As to the idea of a party's leadership ignoring its voters, I'd say that's exactly what happened in the case of Democrats and the FISA amendments last summer. It fits in perfectly with the phenomenon Glenn has long described - how the establishment views Democrats as being stronger when they're ignoring their base, a logic which isn't applied nearly as frequently to Republicans.

This post is the best articulation I've ever seen of the perils of the long-term conflation of one's own country's interests with those of another.

If you can't grasp the difference between granite countertops and indoor plumbing, then you've made my point better than I ever could about Americans' not being able to distinguish between wants and needs.

This isn't meant as a personal slam against you, as I don't know your circumstances, and I also realize there are many people carrying credit card debt for perfectly understandable reasons: a catastrophic medical problem, urgently needed home repairs, etc.

Yet your posting is confirmation for me that far too many Americans have adopted debt as a lifestyle of sorts, and seem to believe that, not only do they have the right to live above their means, they have the right to do it at low rates of interest. That's partly why the country is in the mess it's in. Our parents and grandparents managed to get by without granite countertops, zero-degree refrigerators, and a new car every two years, but over the past 20 years I've watched as homes and cars have become supersized and my fellow Americans have become like spoiled children. "I want it - and I want it now!"

Unfortunately we live in a corporate oligarchy that seeks to squeeze middle income and poor people for every dime it can get and transfer that wealth upwards. The only rational response to that is to defy them. Shop minimally. Pay cash for as much as you can, and be very conservative about when and how you take out debt. Buy locally and directly from a producer whenever possible. Save and invest.

People trying to sell us stuff in the mass media are not our friends. The moment you "have" to have something, the battle is lost. It's all about distinguishing wants from needs. That word "no" is pretty powerful. We should all learn to practice it a bit more often.

Since at least the 1930s, the Republican Party has done everything it could to undermine unions and, more broadly speaking, the right of all people to earn a living wage. This anti-worker posture is much more constant in the party's history than its reliance on the religious right, which only came along with Reagan. Anyone who is surprised by their recent actions hasn't been paying attention.

My take on this is exactly opposite the Republican senators'. The UAW did its job well - to get the best possible deal it could for its members. Management, however, was derelict in its duty, which was to agree only to what it thought was sustainable for the long term. Why? Although I try never to underestimate incompetence, I think the bigshots always thought that they were "too big to fail," and that the government would come to their rescue when times got hard. So it was easier to placate even unreasonable union demands than to go through the unpleasantness of a strike. After all, they could always count on the taxpayers.

But of course, you won't hear Republicans demanding the resignation of the top tier of executives in return for government help. Those are God's people, after all, not the great unwashed on the assembly lines.

Why are the problems of Blagojevich the business of the president-elect? If Obama is innocent of any involvement in the corruption (and I have no reason to believe that he isn't), why doesn't he just allow the normal proceedings to run their course? (And if he were involved, it would definitely be improper of him to interfere.)

Either Blagojevich is guilty or he isn't, and in any case that isn't for Obama to decide. That's the business of various relevant parties: the prosecutor, a jury, maybe the Illinois legislature, and the governor himself.

In all seriousness, why should anyone care what Obama thinks in this case? Piling on helps feed the presumption of guilt, regardless of how carefully some PR flack worded the statement.

Personally, I think Blagojevich is as corrupt as the day is long, but doesn't the guy have a right to a trial? Unless he's pled guilty, he isn't yet a criminal, factually speaking.

I really hate the tendency we have in this country to convict people by mass media and public opinion. Blagojevich should stay in office as long as he wants, or until he is convicted of something and/or impeached and thrown out. Obama should butt out. The fact that the whole episode may be embarrassing for the president-elect is just too bad.

That's quite a promise in the sub-headline - massive public works without raising taxes.

Once you get down toward the end of the article, though, the flimsiness of the idea becomes apparent. First, it's contingent upon ending the "war" in Iraq. (Aside: isn't the current situation in Iraq best described as "occupation"? Why will no journalist use that word?) Yes, Obama has pledged to withdraw troops, but that will take a while, and how much in savings will we truly realize? How much in spending cuts will the military-industrial complex really allow? This is a major TBD item.

Second, the significant appeal of muni bonds is their tax-free interest. Will the same privilege be available to investors in these new federal bonds? I skimmed the link to the bill, but didn't see any mention of that.

I'm all for a massive increase in infrastructure spending, and the country badly needs it. But this article needs a large dose of skepticism. This is just a recipe for more indebtedness, which, though not necessarily a bad thing in today's economy, is hardly new.