The Washington Post, as opposed to yesterday, actually discusses important issues today. However, it does so in a way to not offend Republicans.
The first is about the latest developments in trying to form a new government in Iraq. In 4 months, Dubya will hand control over to a government of the people of Iraq, but his administration's plan for doing so has been rejected by the Iraqi people and the UN, and there is no replacement plan. To me, this is a massive failure by the administration and a recipe for civil war and anarchy. To the Washington Post, this is "good news" because "it is now clearer what a successful transition will require."
The second dismisses everything about the Nader candidacy as "Not terribly convincing." The third is on a local issue and rips DC city leaders by name for not hiring a school superintendent. The Post continues its inexplicable strong interest in life in Russia with a piece on "A History Written In Chechen Blood."
Of the many opinion pieces on free trade that I have seen recently, David Ignatius gives the best defense. He first rips Kerry and Edwards for not embracing free trade. "This anti-trade talk is dangerous nonsense, and the Democrats should be embarrassed by it." And then he defends free trade by summarizing a recent speech by Greenspan. "Greenspan's gospel is simple, and backed by hard numbers: 'Over the long sweep of American generations and waves of economic change we simply have not experienced a net drain of jobs to advancing technology or to other nations.'" I don't find the piece persuasive because Ignatius doesn't cite any of Greenspan's hard numbers. If I have time, I will discuss the free trade argument later.
A member of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's environmental transition team writes a truly embarassing piece on how the Republican party is really environmentally friendly, as long as you ignore the national leadership for the last 10 years.
E. J. Dionne Jr. has by far the best piece of the day, asking a great question, "If Kerry's twenties and early thirties are destined to be an issue in this campaign, is it fair for the media to give the same years in Bush's life a pass just because he's the incumbent? To paraphrase John Edwards, will we have two standards, one for a Democratic challenger and one for a Republican president?" He then proceeds to rip Dubya pretending to not be critical of his opponents while he stands right next to people who attacks his opponents in the vilest ways.
Richard Cohen supports Nader's decision to run, but says, "Just don't expect me to follow." Cohen repeats the canard that Gore deserved to lose the 200 election because "Gore was such an abysmal candidate." See my comments here and here on why that is total bunk.