Previous presidents, whether you agreed with them or not, all operated within the normal range of American political discourse. Maybe some tested that range, but they still had the ability to be civil and comforting when the country needed it. You know what needs to be “great again”? The American President. ... See MoreSee Less
Biden is the clear choice when it comes to compassionate and decent leadership. In a battle of heart, mind, and character Joe Biden wins by a landslide. We n...
Five years ago when Donald Trump road that escalator and announced his candidacy, everyone including most people who are now Trump-for-lifers, believed it was a stunt, and he was clearly unqualifie...
Well at least California sees the benefits of improved infrastructure
for future economic growth in this country. What’s it going to take to
get the Republican “party of no” to agree to these formerly bipartisan
projects?
How many Republicans need to denounce the current Republican Party before the average Republican will wake up? I think there are millions of good people in this country who are life-long Republicans and they will always support and vote for Republicans, but I think these good people are just a bit blinded by that life-long allegiance to party. While I can’t claim to be immune from bias or group-think, life-long allegiance to one political party is something I’ll never be able to claim for myself.
Jon Huntsman announced he will not be attending the Republican convention later this summer. This would not be news except for the reason he gave for not attending. Huntsman said, “I will not be attending this year’s convention, nor any Republican convention in the future, until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States – a future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as our fiscal and economic deficits.” I once again say Jon Huntsman is Mr. Reasonable. This doesn’t mean I would support many of his policies, but at least he isn’t in lockstep with a party that thinks government and politics is a big game to be utilized to favor the wealthy ruling class while impoverishing the already impoverished.
E.J. Dionne has a great piece in the Washington Post: The Founders’ true spirit. In it he writes, “Differences over policy are often disguised as differences over whether a preferred choice is constitutional or not. When we should be addressing pragmatic questions — Will this approach work? Will it solve the problem it’s designed to solve? Is this a problem government should do something about? — we instead fall back on rather abstract discussions of whether a given idea violates the Constitution.”