Here’s something neither candidate said, but could have, at Monday’s presidential debate over foreign policy when it came to the Middle East: emphasize secular governments over religious ones. Neither President Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney could say that, of course, because they don’t want to be seen as being anti-Islam, or even worse in modern America, anti-religion.
Opinion Columns
After focus grouping, poll testing and media vetting, it should come as no surprise that political rhetoric tends toward the banal. When even the politicians uttering the lines seem unconvinced, how are we supposed to be?
Former President Bill Clinton is all over the country these days, stumping for President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.
Here we go again.
If ever it could be said Washington is the cradle of a bipartisan, self-perpetuating cycle in which the rich are coddled, the financial crisis is final proof.
When last longtime Las Vegas journalist and author Geoff Schumacher checked in on Southern Nevada, things were going great, and it looked like that would never change.
Maybe it’s hard to understand because it’s not true?
It may seem ironic, so deep into the information age, that a panel discussion about censorship would still be necessary. After all, the Internet has given us access to everything from the complete text of previously banned books to the gigantic document dumps of Wikileaks, a world of previously secret information available to anybody with a computer, smartphone or tablet.
Ah, presidential debates. Those special times when we learn there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, that Sen. Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy, that Ronald Reagan refused to take advantage of the youth and inexperience of Walter Mondale, and that George H.W. Bush was, well, kind of bored.
The first debate in Nevada’s U.S. Senate race is in the books, and it wasn’t exactly Lincoln-Douglas. In fact, it wasn’t much of anything beyond a live-action political ad mercilessly drawn out over an hour.