Trib editorial: Saturday roundup of the week’s opinions |

Trib editorial: Saturday roundup of the week’s opinions

CBS News
Stormy Daniels is interviewed by Anderson Cooper for '60 Minutes.' It aired Sunday, March 25, 2018.

“Monday’s coordinated Euro-American action against Russia may signal the end of an era: Goodbye, empty U.N. blather, hello again, coalitions of the willing.”

— Benny Avni, New York Post

“Since 2014, Congress has included the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment in its annual appropriations bills. It expressly prevents funds from being used by the Department of Justice to prosecute individuals using medical marijuana if their state allows it, nor to interfere with states that opt to legalize medical marijuana. … The funding rider was included in the most recent omnibus appropriations bill, but it appears that this fight will continue into the FY2019 appropriations process this fall.”

— Daniel J. Mitchell, The Washington Times

“By neutralizing the hot-button cultural issues of guns and abortion, and highlighting Rick Saccone’s support for right-to-work and other pro-business measures, Conor Lamb re-appropriated the economic program that Donald Trump used to win Pennsylvania-18 by 20 points. He won’t be the last Democrat to do so.”

— Matthew Continetti, The Washington Free Beacon

“I would far rather watch Ms. Daniels in a porn video — her natural milieu — than on CBS News. … I doubt that anyone whose first name is not Melania will be much influenced by the media storm over Stormy.”

— John Hinderaker, PowerLine

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.