There he goes again, fulfilling another promise. Imagine that. When he announced the surge in Afghanistan, he said it was temporary. Democrats, especially liberals, screamed bloody murder. How dare he do what he said he would do during the campaign: focus on Afghanistan, on the threat posed by al-Qaida, on capturing Osama bin Laden, dead or alive?
When I was growing up, it was widely believed that colleges and universities were the part of our society with the widest scope for free expression and free speech. In the conformist America of the 1950s, the thinking ran, few people dared to say anything that went beyond a broad consensus. But on campus, anyone could say anything he liked.
As we take a fresh look at next year's Senate races, one thing is clear: Barring an unexpected reelection landslide by President Obama, Republicans are at least slightly favored to take the Senate. It's just a basic matter of numbers.
Back in 1980, when I was working for Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Cardinal of Boston instructed priests to take to their pulpits to denounce the candidacy of Democratic Congressman Barney Frank because of his support for abortion rights. "Get me my brother's speech," the senator said to me.
They, some Republicans, are at it again with the pipe dream of helping the middle class by making the rich much richer. We speak of Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota governor and candidate for president. His extraordinary vision for reviving the economy: Stop taxing investment income, and money will come pouring into the U.S. Treasury.
Sen. John McCain, whose life is a continuing exemplar of the American heroic ideal, regrettably has got it quite wrong when he says that growing GOP opposition to the Libyan and Afghan wars is evidence of isolationism. In his words on weekend television:
While fetching my digital camera from the repair shop, I noted a bunch of clunky old film cameras and their flashes lining a back table. I thought no one used film anymore. Wrong.
Two years ago, in June 2009, the American economy emerged from recession, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. But as this week's Economist noted, with typical British understatement, "The recovery has been a disappointment."
It was about six years ago that my old friend Anne and I were sitting around daydreaming, and I started talking about my "perfect" house: three bedrooms (I have two children), convenient to my son's school, a yard for the dogs and, oh, yes, a peek at the ocean. Then I mentioned my spending limit, and we both burst out laughing. Not possible. When we stopped laughing, Anne announced that her mother would find it for me.
While the well-deserved departure of Anthony Weiner draws rapt attention in our tabloid nation, the depredations of less colorful but more powerful politicians go unnoticed, so long as no genitalia are involved.
"Can we afford the military budget?" Not quite the right question, but one being asked these days even in hawkish circles. It reflects a break in the Republicans' traditional reluctance to cut defense spending and a declining enthusiasm for changing other societies through force. The mix includes a re-emerged isolationist strain and new recognition that wars can no longer be charged on the national credit card.
Barack Obama did not watch the Republican presidential candidates' debate in Manchester, N.H., on Monday night, we are told. He was busy addressing a campaign fundraising event in Miami.
On Tuesday, the Senate voted 40-59 against an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to end the annual $6 billion (45-cents-per-gallon) tax subsidy for ethanol, as well as the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.
I'm sorry, Mitt. I'm probably the last person in the world you'd want saying a nice word about you. Maybe you can trot this out in the general election. Maybe the likes of me will keep you from ever getting there.
Last week, in a much-discussed, open, live, televised forum, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, asked Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke the $64 trillion question. While most commentators focused on the apt question, it was Bernanke's answer that shocked me when I heard it -- and ought to shock the nation much more than it so far has.
When he ran for governor, Democrat Jerry Brown made a promise to voters -- "no new taxes without voter approval." That pledge was what you would call a gimmick. Brown knew he would have to woo or squeeze a few Republicans in order to get a the two-thirds vote necessary to qualify a tax hike for the ballot. On taking office, Brown promptly proposed a June special election to put an extension of temporary increases in state income tax, sales tax and car fees before voters.
Exit Newt Gingrich. Well, not quite yet, officially. On his Facebook page, Gingrich says he will endure "the rigors of campaigning for public office" and "will carry the message of American renewal to every part of this great land, whatever it takes."
"If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us," President Richard Nixon told Congress in a special message on June 17, 1971, which generally is credited as the day the "war on drugs" began.
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty turned out a blockbuster economic-growth plan this past week, including deep cuts in taxes, spending and regulations. It's really the first Reaganesque supply-side growth plan from any of the GOP presidential contenders. And he caps it all off with a defense of optimism as he charges ahead with a national economic growth goal of 5 percent.
I was on my way to the hospital this morning to sit in the waiting room for six or eight hours while a family member was having surgery when I realized I had no gas. Running out of gas while you are taking someone to or (worse) home from the hospital is not good. I stopped at the gas station to fill up.
