If we turn the late South African leader into a nonthreatening moral icon, we’ll forget a key lesson from his life: America isn’t always a force for freedom.
Now that he’s dead, and can cause no more trouble, Nelson Mandela is being mourned across the ideological spectrum as a saint. But not long ago, in Washington’s highest circles, he was considered an enemy of the United States. Unless we remember why, we won’t truly honor his legacy.In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan placed Mandela’s African National Congress on America’s official list of “terrorist” groups. In 1985, then-Congressman Dick Cheney voted against a resolution urging that he be released from jail.
The Toronto police’s 474-page document on the Crack Mayor’s antics is like a cross between a Hunter S. Thompson novel and ‘The Wire’. We dissect the most insane accusations, from a cell phone lost at a crack den to a hint of heroin.
Wiretaps and police intel on Rob Ford suggests the impossible: the Toronto mayor’s spiral from city hall to crack den could be even worse than we thought. The most egregious allegations are listed below. You can browse or download the Toronto police’s entire 474-page “Project Brazen” document here, so we’ll include page references.Ford Accused of Doing HeroinIn one wiretapped phone call, which lasted just a minute and a half, alleged drug dealers discussing the mayor’s antics claimed he had been “smoking on the dugga,” which the National Post believes to be a mishearing of a Somali phrase for smoking rocks, i.
A new study shows a dropoff in support for the president. But does it mean Milennials have soured on Obama, or that youngsters just joining the pool don’t see much to be excited about?
Whether he’s slow-jamming the news, sitting for an interview on The Daily Show, or tweeting at Katy Perry (don’t forget to use a hashtag: #ROAR!), President Obama has always found it easy to cultivate a base of support among the youngest voters. In 2008, Obama won the under-30 vote by a whopping 43-point margin, and in 2012 he continued to trounce his Republican opponent among the young, winning 60 percent to Romney’s 37 percent. But the magic couldn’t last forever.
Here’s a nightmare for John Boehner: Eight or 10 months from now, Republicans’ obsession with getting rid of the health-care law is going to look awfully stupid to a majority of voters.
If some Republicans are sounding just a little bit desperate right now, I think I know why. “Obamacare is not just a broken website,” House Speaker John Boehner sputtered the other day in retreat as it emerged that the website is now working well. “This bill is fundamentally flawed.” He sure hopes he’s right about that—and by the way, Mister, it’s a law, not a bill. But I bet late at night, when he’s having that last smoke and thinking back over his day, he fears that he’s wrong and that the central Republican…“idea,” if you want to call it that, of the last three years—get rid of Obamacare—is going to look awfully stupid to a majority of Americans eight or 10 months from now.
Does the commander in chief really need to serve two terms? Why a permanent ‘lame duck’ would change our politics for the better.
In a recent speech championing immigration reform, President Obama said, “I’m not running for office again. I just believe it is the right thing to do.”Given the number of times Obama has publicly stated that his name will never be on another ballot, he’s beginning to sound like a broken record.But there is much hidden wisdom in Obama's repeated statement. Imagine if we did things a bit differently. Imagine if President Obama, elected in 2008, had been allotted just one six-year term coming to a close at the end of 2014.
The president took on income inequality in a speech Wednesday—at a Clinton-friendly venue. But the issue threatens to divide his party, with an invigorated left looking for a new hero.
Flanked by a dozen American flags, President Obama on Wednesday sought to reclaim the promise that he ran on in 2008: an economy that works for everyone. He called income inequality “the defining challenge of our time,” remembering with evident emotion, “It’s why I ran for president…It drives everything I do in this office.” Yet the divide that began in the late 1970s has only grown under Obama’s stewardship and now threatens to split the Democratic Party as it looks toward a future beyond Obama.
The SEC avoided taking a stand on corporations having to disclose their political contributions. What it means for transparency in our democracy.
In his muckracking classic, Other People’s Money – And How Bankers Use It, progressive reformer Louis Brandeis famously wrote, “Sunlight is the best of disinfectants.” In the modern financial system, corporate executives often control funds that don’t belong to them. To Brandeis, transparency and disclosure were effective means of minimizing the risk of executives misusing those funds, either wasting them away negligently or enriching themselves nefariously.
The president calls income inequality the ‘defining issue of our time.’ So it seems fair to grade him on his success at addressing it. By any measure, he has failed spectacularly.
Maybe it’s the Christmas season. But when December rolls around, President Obama’s thoughts seem to turn to income inequality.On December 6, 2011, he gave what the White House billed as a “defining” speech on the subject in Osawatomie, Kansas, site of a historic address by Teddy Roosevelt on “New Nationalism.”In the 2011 speech, Obama began by painting a portrait of the 1950s and 1960s as an ideal period in American history, highlighting “values” that “gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known.
The broad based social safety net has always faced skepticism from white voters, who don't want to spend tax dollars on the "undeserving" poor. In a speech today, Obama took that on.
If you’ve been listening to President Obama’s speeches with any regularity over the last two years, you’ll be familiar with this afternoon’s address at the Center for American Progress on income inequality and economic mobility. As usual, he notes the growing gap between the rich and everyone else, the deep insecurity of the middle-class, and the disappearance of working-class jobs that can provide a decent quality of life.There was, however, something different about this speech relative to all his others.
When will corporate America realize it doesn’t pay enough?
President Obama gave a big, progressive, somewhat impassioned speech about inequality, wages, and the economy on Wednesday.Welcomed by the left, and sure to be jeered or ignored by the right, it was full of plenty of old-time Democratic economic gospel and present-day center-left thought leadership. But it was a little bit light on the main factor that can combat the scourge of low wages and rising inequality: an appeal to the conscience and self-interest of businesses.
Thanks to the sequester, the Pentagon has floated cuts to grocery stores for military families. But they haven't happened yet, and if they do, conservatives can blame Republicans.
The latest “news” out of the conservative blogosphere is that President Obama is launching an attack on military families. How? By closing commissaries—grocery stores that offer food and other products at a discount to service-members, veterans, and their families.“Obama’s wasting billions on food stamps, Obamacare and every other boondoggle you can imagine, but he has no qualms about sticking it to dirt poor soldiers,” wrote one blogger for the Rightwing News website.
So Obama wades back into the inequality debate today with a speech in Anacostia. He's been gunshy about this subject over these last five years. He'll give the occasional big speech, like the one in Kansas two years ago, and then he'll just sort of drop it.Why? I see some combination of three reasons. It makes Wall Street jittery, this talk, and he seems pretty jittery about making Wall Street jittery, because the instant he does they start whining about being made into pariahs.
Long before the Tea Party, he embodied the GOP fringe—and now the ex-senator wants his old New Hampshire seat back. But state Republicans, pining for Scott Brown, aren’t so keen.
For the past several weeks, many New Hampshire Republicans, facing a weak stable of homegrown Senate candidates, have been praying for a certain ex-senator to swoop in from out of state and give Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen a real fight. Three days after Thanksgiving, a certain ex-senator, after much hemming and hawing, finally announced his intention to do precisely that.Unfortunately, it was the wrong guy.GOPers at both the state and national levels have been pining for former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, who owns a vacation home in New Hampshire, to bring his Cosmo-approved brand of sex appeal to the Granite State.
William Bryk is a 58-year-old Brooklyn lawyer who’s never been to Alaska—or Wyoming, or Idaho. But that hasn’t stopped him from mounting three quixotic Senate bids in the states.
In the wide-open expanses of the American West, where livestock outnumber Democrats, William Bryk has found a home. Or a political home, at least. The Brooklyn-based lawyer has, truth be told, never been west of Buffalo.But he is spending the years when most men his age take up golf or grumble full-time at the evening news as something of a permanent candidate for the U.S. Senate on the Democratic line, running in Idaho in 2010, in Wyoming in 2012, and now a planned run in Alaska in 2014.
The Democrats are freaking out about the Obamacare rollout, and Republicans are loving it. But with public opinion on the law’s side, it’s the GOP that should be afraid.
The Obamacare website deadline has come and gone. The site is mostly fixed, but politicians in both parties remain fixated. Democrats are running scared, while Republicans can hardly hide their glee.Both sides have it exactly backward. The GOP should be terrified, and the Democrats need to grow a spine.First, Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue. Americans support health-care reform—and not just a little bit. In no fewer than 12 CNN polls since March 2011, a clear majority, averaging 53 percent, either support the Affordable Care Act or think it does not go far enough, with an average of 38 percent opposing the law.
Saturday was the deadline to fix the site. Did they do it, and if so, does it even matter? The Sunday talk shows look at the practical and political future of Obamacare.
The Murray-Ryan bill won surprisingly strong bipartisan backing in the House, raising hopes of a more normal Capitol Hill atmosphere and maybe actually getting something done in 2014.