Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
It shouldn't surprise anyone to hear that the Democrats could have made a bold visionary change, but instead decided to tinker around the edges of a problem. While I'm glad they're attempting anything new at all, I am also once again disappointed in them for missing a golden opportunity.
Donald Trump is unique. Let's start off with that. He's an outsider to the political process, he's got name recognition other candidates would die for, and he makes his own rules out on the campaign trail. He is (to use a word I coined a while back) a "celebritician" -- a celebrity who decided he'd become a politician. This horrifies many, mostly because he's been so successful (so far). But he's certainly not the first celebrity to toss his hat into the political ring, although he is the first big one to emerge on the Republican side in a while (ever since the days of Senator Fred Thompson, by my reckoning). But since each celebritician is unique, can anything be learned from the past history of quixotic celebrity political campaigns?
We are now officially down to the wire for the 2014 midterm elections. How well will the Republicans do this year? Will the Democrats hold the line in the Senate? Tune in tomorrow night....
Right before the 2006 general election took place, I wrote a column titled "Celebrity Candidate Casting Call," which pointed out the disparity between the two American political parties when it came to fielding celebrity candidates. The reason why it was noteworthy was the imbalance tilted exactly the opposite direction that one would assume -- Republican celebrities had jumped into politics, often very successfully, in numbers that far outpaced Democratic celebrities. Since everyone knows Hollywood is a bastion of liberalism, the article was written in a "head-scratching" sort of tone. Why, I wondered, didn't Democrats actually stand up for their beliefs by running for public office, and why were there so many Republicans doing so?
The low water mark is the Senate, this year, who has seen fit to only show up one-half of the weekdays available to it. They took an astonishing twenty-eight workdays off, in under three months' time. That is taking almost six weeks off, to put it another way.
Senator Joe Lieberman will announce tomorrow (from all reports) that he will not be seeking another term in the Senate. Democrats across the land are collectively heaving a large sigh of relief at the news. "So long, Joe," seems to be the prevailing sentiment, although if you listen closely you can hear the muttered "... don't let the door hit you on the way out," or other less-than-endearing sentiments.
Listening to the news over the past week, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi was personally responsible for torturing prisoners. Because that's how the storyline seemed, if you had just beamed in from Mars and didn't know anything else about the debate on prisoner interrogation. The problem is, we have not just arrived on this planet, and Nancy Pelosi will ultimately wind up in the history books with a footnote (if that) in the description of what took place under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But her critics in the past few days have remarkably failed to answer a very basic question (not that the media is really asking, but maybe they'll get around to it) -- what, exactly, was Nancy Pelosi supposed to do?
Barack Obama is our first post-baby-boom president. He was supposed to usher in a new era, where we wouldn't have to fight the social battles of the 1960s all over again. Instead, we are now apparently going to fight the battles of the 1930s.
Howard Dean is a man of many titles. You can call him Governor Dean, or Chairman Dean, or even ex-presidential candidate Dean. But the one title which qualifies him to be named as Secretary of Health and Human Services is Doctor Dean. Now that Tom Daschle has withdrawn from consideration (due to a few tax problems), Howard Dean should be first on the list of possible appointees.
What a week! With Congress back in session, with the excitement of newly-elected members being sworn in (or barred at the door, as the case may be), and with the ever-increasing anticipation of the inauguration, Washington was in a tizzy all week. Larry Flynt apparently asked Congress for a $5 billion bailout of the porn industry and it barely made the news, because there was so much else going on. That's the kind of week it was.