Quantcast

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.

Read More: http://www.politicususa.com/mainstream-media-gop-p...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Jrogers 2012/05/08 14:11:22
    Jrogers
    What took them so long - Fear? What were they afraid of the Republican's? Or maybe it was the absolute control over the media that a certain right winger had for many years. Think filthy rich old white guy who has had to defend himself in court recently - That is what comes to mind for me
  • Megz 2012/05/05 12:25:54
    Megz
    okayy ://
  • ETpro 2012/05/04 15:19:29 (edited)
    ETpro
    +2
    Mann and Ornstein are so right. It's time for the Mainstream Media to return to real journalism and tell the truth rather than serve up pablum designed to offend nobody. That approach hasn't won them any praise on the rabid right anyway. It's tantamount to trying to appease an Adolph Hitler. It is doomed to failure.
  • Giantfan 2012/05/04 03:08:37
    Giantfan
    +4
    Actually it is easier to see republicans are the problem then it is for a republican to add one plus one and come up with two.
  • goinpostal 2012/05/03 21:05:51
    goinpostal
    +5
    BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/05/03 11:53:41
  • aneed2know 2012/05/03 11:14:51
    aneed2know
    +8
    Hey proud another great posting, and of course the usual haters are out in force, and please do not block them i love hearing what they say. They are the true Kings of Comedy.
  • Cap 2012/05/03 08:50:51
    Cap
    Proud Progressive, where do you get this crap? No, a better question, "Why do you get this crap?"

    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...





    Proud Progressive, where do you get this crap? No, a better question, "Why do you get this crap?"

    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.
    (more)
  • Giantfan Cap 2012/05/04 03:13:21
    Giantfan
    +4
    Actually his comment here is called reality. Forget about where he got the article from. Open your eyes and see for yourself then inhale and smell the coffee. If you can't see republaicans as the problem and smell the crap they leave behind then you don't belong speaking with intellectuals on any level.
  • Cap Giantfan 2012/05/04 04:01:48
    Cap
    +1
    You think that drivel represents reality? You need to do much much more than merely wake up, inhale, and smell the coffee. You are supporting a comment that excuses people. As I point out in my comment, a reader doesn't get more than halfway into the first paragraph before the author talks about a media being fearful of retribution by the Bush administration, apparently even on a current basis. That is reality?

    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...

    You think that drivel represents reality? You need to do much much more than merely wake up, inhale, and smell the coffee. You are supporting a comment that excuses people. As I point out in my comment, a reader doesn't get more than halfway into the first paragraph before the author talks about a media being fearful of retribution by the Bush administration, apparently even on a current basis. That is reality?

    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.
    (more)
  • Giantfan Cap 2012/05/04 14:18:12 (edited)
    Giantfan
    +2
    Well Cheney had a reputation of being a sarcastic and vindictive person. Bush couldn't take criticism well either. Now you must admit that conservatives are more the ones who get even if they feel wronged. That's one reason they consider liberals whimps. Liberals are more likely to forgive and move on and conservatives are more likely to get even. There is more than just one grain of truth in that statement. Forgiveness is not a traite of conservatives. Revenge on the other hand is. Unforturnatetly the world needs both types. Revenge to keep people in fear of taking advantage of someone and forgiveness so as not to get everyone hating you all the time.
  • Cap Giantfan 2012/05/04 16:24:41
    Cap
    +1
    I didn't say or even mean to imply that anyone forgave and forgot. Cheney and Bush could be every bit as vengeful and mean-spirited as you allege - my point is that they no longer can direct government in service of their ire. As to whether liberals are more mean spirited than conservatives, I'll tell you what, you can have both positions, I'll take the side that both schools have ample numbers of vindictive avengers of real/fancied personal/political slights..
  • Giantfan Cap 2012/05/04 18:25:27
    Giantfan
    +1
    This is why people hate politics but it isn't just politices. It's people in powerful positions. Politicians, bosses, coaches, police, judges etc. And there are just people who are nasty by nature. That article could refer to almost any person alive so in that sense it was accurate to a degree. I'm not going to worry about it. I don't worry about things I have no control over. I just watch and read all the nasty comments here on SH and know rude is not going away anytime soon.
  • EdVenture 2012/05/03 06:05:35
    EdVenture
    This philosophy has been in motion sice the Bill of Rights, which was drafted to protect wealthy buniess interests. Plutocracy (from Ancient Greek ploutos, meaning "wealth", and kratos, meaning "power, rule") is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.[citation needed]
    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...


    This philosophy has been in motion sice the Bill of Rights, which was drafted to protect wealthy buniess interests. Plutocracy (from Ancient Greek ploutos, meaning "wealth", and kratos, meaning "power, rule") is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.[citation needed]
    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.
    (more)
  • Radlad 2012/05/03 05:09:22
    Radlad
    This entire article is nothing but bovine excrement. This clone Rmuse needs to lay off the drugs cause he is not in touch with reality. proudre-gressive, if you believe this tripe to actually suggest that the msm is in the republicans corner or on its payroll you'll lose whatever credibility you think you have and prove yourself a mindless partisan political hack. Just a mindless drone. I don't meam that in a bad way. When has the gop not caved into obummer? Exactly who are you trying to convience here on sodaheads on passing on this bovine excrement. All of us or you?
  • sjalan 2012/05/03 04:51:36
    sjalan
    +9
    The civilized world has known this for some time.
  • Lady Wh... sjalan 2012/05/03 11:54:35
    Lady Whitewolf
    +5
    agreed
  • dave s 2012/05/03 03:30:18
    dave  s
    LOL

    your posts always give me a laugh
  • whitewulf--the unruly mobster 2012/05/03 01:43:22
  • Walter Harris 2012/05/03 01:41:47
    Walter Harris
    +7
    the republicans only work for the rich
  • Lady Wh... Walter ... 2012/05/03 11:55:03
    Lady Whitewolf
    +5
    No kiddin' !!!!
  • CAROLYN NTARWNJBS 2012/05/03 01:35:22
    CAROLYN NTARWNJBS
    +12
    We're at a critical point and hopefully more will understand that republicans have become the enemy of the people.

    Party of no
  • Bali CAROLYN... 2012/05/03 01:38:35
    Bali
    +2
    delusional much?
  • whitewu... CAROLYN... 2012/05/03 01:44:29
  • Heptarch whitewu... 2012/05/03 02:13:23
    Heptarch
    +8
    I find it ironic that you post a picture accusing liberals of stupidity yet can't be bothered to use an apostrophe correctly.
  • whitewu... Heptarch 2012/05/03 03:07:57
  • Heptarch whitewu... 2012/05/03 13:49:37
    Heptarch
    +5
    Hey, if you're going to get on your high horse and accuse an entire group of stupidity, best make sure your accusation is, itself, free from stupidity. Wouldn't you agree?
  • whitewu... Heptarch 2012/05/03 17:26:48
  • Heptarch whitewu... 2012/05/03 17:39:26 (edited)
    Heptarch
    +5
    No, it's your opinion. You always have a tough time differentiating the two.

    In any case, if you're going to hurl accusations of stupidity it's best to avoid looking stupid yourself.
  • Lady Wh... CAROLYN... 2012/05/03 11:55:25
    Lady Whitewolf
    +4
    LOLZ EXCELLENT!
  • Nestofa... CAROLYN... 2012/05/03 19:23:22
    Nestofasssps
    +1
    Perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • CAROLYN... Nestofa... 2012/05/03 21:00:46
    CAROLYN NTARWNJBS
    Thanks! :)
  • tommyg - POTL- PWCM-JLA 2012/05/03 01:33:18
    tommyg - POTL- PWCM-JLA
    +2
    Sound economic policies? OMG LMFAO!

    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.
  • Jimbo tommyg ... 2012/05/03 09:32:43
    Jimbo
    +3
    Show me one from the GOP that is passed? CRs came from the Dems and CRs have come from the GOP House in funding the government.
  • tommyg ... Jimbo 2012/05/03 13:32:08
    tommyg - POTL- PWCM-JLA
    I can show you one that passed the House and now lays on the floor of Harry Reids office. What was the vote in the House on Obama's last 2 attempts? Good lord, even the Dems run from it.

    Come on Jimbo. You and I both know this is ridiculous. What are they hiding?
  • ★~DoctorWhoGuru~★ 2012/05/03 01:15:14
  • Mr. T ★~Docto... 2012/05/03 01:24:13
    Mr. T
    +3
    Agree...Obama has to go, along with his communist / socialists butt buddies.
  • whitewu... ★~Docto... 2012/05/03 01:45:53
  • Lady Wh... ★~Docto... 2012/05/03 11:55:55
    Lady Whitewolf
    +3
    AGREED
  • Mr. T 2012/05/03 01:07:24
    Mr. T
    +4
    MSM...there is the problem. About as Obama biased as they come. Come on PP, you are brighter than this I know it.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/01 00:34:08

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals