
The Mainstream Media FINALLY Realizes That the Republicans are the Problem
ProudProgressive
2012/05/03 00:38:12
The Mainstream Media Finally Realizes That the Republicans are the Problem
By: Rmuse
May 2, 2012
In every civilized country in the world, people are hesitant to take the government's, and particularly politician's, word as truth because they have agendas and policies to protect leaving the public to depend on news media to report unbiased analysis of a government or politician's activities. Since the terror attacks on 911, the media has been remiss to report the truth either out of fear of being labeled un-American or retribution by the Bush administration, and despite Republican claims of a "liberal media bias," the corporate-owned main stream media has failed to report the news in an unbiased and truthful manner. On Friday, in a commentary in the Washington Post, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein finally accurately reported that the reason Washington has become so dysfunctional that government is not working for the American people is because Republicans are the problem.
For political observers who are not on the neo-conservative payroll, it is obvious that the obstructionist Republicans who refuse to compromise on any issue are the sole reason for dysfunction in Congress, and there are three fundamental reasons they choose intransience over compromise. The first is rooted in the Republican ideology that government and the people exist to enrich the one percent of Americans controlling the lion's share of wealth in this country, and any agenda that does not favor wealth will meet an early death in Congress. The second reason is the Republican hatred of President Barack Obama that is founded in racism and disbelief that Americans dared to elect an African American man instead of a white neo-conservative to lead the country. The third reason is more difficult to quantify, but one can suggest that it is extremism with its basis in opposition to President Obama and a desire of fanatics to return to pre-Civil War America where minorities were property and guns were the law of the land. Republicans have, in effect, become an anti-American extremist sect that will take down the government and the American people before they will move one iota from their dysfunctional extremist position.
The Post article pointed to a recent comment by Representative Allen West (R-FL) who asserted on video that there are 78 to 81 Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party, and how there was no outrage or condemnation from other Republicans or the remaining presidential candidates. As the article pointed out, it is not all that unusual for an extremist nut-job to make outlandish and unsubstantiated remarks or assertions, but that West's intemperate comments are taken for granted and to some degree expected and condoned as legitimate political tactics portends just how far extremism has become the norm for the Republican Party.
Before George W. Bush was president, it was not unusual for both parties to give some ground in the interest of the people and to address the challenges of running the country. Indeed, Democrats conceded many positions during the Bush administration to keep the government functioning even though Republican policies were not economically sound, and to maintain America's standing as a unified nation in a time of crisis. However, since the election of Barack Obama, Republicans have adopted a zero-tolerance for compromise and began the President's term promising to obstruct any legislation including their own ideas. It is the first time in American history that one political party is more than willing to bring the entire country down before they will compromise, recognize "conventional understanding of facts, evidence or science, and more importantly, acknowledge the legitimacy of its political opposition."
The gridlock in Washington is entirely the fault of Republicans who were all too anxious to take any steps to deny President Obama a second term and oppose every initiative unanimously, and at the beginning of the 112th Congress sought to repeal any achievement to delegitimize the President and his policies. America's first credit downgrade in its history arrived because Republicans were unwilling to take a balanced approach to debt reduction by raising revenue in conjunction with spending cuts, and Republican budget proposals reflect that unbalanced approach will be the order of the day if Republicans win the White House and both houses of Congress. The ideological gap has been blamed on extremists in the teabag caucus, but the GOP was already lurching to the extremist right before the 2010 elections by refusing to govern; even from a minority position.
It is unclear why it took a mainstream media outlet like the Post so long to conclude the Republicans are the problem. Perhaps it is the real possibility that, as it stands today, the Republican Party is on pace to preside over an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions this country will never recover from whether they control both houses of Congress and the White House or just stand ready to obstruct any serious solutions to the nation's problems. It is bad enough that Republicans oppose any progress beyond the Bush disaster, but they have signaled their intent to make Bush policies look extremely liberal to the point that their hero, Ronald Reagan, would be tried and convicted as a Communist enemy of the American people for being too liberal for today's extremist Republicans.
It is evident that Republicans are not inclined to govern this country, and instead are willing to hand control over to wealthy industrialists who have no other intent but to subvert the Constitution and its procedures that dictate how the country is governed. Americans who do not follow politics may believe that both sides are guilty of creating gridlock and a dysfunctional government, and it is due to the media's lack of reporting and the constant barrage of right-wing media support for extremists. The Post article's authors cannot be accused of being liberal pundits because both are political scholars who have observed and studied Washington politics for 40 years and they represent both sides of the political divide.
As long as Republicans refuse to work for all the American people and remain steadfast in adhering to their extremist agenda of signing pledges to oppose sound economic policies, eschewing compromise for intransience, and returning to 14th century sensibilities in a 21st century world, democracy will eventually give way to a feudalistic society controlled by a few wealthy families and governed by theocrats to keep the population under control. Maybe now that one major newspaper has finally made an accurate appraisal of why America is in decline and why government is dysfunctional, others will follow suit because the alternative is unthinkable, but becoming more probable every day.
By: Rmuse
May 2, 2012
In every civilized country in the world, people are hesitant to take the government's, and particularly politician's, word as truth because they have agendas and policies to protect leaving the public to depend on news media to report unbiased analysis of a government or politician's activities. Since the terror attacks on 911, the media has been remiss to report the truth either out of fear of being labeled un-American or retribution by the Bush administration, and despite Republican claims of a "liberal media bias," the corporate-owned main stream media has failed to report the news in an unbiased and truthful manner. On Friday, in a commentary in the Washington Post, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein finally accurately reported that the reason Washington has become so dysfunctional that government is not working for the American people is because Republicans are the problem.
For political observers who are not on the neo-conservative payroll, it is obvious that the obstructionist Republicans who refuse to compromise on any issue are the sole reason for dysfunction in Congress, and there are three fundamental reasons they choose intransience over compromise. The first is rooted in the Republican ideology that government and the people exist to enrich the one percent of Americans controlling the lion's share of wealth in this country, and any agenda that does not favor wealth will meet an early death in Congress. The second reason is the Republican hatred of President Barack Obama that is founded in racism and disbelief that Americans dared to elect an African American man instead of a white neo-conservative to lead the country. The third reason is more difficult to quantify, but one can suggest that it is extremism with its basis in opposition to President Obama and a desire of fanatics to return to pre-Civil War America where minorities were property and guns were the law of the land. Republicans have, in effect, become an anti-American extremist sect that will take down the government and the American people before they will move one iota from their dysfunctional extremist position.
The Post article pointed to a recent comment by Representative Allen West (R-FL) who asserted on video that there are 78 to 81 Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party, and how there was no outrage or condemnation from other Republicans or the remaining presidential candidates. As the article pointed out, it is not all that unusual for an extremist nut-job to make outlandish and unsubstantiated remarks or assertions, but that West's intemperate comments are taken for granted and to some degree expected and condoned as legitimate political tactics portends just how far extremism has become the norm for the Republican Party.
Before George W. Bush was president, it was not unusual for both parties to give some ground in the interest of the people and to address the challenges of running the country. Indeed, Democrats conceded many positions during the Bush administration to keep the government functioning even though Republican policies were not economically sound, and to maintain America's standing as a unified nation in a time of crisis. However, since the election of Barack Obama, Republicans have adopted a zero-tolerance for compromise and began the President's term promising to obstruct any legislation including their own ideas. It is the first time in American history that one political party is more than willing to bring the entire country down before they will compromise, recognize "conventional understanding of facts, evidence or science, and more importantly, acknowledge the legitimacy of its political opposition."
The gridlock in Washington is entirely the fault of Republicans who were all too anxious to take any steps to deny President Obama a second term and oppose every initiative unanimously, and at the beginning of the 112th Congress sought to repeal any achievement to delegitimize the President and his policies. America's first credit downgrade in its history arrived because Republicans were unwilling to take a balanced approach to debt reduction by raising revenue in conjunction with spending cuts, and Republican budget proposals reflect that unbalanced approach will be the order of the day if Republicans win the White House and both houses of Congress. The ideological gap has been blamed on extremists in the teabag caucus, but the GOP was already lurching to the extremist right before the 2010 elections by refusing to govern; even from a minority position.
It is unclear why it took a mainstream media outlet like the Post so long to conclude the Republicans are the problem. Perhaps it is the real possibility that, as it stands today, the Republican Party is on pace to preside over an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions this country will never recover from whether they control both houses of Congress and the White House or just stand ready to obstruct any serious solutions to the nation's problems. It is bad enough that Republicans oppose any progress beyond the Bush disaster, but they have signaled their intent to make Bush policies look extremely liberal to the point that their hero, Ronald Reagan, would be tried and convicted as a Communist enemy of the American people for being too liberal for today's extremist Republicans.
It is evident that Republicans are not inclined to govern this country, and instead are willing to hand control over to wealthy industrialists who have no other intent but to subvert the Constitution and its procedures that dictate how the country is governed. Americans who do not follow politics may believe that both sides are guilty of creating gridlock and a dysfunctional government, and it is due to the media's lack of reporting and the constant barrage of right-wing media support for extremists. The Post article's authors cannot be accused of being liberal pundits because both are political scholars who have observed and studied Washington politics for 40 years and they represent both sides of the political divide.
As long as Republicans refuse to work for all the American people and remain steadfast in adhering to their extremist agenda of signing pledges to oppose sound economic policies, eschewing compromise for intransience, and returning to 14th century sensibilities in a 21st century world, democracy will eventually give way to a feudalistic society controlled by a few wealthy families and governed by theocrats to keep the population under control. Maybe now that one major newspaper has finally made an accurate appraisal of why America is in decline and why government is dysfunctional, others will follow suit because the alternative is unthinkable, but becoming more probable every day.
Read More: http://www.politicususa.com/mainstream-media-gop-p...
Top Opinion
-
CAROLYN NTARWNJBS 2012/05/03 01:35:22+12We're at a critical point and hopefully more will understand that republicans have become the enemy of the people.






















And my comment on this article is hardly based totally on my disagreement with the political viewpoints that presumably inspire it. Rather, the article is an illiterate presentation of manifestly muddled thinking.
Just look at the first sentence of the first paragraph. What does it mean? When the author says "people", does s/he mean "a few people"? "Some people"? "Most people"? "All people"? It's not like that is a purely literary criticism. If s/he means a few people, writing the article is a meaningless exercise. If s/he means all people, it is presumptuous to proceed as if there is agreement. And if your argument is that I'm premature in jumping all over the author before s/he has a chance to explain what his/her thesis is, you're all wet, because my next gripe is that the second sentence has nothing todo with the first. Explain the thesis? My arse. S/he's off on a different topic, albeit not too intelligibly so, but what of it is intelligible is nonsensical. How much terror the Bush Administration inspired in themedia in 2001 to 2009 is far from a given, but anyone who looks upon that alleged cowing of the Press as a contemporaneous consideration worthy of ment...
And my comment on this article is hardly based totally on my disagreement with the political viewpoints that presumably inspire it. Rather, the article is an illiterate presentation of manifestly muddled thinking.
Just look at the first sentence of the first paragraph. What does it mean? When the author says "people", does s/he mean "a few people"? "Some people"? "Most people"? "All people"? It's not like that is a purely literary criticism. If s/he means a few people, writing the article is a meaningless exercise. If s/he means all people, it is presumptuous to proceed as if there is agreement. And if your argument is that I'm premature in jumping all over the author before s/he has a chance to explain what his/her thesis is, you're all wet, because my next gripe is that the second sentence has nothing todo with the first. Explain the thesis? My arse. S/he's off on a different topic, albeit not too intelligibly so, but what of it is intelligible is nonsensical. How much terror the Bush Administration inspired in themedia in 2001 to 2009 is far from a given, but anyone who looks upon that alleged cowing of the Press as a contemporaneous consideration worthy of mention is so out of touch with reality that their screeds should be appearing in medical journal examining paranoid minds, not in journals of political comment.
Perhaps you think the second paragraph is better? The first sentence says the Republicans are the "sole reason for dysfunction in Congress"? Are you going to defend that? The "sole reason"? I utterly and completely detest Nancy Pelosi and what she and her allies did in her term as Speaker? But there's no way in hell I'm going to allege the dysfunction in Congress is limited to them. Or to them and Harry Reid. Or the Democrats. Anyone who thinks dysfunction in any area of government in Washington is limited to one party or one political school of thought has zero credibility to anyone with more than half a functioning brain.
Need I go on? For Chrissake, the author acts world-weary and exasperated because it has taken these impliedly paragons of objective journalism - Thomas Mann and Norman Orstein - so long to reach this conclusion he endorses. Why are you printing that? What does the rest of the crap in the article that you introduce have to say to an audience that accepts Ornstein and Mann for what the article author clearly believes they are?
You are entirely too energetic a poster on SH to beleaguer your SH colleagues with banal drivel like that posted in the intro to this thread.
Purely and simply based on his/her comments about the relationship between the media and the Republicans "Rmuse" is entitled to nothing but scorn for the ignornce he displays. And I don't say that because I necessarily buy 5100 into what the Republicans say about the press, rather, Rmuse claims that the press is operating under an ongoing fear of Republicans such that it refuses to report "the truth". Do you buy into that, too? If so, what is your claim, that the press has been unremittingly positive - or, at the very least, non-committal - on Republican positions throughout the period of the Obama Administration? Or is it that the press has released certain material that cannot be denied, but that it has held off on the "really good stuff" that would sink the Republicans for sure? Which is it? You can't buy into Rmuses's drivel w/o buying into one of those cl...
Purely and simply based on his/her comments about the relationship between the media and the Republicans "Rmuse" is entitled to nothing but scorn for the ignornce he displays. And I don't say that because I necessarily buy 5100 into what the Republicans say about the press, rather, Rmuse claims that the press is operating under an ongoing fear of Republicans such that it refuses to report "the truth". Do you buy into that, too? If so, what is your claim, that the press has been unremittingly positive - or, at the very least, non-committal - on Republican positions throughout the period of the Obama Administration? Or is it that the press has released certain material that cannot be denied, but that it has held off on the "really good stuff" that would sink the Republicans for sure? Which is it? You can't buy into Rmuses's drivel w/o buying into one of those claims or the other, perhaps both. But each of them, by reference to reality, is patently nonsense. There can be rational debate as to whether the Republicans are, as they maintain, unjustly pilloried in most network television coverage and coverage by major newspapers? But the argument is about "unjustly", there can be no rational denial of the fact that there is regular and repeated negative coverage of Republicans in most major media outlets.
Not that the failure to acknowledge the ongoing negative coverage of Republicans is the only error in Rmuse's essay is the only thing wrong with it. That error is merely the first major substantive error after a variety of minor and editorial missteps. If you want to defend the article, feel free, it only brings discredit to your side of the argument.
The term plutocracy is generally used to describe these two distinct concepts: one of a historical nature and one of a modern political nature. The former indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include the Roman Republic, some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage, the Italian city-states/merchant republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa, and pre-World War II Empire of Japan zaibatsus
The wealthy minority may exert influence over the political arena using many methods. Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporations or advocacy groups). These donations may be part of a cronyist or patronage system, in which major contributors and fund-raisers are rewarded with high-ranking government ap...
The term plutocracy is generally used to describe these two distinct concepts: one of a historical nature and one of a modern political nature. The former indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include the Roman Republic, some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage, the Italian city-states/merchant republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa, and pre-World War II Empire of Japan zaibatsus
The wealthy minority may exert influence over the political arena using many methods. Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporations or advocacy groups). These donations may be part of a cronyist or patronage system, in which major contributors and fund-raisers are rewarded with high-ranking government appointments. While campaign donations need not directly affect the legislative decisions of elected representatives, politicians have a personal interest in serving the needs of their campaign contributors: if they fail to do so, those contributors will likely give their money to candidates who do support their interests in the future. Unless a quid pro quo agreement exists, it is generally legal for politicians to advocate policies favorable to their contributors, or grant appointed government positions to them. In some systems there are also mechanisms of patronage. The UK, for example, uses a variety of means to reward individuals that hold the same values or interests. These include honours such as medals and honorary titles.
In some instances, extremely wealthy individuals have financed their own political campaigns. Many corporations and business interest groups pay lobbyists to maintain constant contact with elected officials, and press them for favorable legislation. Owners of mass media outlets, and the advertisement buyers which financially support them can shape public perception of political issues by controlling the information available to the population and the manner in which it is presented.
In modern times, the term is often used to refer to societies rooted in state-corporate capitalism and the prioritization of endless accumulation of wealth over other interests, like public health, education, or the environment. According to Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."[3]
In some instances, extremely wealthy individuals have financed their own political campaigns. Many corporations and business interest groups pay lobbyists to maintain constant contact with elected officials, and press them for favorable legislation. Owners of mass media outlets, and the advertisement buyers which financially support them can shape public perception of political issues by controlling the information available to the population and the manner in which it is presented.
your posts always give me a laugh
In any case, if you're going to hurl accusations of stupidity it's best to avoid looking stupid yourself.
Show me a budget Proud. Until then, you're pissing in the wind and your economic "ideas" are less than useless.
I realize you're trying to rally the troops, but it seems your message is falling on learned ears.
Come on Jimbo. You and I both know this is ridiculous. What are they hiding?