It seems like the Pennsylvania voter ID law could matter.
The jobs report mattered a lot to the economy, although I don't think it matters much to the presidential race.
I think you're missing the biggest potential story, the LIBOR scandal!
Ireland is making first steps out from under the umbrella by getting new credits on the open markets.(Plus, I'm sure the scientists found a boson, but aren't completely sure it's the Higgs boson with all its postulated properties. I think they decided to announce it now anyway because Higgs is still alive but quite old)
I think the record setting heat wave in the middle of the country certainly deserves some sort of recognition. And I'd agree with Greg on LIBOR.
Dr. B, As no one has said "Europe" yet, and its still there, Europe. I'm also going to say, possibly, the story of the SCOTUS leak. Such a major leak, this quickly, seeming to come from the justices themselves, is so far as I'm aware unprecedented. And certainly further undermines venerated norms on the court.
The second leak was the funniest. Loosely translated: "You want to know why their dissent doesn't talk about the ruling? Because I did all the &*()#@$#@(&%$ writing! Lazy bastards! I just could not, could not put my name on an opinion that claimed there was something Congress couldn't tax! And in the end, neither could they!"
Don't forget what Josh Marshall calls "the Murdoch primary." Rupert Murdoch has pretty blatantly bitch-slapped Mitt Romney this week, and Romney's response over the next few weeks will be a big tell on just how thoroughly Murdoch controls the Repulican Party, 2012. My guess is that his control is pretty tight, and that Romney is going to make some major changes to his staff prior to the conventions. This is a huge deal in American political history.
Libya holding elections today. Mexican elections possibly bought. Syria and turkey
Suggestion: you change this to "what mattered vs. What interested you" that would give people a framework with which to judge news/political stories they want to talk about.
I disagree! There are lots of things that I find interesting but don't think matter in any real way. What interests you (or me) is a different thread.I disagree with Tom's comments about Murdoch, by the say. Whatever independent effect Murdoch has in nomination politics (which is itself not clear at all), I don't think there's much of an independent effect right now. Collectively it's true that the GOP has a lot of influence on Romney and his campaign, but the staff stuff isn't that big a deal.
Jonathan,I'm not quite sure what you mean by "independent effect." (Then again, I never studied political science.) The point I was trying to make is that for years now, Murdoch (via Fox News and the WSJ) has had a rather outsized influence on the PR themes and policies pushed by the GOP. This week, he very publicly went a further step and began to push for staffing changes in the Romney campaign. I'm betting Murdoch gets his way, and Romney accommodates him in order to secure the full court press from Fox and Murdoch's other media outlets. If a media tycoon sets the agenda and dictates down to the staffing level, who is really in charge of the campaign - and subsequent potential administration? Maybe there has been similar dynamics between politicians and power-brokers in the post-boss era, but I'm not aware of it. As Mr. Biden might say, it's a BFD.
I was interested in the public fretting of some conservatives over the state of the Romney campaign. Basically, I think some people on the Right want to put some distance between themselves and the Romney campaign so that, if he loses, they can deflect blame. That Murdoch would be in this group is no surprise since he is making lots of money driving conservative voters and the GOP to the far right with his hyper-sensationalist, intellectually barren TV network. Expect to see much more of this if Romney does not choose a good, strong running mate. That's because, if he doesn't, people will interpret that as another indication that the campaign is not going well. The right-wing media machine generates a lot of political pseudo-science that has as it'a themes "democrats in disarray" and "Obama's gonna lose." This stuff is very central to getting their voters out. Republicans like to win and it's not clear that they will be able to explain to their voters and doners how Obama won re-election, if that indeed happens. So if things start to really go south, the party could have a real reason to freak out.
At The Washington Post
At The American Prospect