I haven't posted on this site in over a year, but this column in the Wall Street Journal[subscription required]  made me so mad that I had to tell some people who would be equally outraged.

Breast Cancer Breakthroughs
Women like Elizabeth Edwards have a fighting chance -- because we haven't followed Europe's socialist lead.

[my thoughts below the fold]

I'm not from Ohio, so it's not up to me who gets to crush that no good punk Mike DeWine in the general. However, using the "career politician" canard against Brown is utterly bogus and it makes me want to hurl everytime I see it. Yes, many politicians have no backbone and are willing to say anything. Sherrod Brown is not one of these. He's got the record to prove it.

So maybe instead of saying "Sherrod Brown has been in politics for 30 years" we could say "Sherrod Brown has been busting his ass for the causes we care about for most of his adult life." Because that's the fact. He's clearly not afraid to take stands.

I've seen a lot of threads around here where somebody will make an offhanded comment about Hugo Chavez (he's a dictator, he's crazy, he eats puppies), and then there will be an entire subthread discussing the alleged puppy eating habits of Hugo Chavez. It seems to me that this discussion is healthy. We should determine it aids the progressive/anti-war movement for Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte to be associating with him.

That said, Hugo Chavez is a much more complicated than either "socialist nutjob" or "hero of the working man." Let's break it down.

[more on the flip]

UPDATE: I've added a little more meat on the background of the strike and how we got here in the first place.

Remember the salad days? Compare that to this:

After watching Northwest Airlines permanently replace striking mechanics, leaders of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) decided Monday -- Day 115 of the strike -- to salvage what they could for their members.

They reached a tentative agreement with the airline that allows the strikers to be laid off from their Northwest jobs and get four weeks of layoff pay. If rank-and-file members ratify the agreement and end the strike, they'll also qualify for unemployment compensation benefits.

Really great deal. You go on strike and get fired in favor of a scab, then you have to negotiate just to get standard layoff pay and unemployment benefits. Terrible.

I agree entirely with this post by Armando a couple days ago:

1. Roe is a winning issue for the Democrats politically, and therefore Republican are afraid to air the ideas in a public debate.

2. Any judge that is opposed to Roe ought to be filibustered.

What I don't think has gotten nearly enough attention is how we make sure people know what we are fighting for.

[more after the flip]

I've been thinking a lot (prematurely of course) about what kind of candidate the Democrats ought to run in 2008. There's been a lot of talk about experience and record of accomplishment, but this really just doesn't figure in to it for me. No Democrats in the federal government can point to any recent  achievements, since the Republicans have been in charge for five years now. Al Gore comes the closest, but he lost the election in 2000 to unaccomplished Bush despite having been in a popular and successful administration. This doesn't mean Gore wouldn't be a good candidate, it just means that the record of achievement argument doesn't help him.

[criterion after the flip]

To most observers, the Republican coalition between moderate suburbanites, wealthy plutocrats and religious fundamentalists is fragile and perhaps unsustainable. This fragile coalition appears to be fracturing. Fundies, armed with their importance in W's reelection, are starting to flex their muscles and demand substantive policy. They're practically foaming at the mouth over the SCOTUS nomination, and are frighteningly praying for more vacancies. Maybe it's the SCOTUS openning that has them in a frenzy, but the little fundies and their minions have certainly been active of late.

[more below the flip]

Reading all these diaries about Hackett and taking back the House in 2006 has me real fired up. There's something bigger afoot, though. The movement that Reagan brought to the fore in 1980 is in its decline, and something new will replace it. This is a historical inevitability; every dominant movement in the United States since the Civil War has had about 20-30 years in the sun before declining. Time's up for the Reagan Revolution.

[follow me below the fold for historical perspective]

The title seems self-evident, but a popular bit of amateur wonkish thinking in the context of Supreme Court vacancies holds that creating a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe would be very good for the Democratic Party in the long run. The theory is that if Roe were overturned and the states allowed to regulate abortion, the silent pro-choice majority who consider Roe settled law would mobilize and essentially destroy the Republican Party, which would continue to be beholden to its virulently anti-abortion base. Although I don't believe Roberts will vote to completely overturn Roe, I want to address why this overturning of Roe would be bad for the Democrats.

[more after the fold]

This isn't about Rove or Roberts, and it isn't even particularly new, so if someone already diaried this, comment and I'll take it down. However, it did strike me as quite important. For-profit private colleges want a single definition for institutions of higher education that would allow them funds currently only available to non-profits. And because of their lobbying clout, they look likely to get it:

Creating a single definition has been one of the highest priorities of for-profit institutions, which have increasing clout on Capitol Hill because of their growing enrollments (and because their political action committee contributes to lawmakers in ways that nonprofit institutions generally do not). "As a matter of equity and to create a modern Higher Education Act and higher education system, we ought to be recognized as equal participants through sharing a single definition," said Mark Pelesh, a senior vice president at Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a publicly traded higher education provider.

Last week, Republicans reacted with glee as the budget deficit came in lower than expected. Leading the parade was of course the [Wall Street Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006973, which found this to be the ultimate vindication of its economic policy. The left side of the spectrum met this news with deafening silence. Who could blame us? We've got bigger fish to fry, between Rove, the SCOTUS nominee and the seemingly ever-worse situation in Iraq.

Maybe it's because I'm cruel and want to rain on the one bit of good news the Repubs got last week. Maybe I just enjoy taking apart Wall Street Journal editorials. Whatever the reason, I thought this would be a good time for a refresher on the idiocy of supply side economics. The column starts simply enough: Why are those rotten Democrats so angry when there was finally good news about the economy?

[entirely too much after the jump]

I've read a number of diaries that defend the South or attack it, and as a Minnesotan, I had always identified myself as a Northerner. However, upon seeing this letter, I began to rethink my position:

Don't you realize that the endless gushing over Lindsay Lohan et al. makes Minnesotans look like a bunch of provincial rubes?

You see, the arrival of various film stars in Minneapolis to film the "Prairie Home Companion" movie has created quite the stir in the community, particularly within the pages of the Star Tribune.

[much more after the flip]

In preparing for the coming Supreme Court nomination battle, Conservatives and Liberals alike are looking back to Reagan's rejected nomination of Robert Bork. Jonathan Chait explains:

The legend of Robert Bork's martyrdom casts a shadow over the coming Supreme Court nomination, as it has over every nomination for the last 18 years. Bork, for those who somehow haven't heard, was nominated in 1987 for the court, only to be defeated at the hands of a savage liberal attack painting him as an ultraconservative menace.

[more goodies and analysis below the fold]

I know, it's absolutely shocking. But this from John Cole summed it up for me:

I can think of no real reason to constantly attack a beleagured minority party and her surrogates, when we should be concerned with governing. Is this really worth it?

So I thought it would be a good time to look back at Bush's agenda, and realize how utterly unconcerned he is with making good policy. In almost all cases, the administration's utterly selfish and power-mongering strategies are utterly transparent, even as they pretend to act in the interest of the American people. [analysis below the fold]

What's been extremely frustrating for me (and I think many other Democrats) for the past few months is not the actual policies of the Republican congress, but their incredible arrogance. Hell, they haven't gotten that much done, besides that awful bankruptcy bill. This has been bad for Republicans, Democrats and Americans. Bad because the Republicans have been occupied with a few judges and an inept UN nominee, so they can't focus on a real legislative agenda. Bad for Democrats, because the decline in Senate comity has made working across the aisle very difficult, so none of the Democratic priorities are even recognized. And bad for America because the interest in making good policy is at an all time low, so government by lobbyist reigns supreme.

As much as I'd love to stick it to the Republicans when Democrats get back in power, this would be bad for everyone involved. When the Democrats return, I want them to remember this period and vow not to repeat it.

[look below the fold for my recommendations]

This past weekend I had a series of rather intense arguments with my ignorantly conservative relatives. One of those deals where I won, but they thought they won. I now realize what I should have known to more effectively combat blind pro-administration arguments: their arguments are based on moving from talking point to talking point. Here's a typical exchange:

My uncle: But they're terrorists who hate America
Me: We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard
Him: We've gotten valuable information through these interrogation techniques
Me: The US still cannot tolerate this in any circumstance
Him: Why don't you stand behind the people that defend your freedom?

Last week brought about a typical exchange on the Kos community. First, Durbin makes his apt but controversial comments about torture and Kossacks say he shouldn't apologize. Then he does, and we scream bloody murder, and basically that the Republicans never apologize. Next, Rove makes his sickening commments, and we scream bloody murder again. Kossacks also point out knowingly that Rove will never apologize for something like this, and that the Republican caucus stuck together behind Rove.

To frustrated and out of power liberals like the Kos community, this demonstrates some strength in the Republican party. I don't think this is the case. Being unified and wrong has been an Administration trademark this term, and that extends to Rove's comments.

[more after the jump]

I like most of what Thomas Friedman writes. I even agree with most of it. But what the hell is going on with the absolutely blatant and shameless attempts to plug his book in every single column he writes? Today:

The French economic instinct is not one we want to start emulating now, just as the global playing field is being flattened, bringing in more competitors from Poland to China to India.

[more after the jump]