Free Republic

David Remnick of The New Yorker showed up on PBS’s Charlie Rose Monday night to discuss his long, mostly sympathetic profile of Barack Obama from the January 27 issue of the magazine. Near the end of the interview, Rose focused in on the president’s reported desire to be “big.” The host wondered, “[W]hat's his definition of 'big,' and does he believe in his deep recesses of his own mind that the chance of that has slipped away?” Remnick replied that no, Obama does not think his chance of being “big” has slipped away. The editor then rattled off a laundry...

In the oft-admired model of a decisive lone warrior, President Obama could have ordered strikes on Syria without asking Congress. Instead, the commander in chief chose to ask lawmakers. At the least, all Americans should now reciprocate. They could suspend judgment and listen to what Mr. Obama has to say in his Tuesday evening address to the nation. In decisions of war, bravery is needed in knowing when to be humble – in listening for one’s biases and evaluating new evidence. “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down...

Witness the birth of a hashtag. The suggestion for a topic: FTW RT @dfgalvin: @gabrielmalor that was supposed to be "No blood for O"— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) September 08, 2013 A hashtag is applied: #NoBloodForO RT @gabrielmalor: FTW RT @dfgalvin: @gabrielmalor that was supposed to be "No blood for O"— jon gabriel (@ExJon) September 08, 2013 With that, “no blood for oil” had found its shortened contemporary version: #NoBloodForO. And with that, many tweeters were off and running: #NoBloodForO No soldiers should die just for a president to save face.— Redness (@mchastain81) September 08, 2013 This is NOT why I...