Susan Rice -- whom Senators McCain and Graham have vowed to block if she is nominated to be Secretary of State and whom McCain condemned as "unqualified" for the position -- did her job and presented the intelligence community's assessment of what happened in Benghazi. What else should she have done?
Easily the most dramatic sequence in a rather strong press conference performance today by President Barack Obama was his vehement defense of UN Ambassador Susan Rice against attacks by Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
We are hearing a wave of chatter from conservative GOP figureheads calling out their party on the subject of Latinos and immigration. Time to change their hardline approach to America's immigrants and push for immigration reform, they say. Perhaps sanity is breaking out.
These three calls should be made to conservative Republican senators who I know, from personal experience, care more about the best interests of the nation and who care more about solving problems than about winning ideological wars or passing someone else's litmus tests for purity.
In case after case, Obama's foreign policy is working, with Republicans begrudgingly agreeing with it. Both Romney and Ryan are talking about the unravelling of that policy and yet offer nothing at all in its place.
Resolving this issue diplomatically however represents the best possible outcome for the United States. So why are some Members of Congress doing their utmost to make this outcome less likely?
Just as Romney's 47% number is not evidence of a massive breakdown of society, the 12% average decline in household incomes in the wake of the 2008 collapse may not actually be evidence of a widespread collapse in family incomes.
If Pentagon contractors were actually feeling economic pressure, they could certainly trim excesses at the top before letting go thousands of rank-and-file employees. Pentagon contractors' top executives enjoy compensation packages on par with Wall Street CEOs.
McCain and a bipartisan group of supporters are punctuating the start of a new university-based institute committed to the leadership principles John McCain exhibited and encouraged, particularly in young people.
Before we have a war with Iran, shouldn't the Senate and the House have at least one debate and vote on it? Isn't that what the Constitution demands?
We're at a rare moment in which both the United States and Iran have unclenched their fists and appear ready for real talks. But we've seen how opportunities have been sabotaged in the past by political opportunism, ultimatums and intransigence from factions on each side.
And so it is that the tables appear to have been turned in the Washington that will greet the Israeli leader. He will not be pressured to do what he has long been loathe to do -- address Palestinian rights.
Presidents need latitude to make decisions affecting matters of national security (another name for matters of life and death) and, until now, all presidents have been afforded it, as provided for in the United States Constitution. But, in the case of Iran, the rules are changing.
Back when he was a candidate, then-Senator Obama criticized President George W. Bush for his frequent reliance on signing statements to circumvent Congressional intent. What a difference executive power makes.
Every current Republican gripe on the Iraq withdrawal boils down to a monumental refusal to face the reality of a full-fledged Iraqi democracy.