The Thursday wrap
Looks as if the EPA won't have to rush to finalize new anti-coal regulations by the end of the month now that President Obama has won re-election. The new emissions standards effectively would ban the construction of any new coal-fired power plants. Perhaps the administration will award another government contract to its cronies for solar- and wind-powered signs that read “Get your food stamps here.” ... We keep hearing the words “gridlock” and “divided” to describe an election that left a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in control of the Senate and Republicans in control of the House. The far more accurate characterization would be that the election preserved the critical concept of “checks and balances” that gives America at least a fighting chance. ... Or as The Washington Times' James S. Robbins put it: “A president who believes his mandate is to find ways around Congress is tragically mistaken. A White House that closes itself off from legitimate criticism has conceded its own impotence. A head of state who thinks it is his prerogative to impose his will by executive order will only divide the country further. America has chosen a leader; it remains to be seen if he can and truly will lead.” ... Much was made of the fact that Barack Obama is the first president to be re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2 percent since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936. Not mentioned, however, is that, soon after, the interventionist policies of the New Deal began to unravel, exposed for the failure they were. Stay tuned.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.