This is the sort of language that makes people still long for a Chris Christie presidency run: in talking about how Obama didn't become involved with the Super Committee because they felt it was headed for failure, Christie asks "What the hell are we paying Obama for?" Good question.
Hmmmm. A mysterious and massive explosion at an Iranian military base killed the man who is the "architect of the country's ballistic missile program." And everyone thinks/hope that Mossad was responsible.
Matt Welch at Reason takes a scalpel to the banal punditry of David Brooks and Thomas Friedman. It's brutal but a spot on evisceration.
Michael Barone reports on how federal transfers are actually increasing income inequality.
Conn Carrol reports on how the NLRB broke federal law in how it prosecuted the Boeing case.
The WSJ notes Barney Frank's retirement from the House by accurately calling him the biggest protector of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the housing collapse. His retirement is one sign that leading Democrats have no real hope of taking back the House. And being in the minority in the House is just no fun.
Social conservatives are still flailing about to find an anti-Mitt candidate and they aren't thrilled by the idea of Newt as their only other choice.
So the new hotness in education for youngsters these days is having centers for them to play with blocks. And the teachers can attend seminars with "block consultants" helping them figure out how to use them. Because playing with blocks can lead to fostering 21st-century skills.
Victor Davis Hanson makes the arguments against higher taxes on the wealthy.
Jonah Goldberg takes on the lame analogy made in the NYT this weekend between the rise of the KKK post-WWI and the tea party movement.
James Taranto explains what Mitt Romney and Maureen Dowd have in common.
Here's an obvious result that didn't need a study: "Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots in London led to further disturbances across England, an independent report has found." Ya think?
It's a sign of how far the Cain candidacy has fallen that the allegation that he'd conducted a 14-year affair with a woman just didn't seem to cause more than a ripple in the political waters yesterday.
Peter Wehner examines the deep cynicism of Barack Obama who will try to do whatever he thinks necessary to win reelection.
[T]he president is a man of unusually cold-blooded insincerity. To be clear: Obama is not habitually dishonest and divisive. It is not as if he can’t control his poisonous rhetoric. He simply uses those things when they’re useful to him. In that sense, Obama is not sociopathic; he’s merely ruthlessly unprincipled. Or to put it another way, he’s thoroughly post-modern, willing to construct his own truth and his own reality in the quest for power. If Obama thinks being conciliatory and civil are the roads to victory, he’ll be conciliatory and civil. If he believes incendiary rhetoric and ludicrous stereotypes are the pathway to success, he’s just as happy to employ them. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other. Whatever works. One wayCr to express this is with references to faded, dog-eared “Hope posters.” Another, less delicate but perhaps more accurate way to express the Obama approach to politics is deeply cynical.And the Democrats want to criticize Mitt Romney for the same sort of behavior. I guess that projection is the sincerest form of political flattery.
Call it the Chicago Way.