The Daily Show, on which Jon Stewart gave a smackdown to Jim Cramer of CNBC's Mad Money show, is both entertainment and the kind of journalism we need to see more of -- where journalists are well-informed, ask probing questions, and do not accept glib answers, obfuscation, or outright lying without followup.
But we had to wait for a comedian to do it !!!
This is a major indictment of the current state of journalism, which too often thinks it's job is simply to present both sides of a controversy, without doing the background work to be informed or applying logic and common sense in questioning the obvious.
Newspapers are on the verge of collapse all over, with predictions that even some major cities will shortly be without a local daily newspaper. Of course the internet, cable news, and plummeting advertising sales are mostly to blame.
But I also give some blame to the low state that journalism has sunk in the Bush/Cheney era. Where are the courageous investigative journalists of the past? Only a few exceptions like Seymore Hersh, who broke the Abu Graib story.
"An informed public" is as much a necessity for a democracy to work as are the other three branches of our system. We seem to be fast losing an effective "4th branch." The internet and bloggers are taking up the slack, and some of the best reporting is taking place there. But they don't have the resources for the sometimes costly investigations that are essential. We'll see whether that develops into an effective counter to the misinformation bilged out daily on talk radio and most TV news reading.
Here is the link to the clips from the Stewart interview:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/03/jon_stewart_interview_with_jim_cramer.php
Ralph
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Obama's reach
The Nation's Robert Borosage (Mar 23, 2009 issue) says that President Obama's first budget "is an audacious plan to transform America."
Even while dealing with the economic crisis, he demands that we address the nation's most pressing problems, from catastrophic climate change to a broken health care system, from energy policy to a faultering education system, from Wall St. to Main St. And then, when the economy has stabilized and returned to growth, he will call for a new tax policy that addresses the growing gap between the wealthy class and the working class.
If he is able to get this budget enacted, with its policy implications, this will be the most ambitious progressive program at least since Lindon Johnson's Great Society; some are saying since FDR's New Deal.
But it will be difficult, and special interests are already gearing up. It won't just be the "Say No" Republicans. Quoting Borosage:
Even while dealing with the economic crisis, he demands that we address the nation's most pressing problems, from catastrophic climate change to a broken health care system, from energy policy to a faultering education system, from Wall St. to Main St. And then, when the economy has stabilized and returned to growth, he will call for a new tax policy that addresses the growing gap between the wealthy class and the working class.
If he is able to get this budget enacted, with its policy implications, this will be the most ambitious progressive program at least since Lindon Johnson's Great Society; some are saying since FDR's New Deal.
But it will be difficult, and special interests are already gearing up. It won't just be the "Say No" Republicans. Quoting Borosage:
To help pay for this, he slaughters many sacred cows. He'll slash the obscene subsidies handed to insurance companies to compete with Medicare. Reduce prescription drug prices. Cut subsidies to agribusiness. Let Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 expire. Tax the earnings of equity fund managers as income. Cut subsidies to oil companies. Eliminate banks from the student loan program.This will spark the mother of all budget battles. Agribusiness, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Wall Street, the business, insurance and military lobbies--all are gearing up multimillion-dollar campaigns to block, limit or delay the change. Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, will offer massive resistance, railing against deficit spending and taxes. A citizen mobilization will be needed across the country to sustain the reforms. Soon after the budget rollout, Obama warned the country that the lobbyists and interests are "gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: so am I."
---------
But none of this should distract from the scope of the battle ahead. The president has repudiated the failed conservative policies of the past and called on the country to change course. He has put forth a budget that calls for sweeping change. He has raised the stakes. This will be a transformational presidency if he succeeds. We dare not let him fail.
We dare not let him fail. If we do, it will set back progressive reform for another generation. This is the moment. We dare not let US fail.
Ralph
More GA Legislature shenanigans
I guess I shouldn't parade our dirty laundry in public, buy I don't consider it "ours," since our state government is entirely under the control of the Republicans. Here are a few more shenanigans:
1. While the tax on groceries died in committee, the bill to eliminate the ad valorem auto tax is still viable. Rich people have lots of expensive cars, so they will benefit from eliminating the tax on cars. Even though the grocery tax failed, you can see the strategy: eliminate the tax on wealthy folks and put the tax on something poor people have to have: food.
2. Although saner heads stripped the stem cell bill of its definition of a one-day old embryo as a human being and removed the ban on the destruction of embryos for research purposes, the bill to prevent the creation of embryos for the purpose of scientific research continues. Presumably this would still allow "extras" left over from in vitro fertilization processes to be used, but the tone of the debate still has a chilling effect on attracting scientists to our research universities.
3. Another bill would allow for the "adoption" of embryos. Not sure what that entails, but it sounds like another desperate attempt from the right-to-lifers to make any headway they can.
4. Although it's not yet a bill, Rep. Timothy Bearden says he will introduce one to allow him to enter the Atlanta airport with his gun. Last year, Bearden's bill was passed that allows owners of licensed guns to carry them on public transportation and in parks and restaurants. The airport authority refuses to allow it, and it wound up in court when Bearden challenged them. He lost in a lower court and now has lost on appeal.
Why Bearden needs to go armed into the airport is a mystery to me, but he claims he needs to protect his family. I don't think he's claiming the right to carry his gun on a plane; just to visit the airport. But it should be the safest place in the city. It makes no sense except as a "you can't tell me I can't carry my gun" issue.
Bearden says he will introduce a bill to spell out what was clearly the legislative intent, which will then over-ride the court decision. It's too late for this year's session, but stay tuned. At least we're safe for another year from shoot-outs in the baggage claim area.
But I have a suggestion. The airport has wonderful assistance for handicapped travelers: wheel chairs with escorts right there at the front door to take you to your plane. Let's provide a personal body guard for anyone who feels unsafe without his gun in the airport area. It would eliminate any rational reason for someone to carry a gun, and it would also provide a few extra jobs in these tough economic times.
Ralph
1. While the tax on groceries died in committee, the bill to eliminate the ad valorem auto tax is still viable. Rich people have lots of expensive cars, so they will benefit from eliminating the tax on cars. Even though the grocery tax failed, you can see the strategy: eliminate the tax on wealthy folks and put the tax on something poor people have to have: food.
2. Although saner heads stripped the stem cell bill of its definition of a one-day old embryo as a human being and removed the ban on the destruction of embryos for research purposes, the bill to prevent the creation of embryos for the purpose of scientific research continues. Presumably this would still allow "extras" left over from in vitro fertilization processes to be used, but the tone of the debate still has a chilling effect on attracting scientists to our research universities.
3. Another bill would allow for the "adoption" of embryos. Not sure what that entails, but it sounds like another desperate attempt from the right-to-lifers to make any headway they can.
4. Although it's not yet a bill, Rep. Timothy Bearden says he will introduce one to allow him to enter the Atlanta airport with his gun. Last year, Bearden's bill was passed that allows owners of licensed guns to carry them on public transportation and in parks and restaurants. The airport authority refuses to allow it, and it wound up in court when Bearden challenged them. He lost in a lower court and now has lost on appeal.
Why Bearden needs to go armed into the airport is a mystery to me, but he claims he needs to protect his family. I don't think he's claiming the right to carry his gun on a plane; just to visit the airport. But it should be the safest place in the city. It makes no sense except as a "you can't tell me I can't carry my gun" issue.
Bearden says he will introduce a bill to spell out what was clearly the legislative intent, which will then over-ride the court decision. It's too late for this year's session, but stay tuned. At least we're safe for another year from shoot-outs in the baggage claim area.
But I have a suggestion. The airport has wonderful assistance for handicapped travelers: wheel chairs with escorts right there at the front door to take you to your plane. Let's provide a personal body guard for anyone who feels unsafe without his gun in the airport area. It would eliminate any rational reason for someone to carry a gun, and it would also provide a few extra jobs in these tough economic times.
Ralph
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Odds and ends
My internet connection has been down for a couple of days. Now that I'm back online, here are a few tidbits that caught my attention:
1. Gov. Sarah Palin campaigned vociferously against the evil of earmarks in the federal budget and sort of played fast and loose with the truth about sending back the earmark money for the Bridge To Nowhere. Guess which state is set to receive the highest per capita earmark bounty in the Omnibus Spending Bill that Congress just signed? Alaska.
2. Another story-reversal from Alaska: Levi Johnston has told the AP that he and Bristol Palin have broken their engagement. In fact, he says, it was mutually decided "a while ago." It's not clear whether that "while ago" preceeded their latest statement about a June wedding.
The cynic in me always thought the wedding would never take place if the Republicans didn't win the election. I could never come up with a reasonable explanation for waiting until June, if they really wanted to marry and had a baby on the way. I know shotgun weddings aren't what they used to be; and, if they chose not to marry, that would be one thing. But these are "family values" folks, for goodness sakes. Strange how family values always seems to get mixed up with politics when you're a Republican.
3. Here's a howler: Senator Sam Brownback today opposed the confirmation of Obama's appointee for the DoJ #3 spot, Thomas Perelli, because in his prior law practice Perelli had represented Terri Schiavo's husband in the fight to take his severely brain damaged wife off life support. Senators brought so much shame to themselves in that political grand-standing stunt, joined by george bush who flew back from his Crawford ranch to sign the emergency bill, that you would think they'd just hope it would be forgotten, not bring it up again.
Perelli was confirmed for the appointment by vote of 72-20.
Ralph
1. Gov. Sarah Palin campaigned vociferously against the evil of earmarks in the federal budget and sort of played fast and loose with the truth about sending back the earmark money for the Bridge To Nowhere. Guess which state is set to receive the highest per capita earmark bounty in the Omnibus Spending Bill that Congress just signed? Alaska.
2. Another story-reversal from Alaska: Levi Johnston has told the AP that he and Bristol Palin have broken their engagement. In fact, he says, it was mutually decided "a while ago." It's not clear whether that "while ago" preceeded their latest statement about a June wedding.
The cynic in me always thought the wedding would never take place if the Republicans didn't win the election. I could never come up with a reasonable explanation for waiting until June, if they really wanted to marry and had a baby on the way. I know shotgun weddings aren't what they used to be; and, if they chose not to marry, that would be one thing. But these are "family values" folks, for goodness sakes. Strange how family values always seems to get mixed up with politics when you're a Republican.
3. Here's a howler: Senator Sam Brownback today opposed the confirmation of Obama's appointee for the DoJ #3 spot, Thomas Perelli, because in his prior law practice Perelli had represented Terri Schiavo's husband in the fight to take his severely brain damaged wife off life support. Senators brought so much shame to themselves in that political grand-standing stunt, joined by george bush who flew back from his Crawford ranch to sign the emergency bill, that you would think they'd just hope it would be forgotten, not bring it up again.
Perelli was confirmed for the appointment by vote of 72-20.
Ralph
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Troglodytes can be sneaky, too
Never let it be said that the Republican-dominated Georgia Legislature missed an opportunity to try to sneak their ideology-driven agenda past the people.
Today, the Georgia House Rules Committee is considering a proposal to reinstate a 4% sales tax on groceries, which had been eliminated during Zell Miller's governorship as a way of reducing the tax burden on lower income people.
So what is the Republican justification for putting back this tax? They argue that it is needed to make up for revenue lost due to the recession, and they claim that it will be 'revenue neutral' since it will be offset by a tax credit for those who file state income tax returns.
Come on, we didn't just fall off the turnip truck. You don't get something for nothing. It's got to affect somebody.
So, who do they think it will affect? They say it will affect out-of-state shoppers and other people who do not file income tax returns.
OK: so we'll catch all those folks who come across state lines to buy their groceries (all 3 of them) and we'll stick it to those deadbeats who don't file state income tax returns.
But if it's a tax credit, you have to pay state income tax to get any benefit from the credit, no? So the people it's really aimed at are those who do not owe any state income tax. This will be quite a large number of not only poor but lower income people, or those with large deductions; and it will include the majority of people living on retirement income, most of whom do not owe state income tax.
Exactly the groups that you would think Republicans devalue: the poor and the elderly. In other words, they're engaging in what they have called "class warfare" when the Democrats want to do the opposite and increase taxes on those making more than $250,000.
It's their old tactic of taking from the poor to benefit the rich. And trying to make it sound like a good thing. The idea, out-of-state people taking advantage of us to buy their groceries here !!!
Ralph
Today, the Georgia House Rules Committee is considering a proposal to reinstate a 4% sales tax on groceries, which had been eliminated during Zell Miller's governorship as a way of reducing the tax burden on lower income people.
So what is the Republican justification for putting back this tax? They argue that it is needed to make up for revenue lost due to the recession, and they claim that it will be 'revenue neutral' since it will be offset by a tax credit for those who file state income tax returns.
Come on, we didn't just fall off the turnip truck. You don't get something for nothing. It's got to affect somebody.
So, who do they think it will affect? They say it will affect out-of-state shoppers and other people who do not file income tax returns.
OK: so we'll catch all those folks who come across state lines to buy their groceries (all 3 of them) and we'll stick it to those deadbeats who don't file state income tax returns.
But if it's a tax credit, you have to pay state income tax to get any benefit from the credit, no? So the people it's really aimed at are those who do not owe any state income tax. This will be quite a large number of not only poor but lower income people, or those with large deductions; and it will include the majority of people living on retirement income, most of whom do not owe state income tax.
Exactly the groups that you would think Republicans devalue: the poor and the elderly. In other words, they're engaging in what they have called "class warfare" when the Democrats want to do the opposite and increase taxes on those making more than $250,000.
It's their old tactic of taking from the poor to benefit the rich. And trying to make it sound like a good thing. The idea, out-of-state people taking advantage of us to buy their groceries here !!!
Ralph
Troglodytes and Luddites
Congress has its share of backward thinkers, but the Georgia Legislature has them beat in having more than its share of troglodytes and Luddites.
On the same day that Obama announced his overturning of Bush's restrictive executive order on stem cell research, the Georgia Senate's Health and Human Services Committee approved by a 7-6 vote a bill that defines a human embryo as a person and prohibits the destruction of an embryo for any reason, whether it be scientific research or simply unneeded extra embryos left from an in vitro fertilization process.
One reproductive endocrinologist warned the committee that this step could make criminals of fertility specialists, where the normal process of in vitro fertilization may result in damage to some embryos, in addition to the question of what to do with the extra embryos that are not needed.
It seems to me that leaves three options for the "extras:" (1) find a couple to donate the embryos to so that they have your child, or (2) keep having more babies to use up the extra embryos (think octuplets). or (3) keep paying the $500 annual fee (is that per embryo?) storage fee to keep them frozen forever. How is being forever frozen preferable to being destroyed?
Of even more concern, this would be a major step in the war against abortion, because it would codify as human beings -- with all rights of human beings -- the product of fertilization one instant beyond the penetration of a sperm into an ovum. And the destruction of such would not only be criminal, it would be murder. It would also criminalize the "morning after" pill and any form of contraception that works by preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum. In their thinking, this is equivalent to abortion.
This would effectively end stem cell research, in vitro fertilization clinics, and abortion in Georgia. A Georgia Tech/Emory consortion of scientists has become one of the major biomedical research centers in the country. If passed, this law would likely hurt their ability to recruit scientists to work here.
And Georgia would take one more step backward. The proponents of this bill should go down in the Georgia Museum of Backwardness, along with 1950's Gov. Lester Maddox, who threatened to defend his restaurant with an ax handle to prevent desegregation and who famously liked to perform his stunt of riding his bicycle backwards.
Ralph
On the same day that Obama announced his overturning of Bush's restrictive executive order on stem cell research, the Georgia Senate's Health and Human Services Committee approved by a 7-6 vote a bill that defines a human embryo as a person and prohibits the destruction of an embryo for any reason, whether it be scientific research or simply unneeded extra embryos left from an in vitro fertilization process.
One reproductive endocrinologist warned the committee that this step could make criminals of fertility specialists, where the normal process of in vitro fertilization may result in damage to some embryos, in addition to the question of what to do with the extra embryos that are not needed.
It seems to me that leaves three options for the "extras:" (1) find a couple to donate the embryos to so that they have your child, or (2) keep having more babies to use up the extra embryos (think octuplets). or (3) keep paying the $500 annual fee (is that per embryo?) storage fee to keep them frozen forever. How is being forever frozen preferable to being destroyed?
Of even more concern, this would be a major step in the war against abortion, because it would codify as human beings -- with all rights of human beings -- the product of fertilization one instant beyond the penetration of a sperm into an ovum. And the destruction of such would not only be criminal, it would be murder. It would also criminalize the "morning after" pill and any form of contraception that works by preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum. In their thinking, this is equivalent to abortion.
This would effectively end stem cell research, in vitro fertilization clinics, and abortion in Georgia. A Georgia Tech/Emory consortion of scientists has become one of the major biomedical research centers in the country. If passed, this law would likely hurt their ability to recruit scientists to work here.
And Georgia would take one more step backward. The proponents of this bill should go down in the Georgia Museum of Backwardness, along with 1950's Gov. Lester Maddox, who threatened to defend his restaurant with an ax handle to prevent desegregation and who famously liked to perform his stunt of riding his bicycle backwards.
Ralph
Monday, March 9, 2009
No, no, no.
Republicans seem to be reduced to monosyllables: all beginning with "n" and ending with "o." As in NO.
Obama plans to announce his overturning of Bush's ban on funding for new stem cell research -- and along with that a more sweeping change in how the government uses science and who is advising officials throughout federal agencies. The National Institutes of Health will have new safeguards to prevent the intrusion of the political process into the scientific community.
I know from previous revelations that, during the Bush years, you could not get a grant approved for AIDS research if you used the word in any prominent way in the proposal. Researchers had to resort to euphemisms or obfuscations of what they were actually working on.
That's how low we had sunk in the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific forces that had a strangle hold on our government.
So what are the Republicans saying about this?
Eric Cantor, #2 House Republican, said Obama should be focusing on the economy and not on the long-standing debate over stem-cell research. And he trotted out the old bogus arguments about "embryo harvesting" and "human cloning" that Republicans want to discuss but insist now is not the time.
News for Mr. Cantor: there isn't going to be a time-consuming debate in Congress. President Obama is issuing an executive order, not proposing a bill. It won't take very long to do or to announce. And his scientific advisers are quite ready to carry it out. If Republicans want to take up time that should be devoted to the economy by introducing some sort of futile attempt to stop him -- then the fault is theirs.
Bush had the power to impose anti-scientific policies; Obama has the same power to undo them. Remember, Mr. Cantor, he won the election and has a mandate from the people to do just exactly what he's doing. End of story.
Ralph
Obama plans to announce his overturning of Bush's ban on funding for new stem cell research -- and along with that a more sweeping change in how the government uses science and who is advising officials throughout federal agencies. The National Institutes of Health will have new safeguards to prevent the intrusion of the political process into the scientific community.
I know from previous revelations that, during the Bush years, you could not get a grant approved for AIDS research if you used the word in any prominent way in the proposal. Researchers had to resort to euphemisms or obfuscations of what they were actually working on.
That's how low we had sunk in the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific forces that had a strangle hold on our government.
So what are the Republicans saying about this?
Eric Cantor, #2 House Republican, said Obama should be focusing on the economy and not on the long-standing debate over stem-cell research. And he trotted out the old bogus arguments about "embryo harvesting" and "human cloning" that Republicans want to discuss but insist now is not the time.
News for Mr. Cantor: there isn't going to be a time-consuming debate in Congress. President Obama is issuing an executive order, not proposing a bill. It won't take very long to do or to announce. And his scientific advisers are quite ready to carry it out. If Republicans want to take up time that should be devoted to the economy by introducing some sort of futile attempt to stop him -- then the fault is theirs.
Bush had the power to impose anti-scientific policies; Obama has the same power to undo them. Remember, Mr. Cantor, he won the election and has a mandate from the people to do just exactly what he's doing. End of story.
Ralph
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Even worse than Republican policy
Looking at what I choose to comment on here, it's becoming clear that I delight in pointing out the absurd or insane in those I disagree with. Now, after just going after Republicans, I've read something that strikes me as even more absurd: some of the Catholic church's notions of what's most important.
In Brazil, a nine year old girl became pregnant with twins after being repeatedly raped by her step-father since the age of six. A doctor performed an abortion, which is legal in Brazil in cases of rape or danger to the mother's health.
The Catholic Church responded by excommunicating the girl's mother and the doctors -- but not the step-father. And a Vatican spokesman has defended that decision."It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said. . . .
Would we excuse the murder of a 3 year old who is discovered to have been the product of rape? And yet they believe that a 6 week embryo is just as much a human being as the 3 year old.
My different position on abortion is not that I condone murder; I don't agree with their basic premise about when one begins to be a human being and when an embryo's rights supercede the mother's rights.
And I also sharply disagree with those who have such moralistic condemnations of abortion who also fight the kinds of comprehensive sex education, family planning, and anti-poverty programs that have proven to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies.
Ralph
In Brazil, a nine year old girl became pregnant with twins after being repeatedly raped by her step-father since the age of six. A doctor performed an abortion, which is legal in Brazil in cases of rape or danger to the mother's health.
The Catholic Church responded by excommunicating the girl's mother and the doctors -- but not the step-father. And a Vatican spokesman has defended that decision."It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said. . . .
He also said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the church; because, although he allegedly committed a heinous crime, the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious.
Although I strongly disagree from my humanistic perspective, I do see the logical consistency of the church. If you believe, as they do, that an embryo is a human life from the moment of conception, then abortion for any reason is murder. So the doctor committed murder, and the mother was an accomplice, while the step-father was only guilty of sexual abuse and rape.
Would we excuse the murder of a 3 year old who is discovered to have been the product of rape? And yet they believe that a 6 week embryo is just as much a human being as the 3 year old.
My different position on abortion is not that I condone murder; I don't agree with their basic premise about when one begins to be a human being and when an embryo's rights supercede the mother's rights.
And I also sharply disagree with those who have such moralistic condemnations of abortion who also fight the kinds of comprehensive sex education, family planning, and anti-poverty programs that have proven to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies.
Ralph
The alternative plan
This speaks for itself.
Obama's Director of OMB Peter Orszag said this on Fact the Nation when asked about Senator Lindsey Graham's calling the administration's budget proposal "scary."
Obama's Director of OMB Peter Orszag said this on Fact the Nation when asked about Senator Lindsey Graham's calling the administration's budget proposal "scary."
"Well, as Ronald Reagan once put it, there they go again. We've had eight years of one approach -- didn't work. We're offering a new approach. Let's look at what the Republicans are putting on the table. The senior Republican on the House Budget Committee has put forward a plan that includes $3 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, a Medicare program -- when you turn 65, you'd be handed a check for 80 percent of the cost of health care and then you're on your own -- and a Social Security plan in which your Social Security funds would be invested in the stock market. I'm not making this stuff up. That is their alternative plan. I think they should come on this show, offer a detailed alternative to what we're talking about and I'll let the American people evaluate the two ways forward."
Ralph
Two conservative concessions
I've just finished watching This Week With George Stephanopolis and found myself somwhat amazed at what I heard the two conservative members of his panel saying. Granted, David Brooks is more of a moderate who greatly admires Obama and does not side with the most reactionary elements of the Republican party, and George Will is a fiscal conservative and less socially conservative than many. But here's what astonished me:
1. David Brooks:
Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress dither, directionless, and can seem to unite only in some sort of blind opposition. And Rush Limbaugh steps into the leadership vacuum, aided and abetted by Democrats who, as Cokie Roberts put it, "have died and gone to heaven" because this Republican cat fight is so playing to their advantage.
Ralph
1. David Brooks:
"The problem with them and the problem with Limbaugh in terms of intellectual philosophy is they are stuck with Reagan. . . . They are stuck with the idea that government is always the problem. A lot of Republicans up in Capitol Hill right now are calling for a spending freeze in a middle of a recession/depression. That is insane. But they are thinking the way they thought in 1982, if we can only think that way again, that is just insane. And there are a lot of Republicans like David Frum ... who are trying to say Reagan was right for his era, but it is time to move on. And there are just not a lot of them on Capitol Hill right now, and I think the party is looking for that kind of Republican."2. George Will:
In responding to a question as to whether the Republican party needs to soften its opposition to certain issues, like gay rights, Will said, "Yes. To the younger generation, being gay is like being left-handed. It's boring and uninteresting." In the context, it was clearer that he meant it should not be an issue that they fight, because increasingly it will turn people off to the party.So, here are two conservative pundits who see the need for the Republicans to change their obsession with past battles and redefine -- or reaffirm -- what conservatism actually does stand for.
Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress dither, directionless, and can seem to unite only in some sort of blind opposition. And Rush Limbaugh steps into the leadership vacuum, aided and abetted by Democrats who, as Cokie Roberts put it, "have died and gone to heaven" because this Republican cat fight is so playing to their advantage.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
