Politico the other day ran a story about the "Young Eagles," a wing of the Republican Party that seems to have been created in order to fulfill every cultural stereotype of the GOP. It's a fundraising program for young, rich Republicans. The problem is, the cost of becoming an Eagle is very low, and the cost of entertaining an Eagle is very high. So the Young Eagles program, much like the Republican Party's economic agenda, has largely devolved into a subsidy for lavish consumption by the rich: The Young Eagles are “a fun group,” the former member said.
Everybody's making football analogies these days. Ezra Klein argues that political reporters should follow the example of football, and have political specialists and policy specialists, rather than try to make their reporters do both: Sadly, the political media isn't as well organized as your average football team. There are two big things that go on in this town: Politics and policy. It would make a lot of sense to have people who focus mainly on one or the other, and news outlets do.
Matt Yglesias is right that it would be absurd for the District of Columbia to build a new a stadium for the Redskins on the site where their old stadium, RFK, now sits. Since pro football stadiums go unused for most of the year, owing to the NFL's 16-game schedule, they don't help their surrounding neighborhoods in the same way baseball and basketball/hockey stadiums do. Better to do something else with the RFK site; Yglesias's sensible alternative plan for the site unexpectedly even includes a park! That said, I do think something was lost when the Redskins abandoned D.C.
The Redskins lost: On Monday, the Washington Redskins lost to the Pittsburgh Steelers, 23-6. Since 1936, if the Redskins lost their last home game before Election Day, the party that lost the popular vote in the previous election wound up in the White House. If the Redskins won, the party that won the popular vote in the previous election won again. --Michael Crowley