Great observation here.
...and, if they would serve the country, we might be able to relate to them a bit better.
They are basically so "far gone" when it comes to the "for the people" part of our national roots that they really are un-American in at least sense.
What's ironic is that they see the rest of the country as being the outsiders, when they are in a rapidly shrinking minority. They could reverse that, but only if they redefine themselves and change their behavior to become relevant to our nation's interests.
Posted by kleven-stein at May 10, 2009 06:55 AMIf the Republican party acted as an ideal Democratic party, where it did not favor wealthy If the Republican party acted as an ideal “Democratic party”, where it did not favor wealthy class or promote bigotry and religious fanaticism, but advocated health care, educational opportunities, and quality life for all Americans regardless of economic means, it would be possible to have a situation where the choice between two candidates would be a hard decision as to which candidate should be elected. Now as it exists, the Republican party seems to be for only malicious, evil, and covetous non- principals.
Posted by capalistpig at May 10, 2009 09:23 AMthe last time the "party of no" was relevant, Lincoln was alive...
the last time the fourth estate was effective,
B Franklin was the editor...
the sorry "state of the union", after their failures reflects it...
Posted by headxray at May 10, 2009 10:08 AMC.R.A.P.! All the republi-KKKons need is more party purity.
Posted by phidipides at May 10, 2009 12:47 PMMaybe its optimism, or maybe its just plain hope, but i think that instead of an obit for journalism this is a rehab of sorts for journalism. Though, this would require a bit of realistic introspection by the major dailies.
I'm truly hopeful that they will wake up and return to real reporting. Quit facilitating the public's taste for sensationalistic, sophomoric, binary writing and you WILL hve a strong following.
Also, I'd like to see a presentation of what "balanced journalism" is. Instead of poviding the same amount of column space to both sides of an issue (binary journalism). Provide apportion-al space. Esp with issues such as climate change. This "balanced" approach has completely skewed the issue and confused the public. Giving the deniers their respective amount of column space would really show the irrelevance of their argument.
No, i'm not arguing for stifling opposing views, simply giving them the statistical weight that is appropriate. IMO thus far, the only reason that there is much of an opposition to climate change issues is simply they are given much more cred and a larger voice than is appropriate.
In a science literate nation this would/should be largely unnecessary.
Posted by Simp at May 10, 2009 05:03 PMMayne more like this Simp...
"Wealthy Wall Street financiers and other business figures provided crucial support for Mr Obamaduring the election, backing him over the Republican candidate John McCain as the right leader to rescue the collapsing US economy.
But it is now dawning on many among them that Mr Obama was serious about his campaign trail promises to bring root and branch reform to corporate America - and that they were more than just election rhetoric. "
A lot of things are "dawning" on lots of people...
Posted by peter at May 10, 2009 09:14 PMTry this one on for size. You too Simp.
Maybe not all is dead. It takes a Russian...
Posted by peter at May 10, 2009 09:19 PMfrom all accounts anything resembling brain cells or common sense departed you long ago
shit-fer-brains pete, leaving your sole ability
the capacity to change your own diapers...
This should preface all your "comments".....
let that "dawn", asswipe.....
Posted by headxray at May 10, 2009 09:25 PM