and procedural ins-and-outs rather than the effects of the bill itself. Too bad we can't contain the media's horse-race coverage to the exploits of American Pharoah.
When Fox News says that Geller is "not standing down to radical Islam," they also mean that Geller and others aren't aware that the biggest arms dealer to Middle Eastern nations is the United States. Sadly, the right-wing blogosphere never correlates these geopolitical realities to their dire warnings about Islam.
I worry that the media and the public will focus on the wrong things and damage her electability. I worry that she will stumble late in the campaign. I worry that there is no Democratic back-up plan.
While most obituaries focused on his fame for putting the Manson gang behind bars for life, I choose to remember him as a true gentleman who later in life became an intrepid warrior against a powerful sitting president, passionately insisting that George W. Bush should be held accountable for taking our country to war on a lie.
Why hasn't Obama, as the first African American president, more fully embraced Title I, which was so enthusiastically supported for decades by African Americans? Is this an indication of broader problems with Title I?
Let me put this as politely as I can. David Brooks has taken leave of his senses. There are no Republicans anywhere in this country who could be elected to the U.S. Senate, let alone the House of Representatives, who would ever, ever be part of any kind of bipartisan governing majority led by a Democratic president -- no matter how moderate he or she is.
He, obviously, wants to follow the trail Bush blazed from the Texas governor's office to the Oval Office. However, this will be the second run for Perry, and he'll have to improve significantly on his previous performance to even have a chance of doing so.
We don't need hyperbolic statements that our military is the "finest fighting force" ever, or that our troops are the world's liberators and bringers of freedom. Such words are immoderate and boastful. They're intended to win favor with the troops and with the people back home; they're politically calculated. And in that sense, they're ill-advised and even dishonest -- they're basically nothing more than flattery.
The country has an untapped source of economic growth potential, and that is the many creative, industrious and motivated immigrants in our country. But, too often in today's political climate, immigration is cast as a negative, with issues like border security and unauthorized immigration dominating the news cycle.
Should Americans join the military if the next commander-in-chief of the armed services is an arrogant, ignorant, irresponsible, war-happy hawk? Many of America's best and brightest join the armed services. But with the U.S. constantly at war, joining is a life or death decision, dependent on the judgment of whoever sits in the Oval Office.
The Republicans' dramatic intra-party fighting over NSA domestic surveillance, which saw the likes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain having to give way to the likes of young libertarian Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul and House Republicans, points up a brewing civil war on national security.
Are we living through an anti-scientific revolution? A new CBC radio documentary explores that question in depth, and you can listen in on Sirius XM ...
We continue our running series of taking a serious look at all the announced candidates for president with two new entries this week. Republican Lindsey Graham made his formal announcement, and Democrat Lincoln Chafee is also set to announce his candidacy.
I'm not a big fan of libertarians or libertarian Republicans, but Kentucky Senator Rand Paul deserves tremendous credit for his brinksmanship on the Patriot Act in forcing the U.S. Senate leadership to bend on the issue of the federal government's massive, once very secret, monitoring of our private communications.
While the twenty-something other candidates who make up the rest of the GOP field are all fighting over those who agree with neo-cons, Senator Paul figures he can nab the rest -- the growing number of GOP voters who reject neo-con ventures in the Middle East.