Although the team is based in Maryland and has Washington’s namesake, the Redskins football team was the subject of a question during the Virginia gubernatorial debate on Wednesday night. And it caught the candidates off-guard.
NBC’s Chuck Todd, the moderator of the debate and a big sports fan, asked if the name should be changed, citing widespread concern over its offensiveness to Native Americans. It seems to be one of the few issues the two rivals agree on.
First up was Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe, who stumbled on the question:
“I don’t think the governor ought to be telling private businesses what they should do about their business,” he said at first.
Todd interjected, “Even if it’s offensive to people?”
“I don’t think the governor should be telling private businesses,” McAuliffe insisted.
“Do you have a personal opinion on it?” Todd pressed.
“As governor, I’m not going to tell Dan Snyder or anybody else what they should do in business. And I want to congratulate the Redskins, because I went down to the training park in Richmond, and it is spectacular, Governor McDonnell,” McAuliffe said before getting heckled by a member of the crowd and cut off by Todd.
Having witnessed this, Cuccinelli was better prepared.
“I think that is up to them entirely,” Cuccinelli said. “I think that 80 years of history with that team is kind of hard to leave behind. I understand that. I also don’t think RGIII should have been played in the second quarter in the playoffs last years.”
Quarterback Robert Griffin III, also known as RGIII, suffered a season-ending injury after playing in game despite a doctor’s warning. Whether he should have played has been a contentious debate for some months.
And maybe the candidates’ answers, however ungraceful, were smart politically. According to a Washington Post poll released in June, 61 percent of Washington area residents like the name of the football team and two-thirds say the team shouldn’t change its name.
Though it doesn’t look like there’s going to be any pressure from the Old Dominion to do so, some still insist that owner Dan Snyder make a change. Even some members of Congress have publicly called for a name change.
Here’s the video of the debate exchange:
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”