As Chris Taylor points out in his terrific new book, How Star Wars Conquered the Universe: The Past, Present, and Future of a Multibillion Dollar Franchise, there has always been a political component to these motion pictures.
Rather than dissecting and analyzing the policy prescriptions put forth by the candidates during their debates, it is often the gaffes, one-liners and demeanor of the candidates that garner the most attention.
We hear political pundits saying it is a mistake to compromise. It is important to hold firm on principles, but in most instances, it is possible to reach consensus. There are multiple examples, starting with our founding fathers, of people in government that held very firm views on various issues, but made compromises to reach consensus.
From Van Jones, Ralph Nader, and Joan Blades on the left, to Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, and George Shultz on the right, advocates from both sides of the political divide are gathering in the Bay Area, exploring ways to combine forces.
The rich won't be so easy to persuade -- in a massively unequal society, even modest economic growth still benefits economic elites. Don't worry about growth, worry about inequality.
Vote your interests in November. Continue to be partisan to your heart's delight. Just don't call yourself a patriot if you search to find reasons to disregard objective facts, data and documented history in an attempt to justify rooting against a sitting president.
In recent days and weeks there has been renewed speculation that Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president will again be a candidate in 2...
For Todd and NBC to make something of Meet The Press, they have to ditch the SOSO attitude: Same Old, Same Old. They have to try shake things up, bringing back some old ways while integrating the new.
As the 2016 presidential election approaches, I feel uninspired by the Republican candidates who appear most likely to be pursuing the nation's highest office. With Democrats having at least one candidate who will likely be able to unite their base, I fear that Republicans may once again be without a visionary leader.
In every election cycle, voters witness the spectacle of an underdog candidate challenging an incumbent elected official to participate in a series of debates. This is usually a starting bid, with the underdog hoping the incumbent will engage in at least one debate.
It would almost be amusing if it wasn't for the fact that the world is in chaos. And things aren't much better at home where, among other things, we've got a humanitarian crisis at the border.
On behalf of Democrats everywhere, I would like to ask you to impeach President Obama. Please. I implore you. Nothing would make us happier. You know you want to.
Perhaps this is the dawn of a new political narrative. The current fault lines don't get us anywhere, with Tea Party conservatives attacking the very idea of government, and liberals defending the virtuous aims of government without coming to grips with their pervasive semi-failures.
The question remains: Why do Republicans come back, over and over, to this kind of thing, to peddling a cocktail of fear mixed with hate?
This week, Paul Ryan, who cashed federal support checks in the form of social security payments after his dad died, wants to stop federal support of the needy. Congressman Ryan would like to fund states with block grants replacing programs that he says don't work.
The biggest political event of the week (for Democrats, at any rate) was Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats rolling out a new campaign agenda -- the "Middle Class Jumpstart" -- in the tradition of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America."