Republicans have been hitting the Obama administration for Attorney General Eric Holder's too-quick decision to Mirandize accused Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab after a mere 50 minutes of what has been described as valuable interrogation. After the Miranda moment, the would-be bomber clammed up.
Everyone knows that what doesn't destroy you makes you stronger. That is particularly true in politics, where a hard kick either knocks you down or wakes you up.
“We’re not going to save our way out of this recession. We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession.” – U.S. Majority Whip Jim Clyburn
The most revealing moments in President Obama's State of the Union Address were not in his remarks, but the reaction to them by those listening on the Republican side of the aisle.
At first, it seemed like a bonehead move. On Monday morning, the campaign for Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner's bid for the governor's office sent out an e-mail announcing that the candidate would hold a news conference at its headquarters. I was not the only journalist to wonder: Does this mean that Poizner is getting out of the race -- leaving the GOP primary to Ms. Moneybags, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman?
Quick, name the most distrusted occupations. Trial lawyers? Pretty skuzzy, as witness the disgraced John Edwards, kept from the vice presidency in 2004 by the electoral votes of Ohio. Used car dealers? Always near the bottom of the list, as witness the universal understanding of the word "clunker."
Sunbelt-and-sprawl advocate Joel Kotkin wrote two years ago that the future of American urbanism wasn't in the "elite cities," such as New York, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco, but in "younger, more affordable and less self-regarding places." He named (his order) Houston, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Dallas and Riverside, Calif.
Diversity is not just a nice thing. It isn't just about fairness or equal opportunity. Diversity is good business, essential business, especially for companies that market to women -- or are covered by them.
Last week, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote: "Who is Barack Obama? Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don't get it soon -- or if they don't like the answer -- the president's current political problems will look like a walk in the park. ... Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won't be able to close it."
Money, spirituality and something else combined last October to set off a ghastly tragedy near Sedona, Ariz. Participants in a "Sweat Lodge" ceremony, run by New Age impresario James Arthur Ray, were overcome with heat. Three died, and 18 were hospitalized. Yavapai County investigators could charge Ray with homicide.
Last week, an insurance industry report found that bans on using hand-held cell-phones while driving in California, New York, Washington, D.C. and Connecticut did not reduce the number of car crashes. To the contrary, crashes went up in Connecticut and New York, and slightly in California, after the bans took effect.
Just whom are we trying to impress?
That's a question that occurred to me when, on his second full day in the presidency, Barack Obama announced we would close the Guantanamo detainee facility within one year.
It was bad enough last month watching Washington politicians merrily flying off to the U.N. climate change Conference of Parties in Copenhagen (or COP-15 for short), ostensibly to draft a global warming treaty, when all the players knew that no meaningful pact would result and that the only sure outcome was that much energy would be squandered.
I don't get it.
Since 1993, more than 13,000 soldiers have been discharged from the military under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy. Countless others are effectively denied access to mental health and other services because they can't tell.
It all looked so easy in August 2008, when Sen. Barack Obama spoke before the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The Democrats were going to win in November, storm Washington with their reforming ways, and because they were so much smarter than everyone else, they'd know how to get the American economy cooking. There was no doubt as the enthusiastic Invesco Field throng cheered and chanted, "Yes, we can."
Barack Obama’s “Panic Week” has come and gone, but did his White House learn anything from the historic repudiation of his leftist agenda? Putting the question another way, has Obama made the necessary course corrections or is he still refusing to hear the message that America is sending him so loudly and clearly?
I’ll admit it. I love populism. In my youth I was always drawn to populist candidates. For over eight months I’ve been predicting that 2010 would be the Year of the Populist, and this prediction has come true. Populism is the only approach that makes sense in this angry, miserable time full of resentful voters. A sincere populist identifies with, and advocates for, the needs of ordinary powerless people, who believe they are being screwed by big, impersonal institutions and elites.
Is there a patriot in the house? Is there anyone in Washington who regards governing as a means to accomplish anything other than win the sterile game of Democrat versus Republican? Every day, American soldiers risk their lives for their country, but people in Congress won't even risk their jobs to pass legislation essential to the nation's economic future.
You know it’s a strange new world when Gary Langer, the director of polling at ABC, attacks a Democratic polling firm. By the way, the good folks at Public Policy Polling (PPP) took the attack in stride. The firm's Tom Jensen noted that “one of the most amusing things Langer and others in his cohort claim is that polls should not be judged by their accuracy.”
On the eve of his first State of the Union Address, Barack Obama confided that he would "rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." But his proposal to freeze domestic spending is exactly the kind of policy that could result in four years of stagnation -- rewarded by an election defeat at the hands of dispirited and disillusioned voters. If he continues to surrender his mandate, he just might become a mediocre one-term president.
