The Thursday wrap
President Obama says he's “disappointed” with the Supreme Court decision invalidating part of the Voting Rights Act that relies on irrelevant 50-year-old discrimination data to allow the federal government to ride herd over the states' electoral processes. And Mr. Obama fancies himself a “constitutional scholar”? ... Ever the race-baiters, the Democratic National Committee quickly exploited the high court's voting rights ruling in a fundraising appeal. And it was hardly tacit in implying a return to the days of black voters being subjected to “beatings, fire hoses and dogs.” That's despicable. ... The White House is out with its new climate-control plan. And one of Barack Obama's top climate advisers minced no words in The New York Times as to what it's all about: “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're (sic) having a war on coal,” said Daniel P. Schrag. “On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed.” Nothing like the federal government declaring war on the coal states. We can't imagine this president ever setting foot again in the likes of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio or Kentucky, can you? ... National Review says John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (and a regular Trib columnist), “is being encouraged by several leading conservative power brokers to consider a presidential bid.” Adds NR's Robert Costa, “Bolton is, without a doubt, looking to be a player.” 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.