This week, the Republican presidential field is going to double, from three candidates to six. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio have all previously officially announced their candidacies, and this week they will be joined by Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee.
Enter Scott Walker's politics of fear. For the party that rhetorically champions self-reliance, the emphasis on creating fear and despair in the electorate is ironic, but effective. Why blame yourself for economic insecurity when you can blame a faceless immigrant plotting to take away your job?
What pragmatic liberals like me are calling for is not surrender on the part of progressives, but political maturity. Hillary is far better than any GOP candidate. If she is the Democratic nominee, those who don't want to see a century of reforms decimated should give her their vote.
History tells us that 2016 ought to be a Republican year since it's difficult for a political party to win a third consecutive term. But while history may be on the Republican side, the electoral map is not.
The reason most of us have seen little gain from economic growth over the last three decades is that the rich have rigged the rules to ensure that money flows upward. Through their control of trade policy, Federal Reserve Board policy, and other key levers of government, they have structured the market to weaken the bargaining power of ordinary workers and benefit the CEOs and Wall Street crew. As a result, the typical worker has seen almost none of the gains from economic growth over the last four decades. Most of this rigging comes in before-tax income.
I see no one who can begin to match Hillary Clinton's qualifications for the presidency. So why not let the elephants outspend her while she demonstrates, once again, that money alone cannot fill the gap between a weak candidate and a strong one?
Ms. Fiorina might be able to be a strong candidate, but her path to the nomination will not be easy. There is little reason to think that Republican women will automatically support her; and while Republicans hate big government, many primary Republican voters are not exactly enamored of big business either.
It's one thing to try to gain a political advantage by pointing out certain undesirable aspects of an opponent's background or record. But when a Senate democratic leader spreads baseless allegations without a shred of evidence, and uses the Senate floor to do so, that's one step too far.
No surprise that almost four months into the Republican takeover of Congress, more time has been spent on immigration -- specifically, trying to reverse President Obama's executive actions shielding 5 million immigrants from deportation -- than almost anything else.
Every adult American, of course, has the right to work. What this legislation does is help corporations and state governments cut workers' pay. Its intent is regressive. Republicans want to return America to the days when robber barons controlled workers' lives completely.
The Democratic and Republican gristmills got to work last week on Hillary Clinton's "homebrew" email, and the ensuing firestorm underscored an alarming lack of cyber-savvy among the leading players of the 2016 election. It also raised a serious question: Should the Secret Service protect presidential candidates from cyber attacks?
Because of his war pictures and Westerns, he will always be perceived by some as the heir to John Wayne, but, whatever one thinks of American Sniper, Eastwood is much more subtle than some jingoistic zealot.
The voters that make up the Republican base don't just want chili-cheese fries... they want to feast on the ground, raw, red meat of anyone who disagrees with them, while claiming that America is a Christian nation. That's the kind of diet we should make fun of.
The Republican Party and the political media world are already off to the 2016 horse races. It is way too early for any real analysis of the public's mood, but that doesn't stop the oddsmaking within the Beltway. After all, the Democratic nomination race is setting up to be a snoozer, so why not get started obsessing over the Republican race?
I understand not speaking out on certain issues before their time. But this passage in Axelrod's book seems to have no purpose other than to try to sell more books, and it definitely could lead to questions about what Obama really thinks about a host of other issues.
Before Bush concentrates on winning the Iowa caucuses, he should think twice about making the same mistake that Romney did in trying to capture, or even placate, that Iowa GOP mentality that might play well in the cornfields and pig farms.