Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Democrats would do well to point out that this extremism would have serious consequences if ever enacted. Follow the logic through to the end. Put it in as blunt language as possible. This is what the Republican Party now stands for. Point it out.
Moving right along, normally our Friday columns open with a bit of lighthearted news roundup, which is where I'd point out things like what Donald Trump is up to (always good for a laugh), and then move on to mutant butterflies in Japan due to radioactivity from their power plant disaster, which would end with a joke about Mothra.
Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan for his running mate is already worrying some in Republican circles. These unnamed sources (most of them refused to publicly put their name to such worries) aren't just concerned that Mitt Romney may lose the election to Barack Obama, they are also raising the possibility that Ryan's choice may put at risk many "down-ballot" seats in the House of Representatives. Which leads to the obvious question: if their fears are true, could it mean Democrats have a much better chance at taking the House back in the upcoming elections? To put it another way, will we see "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" again next year?
The announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate late last Friday sent a shockwave through the political and media world. The snap judgment of what passes for conventional wisdom among the chattering class is that the Ryan pick was bold (as opposed to safe), and that the election will henceforth be all about wonky details from the Ryan budget plan. "A campaign of Big Ideas!" the pundits excitedly gasped. "Just what we've always wanted!"
With that "fair warning" out of the way, there are two highly amusing talking points coming from the Republican camp this week. If your irony-detector is as acute as mine, you'll appreciate the GOP completely and utterly destroying two of their bedrock positions just to score a few cheap political points. I don't know about you, but I find this sort of thing to be one of the more enjoyable forms of political entertainment around.
Day One of Mitt Romney's foreign trip did not go particularly well. He learned first-hand that no country likes an arrogant American coming in to tell them how bad a job they're doing, regardless of how special the "special relationship" is.
Since the last time we took such a snapshot, roughly three weeks ago, both candidates have shown some firming up of their positions, but the good news for both candidates is mixed with some softening as well.
This is the story of two political movements. As with any such movement, both eventually got to the point where they asked themselves the fundamental question of what they were attempting to achieve, and (more importantly) what methods they were going to use to accomplish their goals. This fork in the road can be summed up as: do we work within the existing system, or is the system itself so broken we should work outside the system in order to reform the workings of the system itself. One group chose one path, the other chose to head the other direction.
Getting back to Silly Season 2012 here in America, though -- this is, of course, the official time of year when all the politicians in Washington take (according to them) a well-deserved break from doing the job they're paid to do, to enjoy a luxurious five-week vacation. Because, as we all know, the nation's business has been so fully accomplished that there's really nothing more for Congress to do in August, so they might as well take the month off, right?
Barack Obama's worst time of year is the dog days of summer, and this year is proving no different. He had the worst month, overall, since last August, as his approval rate fell 0.6 percent to end the month at 47.2 percent average approval. His disapproval rate rose 0.3 percent, to end the month at 48.1 percent. This put Obama almost a full point "underwater" -- for the first time since January.