It is a common and hyperbolic refrain that Democrats have been (and still are) the anti-religion party. Now, however, Republicans may be running into religion problems of their own as evangelical and Roman Catholics become more engaged with issues such as poverty and climate change.
Is there a certain synchronicity at work with Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush staging their big formal campaign openings just as Jurassic World oddly enjoys the biggest opening weekend of all time with its recycled plot (albeit with new bells and whistles) about the dangerous majesty of rampaging dinosaurs? It has to be.
In the upcoming performance art piece called the GOP presidential debates the candidates will try to one-up each other showing their base who's best at crushing labor unions, disciplining the poor, and striking fear in the hearts of America's enemies.
Jeb Bush could wind up being America's next president. That's a statement that my fingers would actually refuse to type for several other Republicans, just because attempting to substitute "Donald Trump" or "Carly Fiorina" in that sentence would be so downright laughable.
Gather around, my children, for a tale that's sure to warm the heart. Watch the lay of the land unfold as a not-so-exotic vegetation emerges from among us, coming from nowhere to a position of leadership.
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.