Sorry I haven’t had time to blog today. May this post make up for it!
Some possible topics:
The surprise outcome in the Jimmy Metts case — A lot of folks were raising their eyebrows at the sweetness of the deal offered to the ex-sheriff, in light of the charges, but the judge in the case didn’t like the deal one bit, and tossed it out.
The smelly stuff that Bobby Harrell WASN’T charged with — Cindi Scoppe’s column tells a pretty sordid tale of undue legislative influence over state officials.
Sony actually canceling the opening of “The Interview” — My friend Bob McAlister opined on Facebook that this was “far more important than a silly movie. Just imagine what the Muslim world must be thinking as they see a major company relinquishing its constitutional right to free speech.” This was a rare case of Bob agreeing with The Guardian, which called it “North Korea’s stunningly effective fatwah…”
The political ramifications of Obama’s bold move on Cuba — Yesterday, I deliberately resisted giving into one of the more obnoxious habits of pundits — to analyze every policy move not on its merits, but in terms of its likely effect on the next election. As though policy served only as a electoral strategy, instead of the other way around (elections being our way of deciding policy directions). But pretty much no other journalist in America was so fastidious, so you’ve now heard a lot about it. I’d already heard Carl Hiaasen opining that Jeb Bush was the only Republican who could beat Hillary Clinton in Florida (sorry; I couldn’t find a link to that radio interview, for some reason). What, then, is the impact of this? Is Obama right to bet that American attitudes have changed, or is Marco Rubio smart to channel the rage of his elders?
Or, whatever y’all want to talk about.