The question in my mind is simple: if we lose the midterm elections to Republicans, how can we tell?

There will be subtle signs. For instance, there will be more Congressional scandals but Fox News will cover fewer of them.

How the heck did I miss the news about Mexico decriminalizing drugs "for personal use"? That's great!

There are too many big problems to deal with to continue exaggerating relatively small ones and coming up with bad policies that are simply excuses for power games.

Agree with him or disagree with him -- and I do some of both -- I have to admit that Ron Paul does seem to be one of the more honestly consistent Congresscritters. Granted, he doesn't have much competition. The only other one that I can think of at his level is Bernie Sanders.

Funny, that.

Let's not pretend to give Muslim countries the high moral ground: Iran has behaved horribly to the US and our allies.

I can't speak for Glenn, but I don't think anyone is giving them the high moral ground. Rather, Glenn is correctly pointing out that whatever US citizens may think, the US is not on the high moral ground.

There's no rule that says that some party in a conflict must occupy that territory. It's too often left totally unoccupied.

Note that I don't foolishly assume that means that everyone is equally bad or at fault, either. But being "less bad" -- whoever qualifies for that dubious honor -- isn't worth any bragging points.

Glenn wrote: "Despite that, 40% of Americans want to attack yet another one, and 1/3 want to invade. Those are the same people who, if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, will be walking around, eyebrows earnestly raised, innocent, self-righteous and confused, and asking: "why do they hate us??"

You're making the bold portion up.

He's making a prediction based solidly on past behavior.

Obliviousness and denial are common human traits, but for various historical, geographical, political, economic, and sociological reasons, people in the US are really really good at those things in this context.

Bearpaw:

It's very much not a prediction based solidly on past behavior--at least not without evidence. There is no evidence presented here that believing the U.S. should bomb/invade Muslim countries correlates in any way with wondering "why do they hate us?" (or even "they hate us because of our freedoms").

I'm not going to "present evidence" here to "correlate" the presence of light with being able to see, either. There are other factors involved of course ... including having eyes that aren't closed.

... except for all the stuff they put in to try to get "bipartisan support". All that for one Republican's tepid approval, and the volume on every other Repub congresscritters' "NO!" being turned down from 11 to 10.

Rejoice, lefties!

Had there emerged a principled, strong alternative voice opposing the new Democratic majority with compelling, well-thought-out challenges to our feelings and ideas- THEN we would be in for some worry and possibly some soul searching aprehension.

But that did not happen.

Rejoice? A principled, strong alternative voice would have been a good thing -- tougher for the Dems maybe, but much better for the country. Instead, we have Repubs grovelling to the wacko wing and Blue Dogs using Repubs as an excuse to grovel to their corporate masters.

Copiah County school Superintendent Ricky Clopton released a statement last week that the Wesson school’s “position is not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful, but is based upon sound educational policy and legal precedent."

Yeah, I'm so sure there's lots of educational research that shows that girls "learn their place" better when they have to wear "drapes".

... than cause Repubs to buy one more package of Depends than is absolutely necessary.

... Ben Bradlee and Katharine Graham. How embarrassed they must be by what the Post has become. (Yes, I know, Ms. Graham is dead.)

If the question is "Does Fox News have a double standard for ...?", the answer is "Yes". That's their business model and overarching corporate policy in a nutshell.

Glenn didn't praise people for, um, whatever it is you think he praised them for. He pointed out that rhetorically linking a majority point of view with "siding with the terrorists" is questionable -- particularly when that point of view is not at all outrageous.

It's one thing to point out that some of the opposition to the prize being awarded to Obama was mean-spirited and/or based on politics or prejudice, as some of it obviously was. It's another thing to lump all disagreement into the same box and dismiss it the same way that the Cheney Administration dismissed so many criticisms they were subjected to.

I actually found the DNC memo sort of amusing at first, in a man-bites-dog way, and no doubt there was a certain amount of tongue-in-cheekiness to it. But in retrospect, it was inappropriate to the occasion, and a dumb approach for anyone to take any further.

There's plenty of real things to criticize Obama about. Why the need to make shit up? Is it the fact that the real things worth criticizing are almost all continuations of Cheney Administration policies?

This is of a piece with the Dems who bend over backward to compromise with Repubs ... who then refuse to support the result.

Good idea. Let's pair it with a betting pool on how many people read Paglia's babble and spend lots of time posting outraged responses ... and in the process generating the page-hits that Salon loves to see. (On the plus side, a similar dynamic no doubt helps boost their page hits when Glenn posts a column. Though that's really the only way I can find any similarity between the two.)

I stopped reading Paglia's Salon columns when I realized out that it wasn't someone badly parodying her.