I Can't Believe They Said It — "The Republicans are the Problem"
I almost fell out of my chair this morning when I read this anti-GOP article from none other than the typically pro-Republican newspaper The Washington Post:
Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem
The authors take direct aim at the Tea Party movement, obstructionism, the filibuster, Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.
The article is not only odd compared to the typical angle the Post takes, but is so very biased in their statements that that the authors feel the need justify this fact at the end:
We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
So what do you think? Do the authors have it right? Debating the “facts” presented in the the details of the story would be much appreciated :)
GearHead
6:59 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
I hope you understand this is an opinion piece, right? Funny to see the Post bemoaning the loss of historic Republican moderates. These, of course, would be the same gentlemen who would routinely get rolled by the Democrat majorities in the 1980's. Notice most of them got out in 1994? That was a watershed year for the country, when the Republican Party re-discovered its gonades, and reformed the country. As for "unbalanced phenomenon - are they referring to the blue-fisters and occupy types drawing attention to their selfish desires? No, I didn't think so.
A similar thing happened in 2010 when Democrats in all corners of the country got "shellacked" by the elections, which were a referendum on Obama's failure, as well as Jim Doyle's.
J. B. Schmidt
6:43 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
A Wisconsin liberal such as yourself discussing how Republican are obstructing the free flow of government. I guess, why start being intellectually honest now?
Linda Motley
10:33 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
JB, Victor didn't "discuss" anything. He referenced an article, offered only the opinion that he was surprised to see it in a typically pro-GOP newspaper and then asked for debate. Can you stop the accusations, finger-pointing and nastiness for once?
J. B. Schmidt
12:28 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
@Linda
Victor posted an article under the premise it was an unbiased approach to historical Republican policy. When in fact it is an opinion piece not based in fact, but based on an agenda. In doing so he entered the discussion with an agenda of his own.
The Washington Post has posted editorials critical of Republicans in that past. This isn't some ground breaking new information. Nor is it to signal some momentum shift in reporting by the Post.
The facts are that Wisconsin has been in a perpetual elections cycle for 2 years by Democrats in an attempt to obstruct the workings of government. As a liberal, Victor, is attempting to deflect blame on to Republicans. The facts are also clear that for 2 years the US government was under complete control of the Democrats. They couldn't get past their own obstruction to pass a budget for that second year. If Democrats had any policy victories in that last 4 years, this would be a non-issue. However, since liberal policy is a failure, Democrats resort to close-minded rhetoric such as this.
Alfred
6:45 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Wash Post is not pro GOP, it is pro Democrat/marxist.
Dave Koven
10:04 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Post is completely correct. Washington is at a standstill. Elected officials are not doing the jobs they were sent to Washington to do. The people are suffering. The Republicans are only looking out for the more well -to -do. Anyone who would vote solely along their party's line is an idiot. One should cherrypick the best ideas from both parties and advance them. Anyone who changes their mind when presented with more new information is intelligent, not a "flip-flopper". America is a great place, but there has to be limits set on how much money any one person can amass. That much money is too tempting when it can buy almost unlimited power. Can anyone name one person or organization that should run this country? I can't. Our system of checks and balances is being suborned by lobbyists. The middle class is slowly disappearing. As over spent as we are told we are, as a government, we seem to have budget money enough to engage in wars designed to keep wealthy people wealthy at the expense of the lives of the less privileged. All those young people dying, and ten years later, we are trade partners with our former blood enemies? Shame on us!
Greg
1:00 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Dave, Most of what you said has merit, aside from a few partisan jabs and the part about The Post being completely correct. Other than that I like your statement. It could be used for both national and state government. I think there are many Democrats that are also looking out for the well-to-do. Power and greed tends to lead politics, on both sides. At some point we need to sort out who is actually working for the country's, or the state's, best interests. Support them accordingly.
Dave Koven
2:45 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Greg..."Power and Greed tends to lead politics...". This may be true, but we cannot allow this pathology to prevail. We don't have to fear the Taliban, we have to fear our "rentable" erstwhile leaders. They seem to value their time at "the public trough" more than they value making life better for all Americans. Who needs external enemies to attack and ruin us. We'll do it ourselves, thank you very much. These are not the words of merely an idealist, they are a warning of a "clear and present danger." We are so used to mediocrity and venality in our candidates, that we've come to think of that as normal.
Johnny Blade
3:07 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Well if the federal government didn't have endless power .. if they only were allowed to do what is enumerated in the constitution we wouldn't have this problem .. but no people think the government can solve all thier problems . .and thus begins the enslavement
Jennie Stoltz
5:18 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
There are two authors for this article - one is a Republican and one is a Democrat. The article says that they have seen faults with both sides for years and years but it is the Republican Party's current extremism and unwillingness to compromise at all that is "the problem". Both sides need to move back more toward the middle if anything is going to be accomplished and the GOP have much further to go to get back to a more common ground.
Lyle Ruble
6:37 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
@Jennie Stoltz...So true. Obama would be judged as a centrist at any other time in our history, but now he's labeled a left wing liberal. Tom Barrett is also a centrist, but he too is being labeled as a left wing liberal. Before anyone can move to the middle it will require defining where the middle is.
I can't forget Mitch McConnell's statement that the Republicans are going to make sure that Obama will be only a one term president. We all need to look to what extent they have gone to accomplish their goal. shut down government.
GearHead
8:04 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Hmmmm. So true. I can't forget certain AFL-CIO, Teamster, and myriad public union hacks standing on the podium with Obama, and reminding the rabid dog crowd that sometimes we have to get a little bloody.
How do you compromise with a democrat senate that is so irresponsible that it hasn't tried to pass a budget in three years? Where is sleepy Herb on all of this? Where is the Senior WI senator's moderate centrist LEADERSHIP on any of this? This would be why most of us (as well your grandchildren) think Obama should be a one-termer. Utter lack of leadership by Democrats.
Alfred
6:44 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Many of us fund government Mr Rube, unlike you and your spouse who are on the receiving end of our hard work.
Lyle Ruble
7:03 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
@Alfred...I need more money, so work harder. I'm sure glad my livelihood is not dependent on you. Over my working career I've contributed far more than I'll ever see in benefits, but that's OK since I am proud to be a member of our society.
Steve ®
11:13 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Rinos hate the new conservative movement. Still better than out of control liberals.
Bert
11:53 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
So, that means "moderate" republicans, and anyone to their left, hate the new conservative movement... Roughly 30% of the country's population identify as Republican. It's not a stretch to say those identifying as "independents" are at best as conservative as moderate Republicans. Let's say 50% of identified Republicans are moderate or above. That means, by your own argument, 85% of the country "hate" the new conservative movement. Hey, look at that! We've found a point of agreement!
Bren
1:00 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
I know Republicans who are mystified by some of the stances of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is of course an astroturf movement comprised of the most radical right wing of the Republican Party. The John Birch Society (the TP's literal "father" figure) was an extremely vocal, radical fringe organization, especially in the 1950s. Perhaps why so much the Tea Party's messaging and ideology seems so dated.
No one wants to be connected with an extremist agenda, really. One that is so unkind and hurtful to the reputation. Republicans are going to have to decide how they want this all to play out. The old Federalist Party moved so far off the scale that the opposing party adapted its platforms and the Federalists were marginalized.
The Republican Party is going to have to decide who they want to be and stand by that decision. I do believe most people are moderate, and compassionate at heart.
Bert
11:47 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
It's not a question that the Republican party, since 2009, has become very extreme. It has been a singularly one-sided shift. ObamaCare is identical to the plan that a "free market" republican governor implemented in his state, and based on the plan proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1993. As recently as 2006, Republicans in the Senate introduced largely similar plans, with the central precept being the Individual Mandate. All of a sudden, this concept that Republicans wholly endorsed just a couple years earlier, is an all-out assault on freedom?!? How about the "Buffet Rule"? REAGAN argued for the exact same thing. Cap and trade? McCain was in favor of it during the 2008 campaign! This used to be the free-market, conservative approach environmental protection (and it works). Now, it the sure sign of marxist-fascist-socialist-commies at work.
To point out that the Republican party has made an extreme move to the right in just the last three years, and is largely responsible for the hyper-partisanship and obstruction in government is not biased - it's simply stating the obvious.