Beto O’Rourke, innovative for interpreting a failed Senate campaign as a steppingstone to the presidency, is now famous for (1) his use of profanity on the campaign trail, (2) his pledge that “hell, yes” he wants to confiscate AR-15s and (3) his proposal to tax religious institutions that don’t approve of gay marriage. This is not the normal substance of presidential ambitions. Few young people nursing political dreams say: “When I grow up, I want to be a foul-mouthed, overreaching, anti-religious culmination of every exaggerated liberal stereotype and the embodiment of every fevered conservative nightmare.” Perhaps O’Rourke was just precocious in that way. It is more likely, however, that he was led in this direction by the increasingly desperate pursuit of a spotlight that fell on him once, and briefly.

With the unemployment rate at a 50-year low, the hope is that the U.S. consumer will more than offset an otherwise faltering economy. Don’t bet on it.

The failure to focus on the issue of the Supreme Court is an atrocious oversight on the part of the networks that have aired and moderated the Democratic presidential candidate debates.

Where have you gone, dear Rudy? While we’re at it, what happened to Lindsey?

After watching President Trump abandon our allies in Syria to be slaughtered, why would anyone step forward to help America in the fight against Islamist radicalism?

This week, the Congressional Budget Office released its latest estimate for the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year that just ended. The number – nearly $1 trillion – should surprise no one.

Welcome to the golden age of whistleblowers. It’s a shame we are here, but a relief that a few brave souls still walk among us.

Based on the number of articles written about them, two of the great questions of our time are: Why do Republicans stick with Donald Trump? And what happened to all the “Never Trump” people?

President Donald Trump’s betrayal of the Syrian Kurds, America’s key ally in the fight against ISIS, is his most ignorant and morally bankrupt foreign policy move – so far.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is in a corner as the court decides whether to bless employment discrimination against LGBTQ Americans. Will he interpret the text of the law the way he claims to – or devise an excuse to produce his desired result?

When it comes to Donald Trump, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between a political strategy and a nervous breakdown. His tweeted trash talk, his meandering stream of consciousness press availabilities and his shameless embrace of sleaziness are not the signs of a healthy mind. Trump’s followers may eventually look up to find they were actors in someone else’s delusion. But Trump’s recent self-defenses at least clarify his ambitions as an ethicist. Concerning the Ukraine scandal, the president is not seeking forgiveness for a failure in judgment, or even trying to change the subject. He boldly asks Americans to accept that his actions – pressuring a foreign power to investigate a domestic political rival – were good and proper. “I don’t care about (Joe) Biden’s campaign,” Trump insists, “but I do care about corruption.” And there was “tremendous corruption with Biden.”

Over the next several months, the Supreme Court will decide divisive cases involving gay and lesbian rights, immigration and gun control. I suspect we will deeply feel the absence of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Depending upon one’s politics, President Trump’s leveraged “favor” request from Ukraine may not seem any worse than Joe Biden’s threat to withhold loan guarantees until another official was fired. But there is a difference.

You may, if you are old enough, recall a TV actor named Foster Brooks. He was a guest star on such classics of boomer kitsch as “The Monkees,” “The Munsters” and “The Mod Squad.” But if you do remember him, it’s likely for one thing only: his imitation of inebriation. Brooks made his slurring, stammering “funny drunk act” a TV staple, back when drunks were still considered, well … funny.

Celebrating 70 years of Communist Party rule, Chinese leader Xi Jinping stood in the open sunroof of a Red Flag limousine and shouted, “Greetings, comrades,” to the masses below. Xi wore a Mao-style suit to his giant military parade, which featured a missile that could carry 10 nuclear warheads and strike anywhere in the United States.

The rhetorical intensity of Donald Trump’s anti-impeachment campaign, measured on a scale of one to 10, has begun at 11.25. The whistleblower is “almost a spy” who may be guilty of “treason.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., should be arrested for “treason.” Both are part of a “COUP” which – if successful – could provoke a “civil war.”

President Trump still insists the phone call to Ukraine’s president that sparked impeachment proceedings against him was about corruption. That’s true, but not the way he meant it. Not only did Trump’s call corrupt the White House – by trying to strong arm Ukraine into providing dirt on a political rival – but the call actually encouraged corruption in Kyiv.

It shall be unlawful for ... (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

Let’s be clear: President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was not “beautiful” or “perfect.” Far from it. Trump should not have asked Zelenskiy to investigate Hunter Biden or to cooperate with his private attorney Rudolph Giuliani’s investigation of the former vice president’s son. Since Trump made no promises or threats in the call, it is a stretch to claim his conduct rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But it was highly inappropriate. However, it does not follow that Trump’s malfeasance absolves Joe Biden and his son of their malfeasance. Two things can be true at the same time: that Trump did something wrong, and that Joe and Hunter Biden did something wrong as well. This seems to be lost on many in the media, who are bending over backward to absolve the Bidens of wrongdoing.