And now in the next act of the Washington performance, the Senate Democrats offer their budget, the House Republicans offer their budget, the president (between resets about what his presidency is about) will sooner or later offer his budget.

But one thing is clear: Nobody will offer a budget that promises to create significantly more jobs at a time when joblessness is the great national scandal.

It is interesting that the White house has decided to cancel public tours due to budgetary constraints. The cost to the taxpayer would only be about $18,000 monthly, and many individuals have volunteered to shoulder the cost themselves.

Two of the key figures in the Republican Party happen to live in the same city, in the same state, share many supporters and donors and enjoy a close, personal friendship where one has been a mentor to the other.  So they both can’t run for president against each other, right?

One of the most interesting subplots in the open race for president in 2016, which will begin in about 18 months after the midterm elections, is whether former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) choose to run for president.

Both have strong cases to make.

While I often agree with Juan Williams and stand second to none in my opposition to abusive filibusters, I strongly disagree with his criticism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in his column regarding Paul's talking filibuster last week.

I supported Paul's action and urged other progressives to support it so long as the purpose was not to deny John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director but to elevate important issues that should be unacceptable in our country: whether American citizens can be killed on American soil by the American government using drones, and the government justifying this practice with secret legal opinions.

The Hill's A.B. Stoddard sits down with Pundits Blog writers John Feehery and Peter Fenn to discuss Congress's challenge in passing a budget.

I find it fascinating that every time North Korea or the Iranians continue to make progress on weaponizing a nuclear device, our leaders say, “Yeh, but they’re still years away from developing a bomb …”

Like that’s supposed to make me feel better? Pretty soon, the future becomes the present, and then what do we do? What’s with this attitude that something (or someone) will take care of our enemies’ hatred?

As the College of Cardinals begins to select the next pope, you hear the following said on almost all cable and network television coverage: The cardinals want to make the choice quickly to avoid an image problem.

This is one of the most ridiculous media inventions ever uttered on what has often been called the boob tube. Choosing a pope involves the selection of a man who will have the authority to offer doctrine that is deemed by the Church as infallible.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently made an important and wise comment when he said that with gridlock plaguing our political system, “A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.” Considering the controversial history of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding elections, and the pending case regarding the Voting Rights Act, the nine unelected justices should uphold the Voting Rights Act, which was not passed under gridlock but was passed by overwhelming majorities of both parties, in both the House and Senate, including those representing states covered by the act.

In my view the act should be upheld, period. For conservative justices who might be inclined to overturn the act or Section 5 of the act, I would suggest they consider that this would violate the conservative principle against extreme judicial activism. It would violate the conservative principle of avoiding political decisions. It would violate the conservative principle against the unelected judicial branch negating overwhelming agreement of the elected executive and legislative branches, which have substantially more expertise regarding free elections than those of “narrow legal background.”

“Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) decision to mount a rare talking filibuster over President Obama’s drone strike policy has — for the moment — propelled the Kentucky lawmaker to the forefront of the 2016 Republican presidential conversation,” writes The Hill’s Alexandra Jaffe.

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer’s claim that Rand Paul’s filibuster was a work of “political genius" indicates that we have reached the historic turning point, and the CPAC 2013 convention will reflect it. That is, the generations have shifted, and the influential Krauthammer recognizes that Paul's recent trip to Israel was sincere and enlightened and that Paul came back a different man — one who could be trusted to bring in the new generation. The fight now between Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) of the “old guard” vs. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Joe Miller (“young bucks”) will clearly turn the way generations always do in history’s generational conflicts: to the rising generation. And they will turn at CPAC 2013.

Rand Paul has turned the tide. He will be the new leader.