[QUOTE=JohnnyD;715771]There is a laundry list of items that I strongly disagree with when it comes to the current administration, health care and the auto bailouts to name a few.
If you would ever spell out this laundry list, with the same contempt that you reserve for republicans, you might have some credibility.
This Op-Ed clearly describes the basis of my contempt for how the GOP addresses any Left-wing related topic.
Again, since you claim not to be biased, give some equal contempt for how the leftists address the G.O.P., as in the article you chose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/op...gman.html?_r=1
Paragragh II: He equates cheers with spite rather than happiness, takes words out of context, and uses slanted language.
III: unfounded, unclinical, and biased accusation.
IV: The same can be said about Dems and actually was said about them by conservatives during the Bush years.
V.: He calls opposition spite.
VII: He picks one Dem argument that is consistent with their ideology, but leaves out the rest of their hissyfit, puerile tactics, and leaves out how G.O.P. offered choice of private accounts, or to stay in Soc. Sec. as it is, or to combine the two.
VIII: He portrays the Repubs only objections to the Dem HC plan as death panels "and so on," and that it will destroy Medicare which is, supposedly, at odds with the party's tradition. He doesn't mention the several other objections such as lack of tort reform, too expensive, loss of choice, destruction of private insurance plans, etc., or even that Repubs offer an alternative--all of which are IN LINE with the party's tradition.
IX: He continues to go on about the supposedly "only" objection of Repubs to Dems HC plan is that it will destroy medicare.
X: Pure lie about G.O.P. becoming a passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments.
XI: At this point, he has slanted, lied by omission, lied purely, so much, that his characterization of the G.O.P. as "so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics. . ." is just journalistic demagoguery, meant to inflame opinions against the G.O.P.
XII: What he says about G.O.P since Reagan being dominated by radicals who do not accept anyone else's right to govern is exactly what right wingers have been saying about Dems since Carter.
XIII-XV: More of the same.
XVI: Then he claims his slanted, biased, selective demagoguery is the truth.
Isn't this the kind of stuff you hate about right wind talk radio? How, then, do you so easily accept it from a media lib lilke Krugman?