Delegates to the California Republican Party state convention that begins Friday in Sacramento should be asking themselves just two questions: Why can't they find an electable U.S. Senate candidate and how do they revive a state party that's become irrelevant?
This state went from red to blue because the California GOP lost its Reaganesque compass and, alarmingly, a willingness to discern between moral absolutes and generational evolution. Ronald Reagan brilliantly never let himself be the captive or defender of the status quo or party orthodoxy. He embraced broad principles and found ways to solve problems without selling out.
Voters, popes, presidents and even some elders have evolved. The state party has not and seems to be perversely proud of it. Political parties are meant to win elections, not be martyrs to lost causes of bygone eras.
President Obama asked Congress on Wednesday to formally authorize military operations against Islamic State militants and sought the ability to use ground troops in limited situations, though he said that long-term deployment of U.S. ground forces isn't necessary to defeat the terrorist organization.
The draft resolution seeking authorization for use of force says the extremist group poses a "grave threat" to Iraq and Syria and stability in the region as well as U.S. national security interests.
Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong drove his SUV into two parked vehicles, then let his girlfriend take the blame for the hit-and-run accident in December, according to an Aspen, Colorado, police report. Armstrong was issued two traffic citations in January for the incident after Anna Hansen admitted she had lied to police in order to protect her boyfriend and avoid national attention. She admitted the ruse to police later and said, "I just wanted to protect my family because I thought, 'Gosh, Anna Hansen hit some cars, it's not going to show up in the papers, but Lance Armstrong hit some cars, it's going to be a national story." read more
A week after his State of the Union address, political observers are still trying to figure out what President Obama's game is. That's how bizarrely untethered from reality the speech was. Obama refused to even take note of the GOP's historic midterm gains and the fact the House and Senate are now both under Republican control. On foreign policy, Obama talked as if everything was going swimmingly abroad, prompting even the Washington Post's Dana Milbank to marvel at Obama's "disconnect" from what is happening in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Russia. And Obama's policy agenda -- "free" community college, tax hikes, mandatory sick leave -- failed to take into account that it was dead-before-arrival in this Congress. read more
Nulli (a fellow UCLA Political Science degree holder), in a different thread, challenged me to start a series of Political Theory Threads, so of course I said "game on." To make it easily accessible, I am going to through up an easy one:
Was the Soviet Union Communist or Socialist?
As a starting point, it is generally accepted that socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society and as Marx postulated, Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of Socialism.
What exactly do you think that the Soviets achieved, if anything?