ShareThis Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Sayeth Secretary of State John Kerry: “We need to say no to politics of the lowest common denominator and simple slogans and start making real choices that protect the interests of our country.” So what's wrong with President Obama? ... And one can only wonder what's wrong with Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. He wants to one-up President Progressive and raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. He repeats the usual liberal talking points about helping “working families.” Never mind that raising the government wage floor would eliminate tens of thousands of entry-level jobs because their beneficent government, by fiat, priced them out of the market. ... The Justice Department's own research arm concludes that requiring background checks for more gun purchases actually could lead to more illicit sales, reports ABC. And the National Institute of Justice report also concludes that banning “assault weapons” would have little effect on gun killings because such weapons are responsible for only a limited proportion of those crimes. So why does the Obama administration keep pushing for both? ... Went USA Today's front-page headline on Monday: “In Washington's latest budget war, collateral damage could be huge.” Actually it's the truth that's taking a beating, as the provenance of the “sequester” is debated. Despite what President Obama now says, it was Mr. Obama's doing, on the advice of incoming Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. And that's not from any conservative think tank. That's from the left-leaning Bob Woodward.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.