Could this be the time to restore powers to the states? We've gone so far from the original idea of power divided between the federal and state governments, that it seems impossible to put that genie back in the bottle.
Now, however, states increasingly are complaining and pushing back or ignoring federal laws and mandates they say are out of touch, excessively burdensome, or unconstitutional.
And with Washington immobilized by partisan gridlock, states find themselves in the best position in decades to redress the balance of power and remind the feds that there is a 10th Amendment. The amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Merrill Matthews of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a Texas public policy think tank, said, “This is the biggest push back that I’ve seen in my lifetime, even more so than, I think, you had in the Civil Rights era.There’s this growing sense out there, that there are areas that are the purview of states, and the states ought to be allowed to do that.”
Guy Benson explains why it is indeed quite possible for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate. Individual state polls don't demonstrate anything close to the sort of wave election in the Senate that many Republicans are hoping for.
Renewals for Obamacare for next year could generate its own kind of mess.
Victor Davis Hanson explains the assumptions underlying Obama's approach to ISIS. And he's right. Once you understand those assumptions, all the administration's shifts and self-contradictory statements on their policies become explicable. For example,
3. The current ascendancy of the Islamic State has nothing to do with a sense that the credibility of the United States in the region is diminished, or that enemies in the Middle East are emboldened by past non-enforcement of loudly announced red lines, step-over lines, or deadlines. Nor does it have to do with the situation on the ground after the bombing of Libya, or with the promise to vacate Afghanistan, or with the shunning of our old allies in the Gulf and Egypt.
5. The principal source of the ongoing violence is past U.S. presidents — especially George W. Bush — who stirred up the hornets’ nests by bombing Iraq. The upheaval in the Middle East cannot be blamed on Barack Obama, who simply inherited a mess and so cannot be faulted for matter-of-factly trying to pass it on to the next president.
6. The American people are horrified by the televised beheading of American journalists and want something done. Indeed, they are seething at videos of the innocent people slaughtered by sadistic jihadist bullies. But they are also exhausted by Iraq and Afghanistan and sick of the Middle East — enemies, neutrals, and perhaps even allies alike. Therefore, a loud but limited bombing campaign may soothe angry American feelings without making long-term costly commitments that could turn unpopular. The Islamic State can be waited out.
James Taranto ponders why President Obama is thinking about being an adviser to ISIS.
He's a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, a better political director than his political director, and to hear President Obama tell it--or, to be precise, to hear the New York Times retell others' retelling of Obama's telling it--he's a better terrorist than the terrorists:Jim Geraghty is also puzzled by Obama's thoughts about advising ISIS.If he had been "an adviser to ISIS," Mr. Obama added, he would not have killed the hostages but released them and pinned notes on their chests saying, "Stay out of here; this is none of your business." Such a move, he speculated, might have undercut support for military intervention.
Notice Obama’s assessment presumes ISIS wants to avoid a U.S. military intervention. Is this a manifestation of the mirroring effect, where Obama projects its own values and priorities onto its foes? (Think about how often he insists publicly that seizing Crimea and moving into Ukraine isn’t in Russia’s interest, or that bellicose or provocative actions on the part of Iran aren’t in that country’s interest.) ISIS appears to want to send the message, far and wide, that they don’t fear a clash with the U.S. military. Perhaps they want to demonstrate that they can commit horrific crimes against American civilians with no serious repercussion. Maybe they think God wants them to do this. Maybe they’re nuts! In the end, the “why” matters less than the “what.”Iowahawk responds: "Obama: if I was advising ISIS, I'd have them pin notes on hostages instead of beheading.
Viewed from another angle, President Obama’s comment sounds like a complaint. If ISIS hadn’t beheaded Americans, there wouldn’t be such widespread demand for action against ISIS in the American public.
Me: if you were advising ISIS, they'd be bankrupt."
Ah, the Clintons - always phonies.
Mrs Clinton, her husband and Senator Harkin staged a mini-grilling of steaks for the press at a single barbecue grill in a fenced-off enclosure, framed by a handsome tree and a picnic table filled with some patient Iowans. Mrs Clinton gamely posed, pretending to grill a steak that had been pre-cooked for her.Jim Geraghty is reminded of another phony food photo op that the media had coniptions about.
Remember all those relentless media references to George W. Bush’s alleged “fake” “plastic” turkey while visiting the troops in Iraq?
David Gelernter answers the Yale Muslim Students Association that protested Ayaan Hirsi Alli's speech there today.
ou have written, with great restraint, about “how uncomfortable it will be” for your friends if this woman is allowed to speak. Uncomfortable nothing. The genital mutilation of young girls is downright revolting! Who ever authorized this topic in a speech to innocent Yale undergraduates?Far better to have performances of The Vagina Monologues at Yale than to have a victim of genital mutilation speak out against the way women are treated in Islam.
The Democrats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel as they search out imaginary insults to claim that Republicans are fighting a war on women candidates. Now it becomes sexist if a male candidate calls a female candidate by her first name even if they've known each other for years.
I bet you didn't know what Hillary Clinton had in common with Nelson Mandela and what Bill's affairs had in common with apartheid.
Ah, so a woman can't be more like a man.
The last thing the NFL needs in fixing up its problems is to have Congress get involved.