criticizing Pelosi will only help her cause. Right now, America doesn't trust these clowns to change a tire.

Today's Washington Post published a hit piece on Pelosi on its editorial page.
The crafting smells like that of Fred Hiatt.

Ever since Katharine Graham died, the WaPo has been drifting toward the right. The publication has not yet rid itself of all of its serious investigative journalists, but it has become more and more of a stenographic transmission belt for the Bush Administration, both in news coverage and in the paper's own editorial policy.

Today's editorial has a strident tone of defensive desperation. It appears as though Fred Hiatt has gone completely over to the Dark Side.

Maybe Hiatt should join Darth Cheney behind that bush--either one--on the White House lawn.

by the Washington Post.  Maybe they should change their slogan to "fair and balanced," like Fox News, or change "Post" to "Times" in their name and be done with it?  Basically, the Washington Post's editorial agenda can be summarized as follows:

*Hawkish on foreign policy; Congress should defer to the Commander in Chief
*Pro "free trade," as opposed to "fair trade"
*The establishment is rarely wrong
*Incumbents of either party are great
*Populism is really really scary; "responsible" people wear nice suits and sit in plush corporate board rooms
*Progressivism...what's that?  Whatever it is, we don't like it.
*Pro-environment (one good thing about the Post)

Anything else that should be added to this list?

I felt that I was going crazy when reading one conservative editorial after another in their pages.

Although there must be someone else who write more liberal editorials as well, because sometimes you see liberal positions that indirectly contradict position previously made.

By the way, have they apologized yet for being in support of going into war in Iraq?

For about four or five years I was able to get home delivery of the Washington Post down here in Blacksburg.  We were fed up with the crazy LTEs we get down here, and the ever shrinking news sections of the Roanoke and Blacksburg papers.  We'd get "aren't squirrels cute" columns on the commentary page, and for a time, even ads.  Fortunately the RT stopped advertising on the commentary page. But they hired a new "slice of life" columist for the commentary page.  Why isn't this in the Extra section?

Then abruptly the WAPO canceled home delivery in this area.  The thing is, in that short period of time, they became visibly more tilted right.  I didn't know it possible for a paper to change so much in so short a period. 

I still read some of it online. But I do not miss the daily subscription tossed in my driveway.  I must say, though, even people like Hiatt, with whom I rarely agree, seem preferable to one blogger-turned columnist the RT hired for a regular column last fall.  His blog was called "From on High."  He has since left the RT.  But more local right-wing writers have been hired in his place.  They didn't hire any liberal local writers. 

Both Katherine and Phil Graham are spinning in their graves right now.  Sad to see a once great newspaper turn into Fox News in print.  Just disgusting.  It must have been a great town to be in back in the New Deal days, with Ed Prichard, Phil and Katherine Graham and all those other great thinkers who were building the Democratic Party from the ground up.

With the Post completely sold out to the right and the New York Times suffering their own problems when administration flaks like Judith Miller were on the loose--it's just sad.  The paper of record in 2007 is the one you put together on your desktop with RSS feeds and Google alerts. Lots of news and opinion out there--just not very much that's any good.

After years of W's "with us"/"against-us" approach to foreign policy- folks have forgotten what acts of diplomacy look like. To engage in dialogue - to acknowledge or understand differences is not an act of war.
As Speaker of the house she is second in line to the presidency, and we would expect her to be as knowledgeable/capable on foreign policy matters as domestic matters. Thank-you Nancy.

Check out http://www.juancole....

Cole suggests that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and even AIPAC are finally seeing the futility of pursuing the neocon delusion of using war to deconstruct and reassemble the Middle East. American neocons and the American Enterprise Institute (not to mention the array of affiliated neocon think tanks and "institutes") now stand far to the right even of Olmert's Kadima Party. In Israel, only Netanyahu's 9-member parliamentary faction has views that are as extreme as those of the neocon/AEI zealots in the U.S.

A return of Olmert and AIPAC to pragmatism would go hand-in-hand with Nancy Pelosi's (and the Democratic Party's) preference for trying diplomacy instead of endless military conflict in the region. Olmert, the Democrats (led by Pelosi), the Syrians, and the Saudis may well now be groping for a way out of the rubble created by Richard Perle, Karl Rove, William Kristol, Elliot Abrams (convicted felon, still on Bush's NSC), Condoleezza Rice, Richard Cheney, the AEI populizers of the failed, utterly discredited neocon mythology.

Let us see whether there will be any interesting public signals during Speaker Pelosi's visit to Saudi Arabia today. The Saudis seem to be spreading the word that they have given up on trying to do business with the Bush Administration (Cole quoted an Iraqi press summary of Saudi news to this effect yesterday.) Perhaps the Saudis can do business with the Democrats, or at least set the stage and help keep the lid on the cauldron until regime change comes to America in 2009.

with the Bush Administration.  Sheesh, what a cluster****.  Anyway, I would be very glad to see that the right-wing elements in AIPAC and in the "Christian Zionist" community be sidelined in favor of a Rabin-style, tough-nosed, pragmatic, peace-oriented policy.  Most American Jews want Israel to reach a just peace deal with its neighbors.  I believe that most Israelis want the same thing.  Unfortunately, there are too many people on all sides who are wedded to maximalist approaches (e.g., throwing the Jews into the Mediterranean on the Palestinian side, annexing all of "Judea and Samaria" on the Israeli side) with too much power and influence.  They need to be marginalized.  I hope the Saudi plan is used as a starting point for serious negotations, and soon!

I haven't agreed with Pelosi on a couple of things (for example, taking the I-word off the table, for example.  With it off the table there is no incentive for W. to "behave.")  However, she did the right thing going and trying to accomplish something.  And I am proud of her for doing so. 

The Bush administration's neglect of the peace process begs for those in a position to achieve something to do so.  Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.  She not only has a right to be there, but a responsibility to do so.

I do, however, think candidates should limit their meddling.  I cringe at the idea that Bill Richardson is trying to grandstand again, this time in North Korea.  So, I think candidates need to take care with what they do and say while abroad.  Fact-finding is good.  But using difficult situations for political purposes is dangerous. 

she is (gasp!) a woman. This drives the new Republicans absolutely bonkers, given their intense devotion to the macho tough-guy leadership model, the Father Knows Best philosophy of the "Daddy Party" republicans. They lump Pelosi and Clinton together as "shrill" and emasculating shrews who almost literally scare the pants off the Big Men of republicanism. The flacks of Fox and others who try to pose as impartial pundits repeatedly attack both Pelosi and Clinton with misogynist terminology, including characterizing their voices as nagging, their policies as bird-brained, weak, and defeatist in contrast, of course, to the fine, firm, male leadership of El Busho.

This is gender warfare at its finest, which meshes neatly with the class warfare of the republican party. 

I'm interested in all of your comments--and pretty surprised that no one on this site can see the benefit of having a unified foreign policy toward the outside world, even if we're tearing each other apart with policy fights internally.

Foreign policy is one arena in which there really can be too many cooks in the kitchen--an area uniquely suited to executive leadership (even crappy executive leadership).

And there is a huge difference between a congressman traveling overseas and the speaker of the house--one whose title conveys authority to speak for the government--addressing foreign leaders in foreign settings. 

It should be obvious to those with a cursory knowledge of international relations that mixing messages with too many messengers is a disaster waiting to happen.  Foreign governments could start playing one leader off of another and triangulating the US government.  In addition, there is a real "democracy problem" with a woman who has been elected by the people of her district and ackowledged by her caucus speaking for the United States as opposed to just the caucus that elected her. That simply isn't her role.

I believe in the new democratic congress--I'm thankful for the pressure they're putting on the president and for the leadership of the new speaker INTERNALLY.  I hope she'll continue to fight the president tooth and nail in the congress to change foreign policy.  I also hope she'll not do this sort of thing again.

I think that what you say makes a lot of sense in normal times.  Unfortunately, we are not in normal times.  With the speed that bush-cheney are making blunder after blunder we cannot wait until they leave office to come up with a better foreign policy.  If I felt that bush-cheney were willing to honestly listen to other viewpoints and to honestly ponder them, there would be hope.  However, from what I see, bush is isolated and so convinced that he is right that he will absolutely listen to no one else.  You either do things his way or he stumps his feet and throws a temper tantrum like a little boy. I have never feared for the future of America like I do now.  I agree with some of the possible risks that you mention but I don't think we have any other choice.

Here's a Media Matter's link to their action page.  I've been monitoring CNN's (and some of MSNBC's)reactions to Pelosi's trip.  And they are talking right out of the Rovian playbook.  So, go for it!  Help Media Matters respond!

http://mediamatters....

Doesn't mean they are taking pages out of Rovian playbooks.  None of you have a lock on "democratic" thinking--and just because media outlets think its ridiculous for a speaker of the house to start acting on foreign policy (cause it is!) doesn't mean they're sympathetic to the president or karl rove.

Aren't you all worried about the precedent we're setting?  Why not the minority leader?  Or the Senate leaders?  Why wouldn't they all be having their own talks with foreign leaders--contradicting the US Government as they see fit.

When we have a democratic president, the republicans will point to this moment as justification for why its OK for their Congressional leaders to make contact with foreign leaders on behalf of the US.  BAD POLICY--I can't believe you all are letting your hatred of this white house cloud your bigger picture vision on separation of powers.

When the Communist Chinese beat the Chiang Kaichek Nationalists, and the latter retreated to Taiwan, the Republicans were sure "the Fall of China" was engineered by a conspiracy of the socialist  damned Democrats (I was a Republican in those days, and we really did wonder). Thereafter we had a Republican Senator from California whose name, I believe, was Knowlton, and he constantly schmoozed with Madame Chiang Kaicheck (she was one of those gorgeous Soong sisters who married well), spent much time in Taipeh, and lobbied so often in support of Nationalist China that he was usually referred to as "the Senator from Taiwan."

In other words, Pelosi's visit is not the first cruise of an opposite party non-executive into foreign policy, nor will it be the last. Pelosi's group included a Republican member of Congress, and her trip could be regarded therefore as one of those frequent investigative or educational trips so beloved by members of Congress.

Personally, I understand the concern of the President about the constitutional question of non-executives sticking their nose into American foreign policy, which is supposedly the purview of the executive branch. However, his concern is rather amusing given his own blythe attacks on the constitution in every imaginable field from warrantless searches to torture to signing statements and on and on. Sort of the pot calling the kettle blackie, truth be told. 

Given the innumerable blunders over the past 6 years by Bush, given the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and given the November election's resounding demand for a change of course--- well, Pelosi did the right thing.