A Must Read

Here:

"...ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern."

And lots more good stuff.

Comments

Poll P. said…
I was so happy to see this in 'the paper of record', but remembered that you've been saying for a long time what Krugman said today. Nice work.
October 5, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Anonymous said…
Limbaugh's "I want Obama to fail," wasn't enough to prove this point to the mainstream media and this won't be either. They are part of the problem.
October 6, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Green Eagle said…
A big part of the problem. The New York Times is responsible more than anyone else in the country for bringing us the presidency of George W. Bush, with those other bastions of the "liberal" press, the Washington Post and CNN, not far behind.
October 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Derek said…
"the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals"

radicals meaning moderates. Most republicans since reagan have leaned right.

Paul Krugman is such a hodgepodge of beliefs, I'm not exactly sure where to start. He loves the free market, which is good, yet he wants a nanny state. He sometimes is a critic of liberals, but he makes up random junk about Republicans (see your post), adhering to the party line.

The Times is incredibly liberal and has been placed there by journalism schools and by thinktanks for ages. No point in denying the truth.
October 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Image
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Read more

If a Tree Falls In the Woods

Image
 And nobody hears it, is it really running for President at all? First of all, a note about my absence lately:  My wife got me to sign up for an account at Threads, which is sort of like X without the assholes.  I've spent a little time establishing myself there, and I have to say, I do like the relatively immediate exchange of views, but I don't mean to give up my blog- there are still so many things that can't be dealt with in a couple hundred words, so, perhaps to your dismay, I am back. So, what motivated the above question is the fact that the Sunday New York Times today had seven articles about Trump, and absolutely zero about Kamala Harris.   The Republicans have a problem with Harris, in that virtually everyone who sees her likes her and immediately understands how qualified she is to be President.  They have tried mightily the last month to find some way to smear her, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful- the tactics of character assassination ...
Read more

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

Image
How can you look like a decrepit old geezer and an out of control two year old at the same time? I thought it might be nice to look in on wingnut world to see how they are taking yesterday's $83 million dollar Trump legal loss.  You kind of know that they will decide it shouldn't affect their opinion of him in any way, but it might be helpful to see just how the Republican party has trained them to reject any fact they don't like.  Not that surprisingly, a lot of the usual wingnut suspects didn't touch this loss at all, preferring to just ignore anything that interferes with their hateful daydreams, but here are a few excerpts from an article at Gateway Pundit, along with a sample of the hundreds of comments it received.  Enjoy.  Or not. "Trump attorney Alina Habba WENT OFF after the crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Go...
Read more