Donald Trump could destroy his base Time for Trump to talk about 9/11, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama President Barack Obama held a news conference b...
A full 22 conservative thinkers (although, with the likes of Glenn Beck and William Kristol in the mix, we do of necessity use that term quite broadly) all weighed in on why Donald Trump is a terrible candidate for Republicans to consider making their presidential nominee, and why Trump is an all-around terrible human being.
The problem in the never-ending presidential campaign is that words matter, and candidate Donald Trump has had an impact on Republicans, and sometimes even the Obama administration, when it comes to refugees and migrants. The nativist repetition about the evils of Islamic foreigners and Hispanic migrants resonates.
Everyone else's chances for victory almost require Trump's support in the polls to suffer serious damage. If nobody else manages to break into the front rank, then Trump is the best-positioned candidate to win the nomination -- hands down.
Extremists from America's far right wing have carried out well over half of the deadliest terror attacks on American soil since 9/11. Experts on terrorism agree, but argue that some conservative politicians downplay this fact. The question is why?
More U.S. military personnel have been sent to Iraq and Syria. Trainers, Special Forces, and airstrikes haven't been enough. The administration continues its slow progression to renewed ground combat. President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize grows more tarnished by the day.
The big news today was that Senator Lindsey Graham has decided to drop out of the presidential nomination race. But recently, what has surprised me even more, is one Hillary Clinton quote in particular about the Middle East that hasn't gotten any media attention at all.
To be clear, fear of Muslims is not just a function of what this or that candidate says, because what the candidates are saying is a reflection of what the significant parts of the constituent base each party believes.
The push back against Trump has caused many Americans to talk about our values -- who we are and what we stand for. In that sense, he has united us.
It's been a month since I last took a look at the Republican presidential horserace, and there have been a number of dramatic developments in the meantime. So it's time once again to cast an eye over the Republican field.
It was vintage John McCain. He offered his unvarnished opinion about a host of domestic and international issues at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast last Wednesday, ranging from his opposition to Obamacare to the lack of an overall strategy to combat Islamic terrorism.
Previously considered unthinkable, unconceivable and downright unimaginable, some Republicans are now struggling to come to grips with the fact that Donald Trump might actually become their party's standard-bearing presidential nominee.
Western governments that loose the dogs of war should stop assuming that their own people will not be bitten. Being a liberal democracy does not turn bombing and killing into an act of immaculate conception. Instead of pretending that their nations enjoy immunity from the inevitable horrors of war, Western officials should make the case to their people that the likely costs are worth the benefits. In this case that includes the possibility, perhaps likelihood, of terrorist attacks at home. There are no certainties even for America, which has done surprisingly well since 9/11. Which brings up the obvious question, why are the U.S. and its European allies involved "over there" -- and, in fact, currently intensifying their intervention?
Republicans are currently in a frenzy over Syria. But for all their noise, I notice there is not a single voice crying out to actually change anything in the most concrete way they have at their disposal.
Not long after, when America entered the war, we were formally collaborating with Josef Stalin -- a man who had slaughtered one million of his own countrymen during the Great Purge of 1937-38. The lesson is that, when faced with an existential threat, you bring all parties to the table. Even bad people if you have to. Not just to coordinate the fight, but to coordinate post-war planning with all the players.
It may seem like cognitive dissonance, but I like Graham. Graham respects the separation of powers and has logical, internally consistent (wrong) decisions that he sticks to out of principle.