This week, Hillary Clinton took on the war against voting. In a speech on Thursday, she called out governors Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, and Jeb Bush, demanding Republicans "stop fear mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud, and start explaining why they're so scared of letting citizens have their say." She followed it up with sensible proposals to make voting easier. Meanwhile, speaking of wars, on Monday Senator Lindsey Graham -- whose solution to every foreign policy problem boils down to armed conflict -- entered the 2016 race. Right on cue, three days later, responding to a question about the fact that Americans are tired of endless war, Graham said, "Well don't vote for me." Duly noted. It's an odd impulse to constantly want to start wars in the name of democracy while simultaneously undermining it here at home.
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.
In the plays for the presidency 2016, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is a Socialist running as a Democrat. Each subscribes to an ideology that the American two-party system eschews.
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.
Conspiracy or no conspiracy, is that not always the question? Most sensible political observers think that Graham, who has been in the Senate since 2003, is simply ready to "move up or move out."
Three more Republicans enter crowded 2016 race -- we'll tell you their positions on climate change (even if they won't)
We are now, in 2015, being treated to Iraq War 2.0 (or even 3.0 if you include the Gulf War), a re-litigating of the original 2003 decision in the run-up to the presidential election of 2016.
It's hard to conceive of a path for Graham, who is stretching out an announcement until June 1, to win the GOP nomination. It doesn't have anything to do with his qualifications, but with pure, power politics.
Senate hawks like Lindsey Graham and Mark Kirk do not like diplomacy with Iran. Graham has repeatedly threatened war with Iran, whereas Kirk prefers to starve the Iranian people. Yet, given that most Americans do not want another military adventure in the Middle East, the hawks are pivoting.
First the state legislature and the governor implemented new pro-solar policies. And now the local utility has come together with nonprofits, community leaders and private businesses to launch an innovative residential solar program aimed at tripling the amount of solar panels installed in the state.
Reinforcing his pro-lender stance, Senator Graham was the leading opponent of the 2010 legislation that President Obama signed into law regarding the administration of student loans.
The obvious choice for this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is none other than America's new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. Lynch was finally confirmed by the Senate in a 56-43 vote.
The Green News Report is also available via... ...
How many other Walter Scotts are there who did not have the benefit of body cameras? This question looms with the history of tensions between police and African Americans in North Charleston, which lean notoriously in the direction of Ferguson.
Leaving aside whether you agree or disagree with any of this criticism (I think the Republican critiques thus far have been vague so far), the administration must realize that there is a very intense sentiment swirling around that Washington not only got swindled, but swindled in a way that will add more tension to its foreign relations.
American foreign policy is controlled by fools. What else can one conclude from the bipartisan demand that the U.S. intervene everywhere all the time, irrespective of consequences? No matter how disastrous the outcome, the War Lobby insists that the idea was sound. Any problems obviously result, it is claimed, from execution, a matter of doing too little: too few troops engaged, too few foreigners killed, too few nations bombed, too few societies transformed, too few countries occupied, too few years involved, too few dollars spent. As new conflicts rage across the Middle East, the interventionist caucus' dismal record has become increasingly embarrassing.