GOP is enemy of reason

April 8, 2012


Meet Nathan Fletcher, candidate for mayor of San Diego.

He will lose, at least if the polls are right. But he has raised a minor stir through a video posted online a few days back. In it, he explains his decision to leave the Republican Party and identify henceforth as an independent. “I don’t believe we have to treat people we disagree with as an enemy,” he says. “I think we can just say sometimes we disagree. ... I’ve fought in a war,” adds Fletcher, a Marine who served in Iraq. “I have seen the enemy. We don’t have enemies in our political environment here.”

Fletcher’s decision has been scorned by observers from both parties as a desperate gamble by a guy trying to shake up a flagging campaign. Maybe it is. But that doesn’t denigrate the essential truth of what he said, and in particular, that word he used: enemies.

It is a telling term. After all, one might negotiate with an “opponent.” One only contends against an “adversary.” But one seeks to destroy an enemy.

And it makes you wonder: Is that really the way we the people see ourselves? The evidence of recent years suggests that it is. The so-called culture wars — a battle of ideas and ideals concerning abortion, faith, gay rights, gun rights, Muslim rights, global warming, health care, immigration — are fought with splenetic bile that would have been unthinkable not too very long ago.

But that was before a congressman heckled a president, before guns were brought to presidential appearances, before a radio host called a college woman a “slut,” before someone set a fire at the construction site of a Tennessee mosque, before “I want my country back” became a rallying cry. It was before there grew this gnawing sense that we do not know each other anymore, that the extremes are pulling the center apart.

Nor is Fletcher the only one to notice. Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican moderate, announced her retirement a little over a month ago, blaming the dysfunction and polarization of American politics.

One is tempted, in the spirit of moral equivalence, to ascribe blame for this polarization to both parties, but that is simply untrue. For all their sins of ineptitude, infighting, cynicism, and even occasional name calling, it is not the Democrats who have gone off the ideological deep end.

The party has not championed same-sex marriage or gun confiscation, much as some of its constituents might want it to. It compromised on health care and the Bush-era tax cuts, much as some of its constituents wish it had not.

No, it is the GOP that has abandoned the center and embraced ideological extremism as a virtue. It is telling to hear its candidates use “moderate” as an epithet and argue over who is the most “conservative,” as if the word contained some pixie dust of common sense and moral rectitude. It is sobering to realize that Ronald Reagan, patron saint of modern conservatism, would be unelectable by the standards thereof: he raised taxes and was known to compromise with political opponents — not “enemies” — to get things done. 

That was then. His party has since engaged in a 30-year flight from the center that reaches its nadir — at least, let us hope it’s the nadir — in this era of tea party incoherence, faith-based policy, fear mongering and tax pledge tyranny. This era when compromise is both lost art and dirty word and some Americans see other Americans as enemies — an era in which there is something lonely and foregone about pleading with an angry nation that this is not how it is supposed to be.

As one Republican once put it, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.”

For the record, Nathan Fletcher did not say that. Abraham Lincoln did, 39 days before the beginning of the Civil War.

— Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.

— Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. He chats with readers from noon to 1 p.m. CDT each Wednesday on www.MiamiHerald.com.


Flap Doodle 6 years, 2 months ago

"..The country needs a bad guy to blame for its problems, so day in and day out Obama is providing them with a smorgasbord of villains from which to choose: Wall Street, Big Oil, the Tea Party, Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh, the Supreme Court, the Catholic Church, and so on. In fact, virtually everything that comes out of this president’s mouth is about redirecting blame onto some straw man. This is why Obama does not care if his attacks are unfair, untrue, unoriginal, unseemly, or whatever. He has only one goal: The state of the union stinks right now, and I must keep that stench off me. So were you outraged by Obama’s smarmy remarks about the Supreme Court? Too bad, he does not care. He is not after your vote. He is after the vote of the fellow in the middle of the electorate, who may never have even heard of Marbury v. Madison, but certainly knows about $4 gas. If Obama can get that guy to direct his anger at somebody else for the next seven months, then he wins reelection. This week the fall guy was the Supreme Court. Next week it will be John Boehner or Big Oil or whomever. Really, it does not matter so long as it is not the president..." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-our-pathetic-president_635461.html?nopager=1 Das lennypitts is doing his best to follow the Mope's marching orders, bless his little heart.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 2 months ago

So the president cannot use "the bully-pulpit" to call out for change where he sees it is needed?

Politics completely aside (and I can trust that you can really do that), how can you say that the toxic assets debacle designed and executed in the financial institutions and rubber stamped by Wall Street wasn't outrageous?

How can you say that the triple negligence of BP, Halliburton and Transocean, coupled with a push-over style of regulation that led to the Deep Horizon debacle wasn't reprehensible?

Are you defending Rush Limbaugh's shoot first, find out the facts later about the college contraception situation?

Do you really think that the Supreme Court's letting unlimited corporate funding of elections has improved the political process?

Do you think that the tobacco-lawyer type funding of denialist tripe questioning of climate change by Big Oil is getting us any closer to a civil discussion about the real issues surrounding climate change?

I'm sorry, but it is the president's preogative to ask these big questions, and challenge folks when it is in his view time to do so.

Now what happens after that is decidedly partisan, and that is true on both sides. I don't think that either party has a good track record about trying to do anything but to preach to the converted and getting them to pony up money to continue the one-sided, self-reinforcing monologues.

So if the Weekly Standard is trying to ask the big question about how to address the problem that there is no real dialogue occurring in a polarized political environment, then I'm 100% for them bringing it up. I see nothing in their commentary that suggests that, tho, so they are just another whiner grumbling to fellow whinees.

Sadly, I think Romney decidedly worse at ignoring the possibility of dialoge than Obama, and see no chance that if he is elected that a forum for dialogue will become more possible.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 2 months ago

Ah, Liberty One, Mr. Stasis himself! You actually started a real discussion in an earlier comment section about climate change and the factors that go into defining how to objectively monitor whether it exists, to what degree, and if it does, best ways to plan for it, and then you disappeared!

In case you forgot, you never answered how to distinguish between "natural" and "unnatural" emissions, a distinction you seem to think is important. You also either claimed that either climate was too complicated to create a viable model that explains the data or that there is some mysterious model out there somewhere that explains climate change where human activities are not an important factor.

Well, I'll be waiting for answers from you on these things, but I'm not holding my breath. It seems that you are more interested in name calling rather than critical thinking, although I'd love to be proven wrong.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 2 months ago

Well, let's look at the data: NASA's GRACE satellite observations have indicated that total land ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers between 2003 and 2010 was some 4.3 trillion tons, or about 1000 cubic miles: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Melting-land-ice-GRACE_JPL.html

There is plenty of more detailed information out there showing that both the arctic sea ice and the land ice is melting at an accelerating rate in the past decade in particular. I trust that you can easily find as much of this as you want by googling or doing a search at one of my favorite source of data: the national snow and ice data center.

Since the models greatly underestimated the rate of the rate of melting of sea ice at the north pole, with historic lows both 2007 and last year being well below the predictions, there has been some retooling of the estimates as to when it might be possible to actually have largely ice free arctic summers as crazy as that sounds. The latest models are suggesting that this might happen as soon as 2035: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/sea_ice.html

Ken Lassman 6 years, 2 months ago

I wouldn't consider losing 4.3 trillion tons of ice already as something way in the future--it's been happening, it's happening right now, and the process is accelerating. As I recall, you attributed the "change" in prediction when the arctic would be largely ice-free in the summer to a piece of bad journalism that mis-quoted a statement from Al Gore, not a scientist, and when I looked at the article that Al Gore was referring to, it actually said 2030 at the earliest, not sooner as the original bad journalist reported.

So can I stop bad journalism from muddying the waters? Sorry about not having that superpower. Can I challenge you to show me that the real data, i.e. that sea and land ice are melting at unprecedented rates is false? You bet. So far, you've failed to show me otherwise.

And can I challenge you to prove that the CO2 and other greenhouse gases released by human activities are not doing what physics has proven them capable of doing? You bet. And on that count, you have come up empty handed as well.

So continue to blather on about how scientists are conspiring to strip the public of their money by concocting the myth of human induced global warming if you like, but, like the tobacco lawyers of yore, you have to eventually look at the data, which continues to come in from all quarters, indicating that human-induced climate change is a reality.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 2 months ago

Well, as expected, Liberty_One vanishes as quickly as a Kansas fog when the sun comes up....

Fossick 6 years, 2 months ago

"The so-called culture wars ... are fought with splenetic bile that would have been unthinkable not too very long ago."

(from a source) Late that afternoon (22 May 1856), after both houses had recessed for the day, a young South Carolina congressman named Preston Brooks strode forcefully into the Senate chamber looking for Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner. The Senate floor was nearly deserted, but Brooks saw Sumner sitting alone at his desk, preparing a stack of pamphlets for mailing.

Without warning, Brooks rushed forward and began beating the unsuspecting Sumner savagely with a gold-tipped wooden cane. Even after knocking the older man to the ground, Brooks continued raining down blows upon Sumner's bleeding head and defenseless body, only stopping when his cane shattered into pieces. Finally, after perhaps the most shocking few minutes in the history of Congress, Brooks turned and walked calmly out of the chamber, leaving Sumner bloodied and unconscious. http://www.shmoop.com/legislative-branch/sumner-brooks-affair.html

Brooks spent the summer speaking about the incident all over South Carolina. Everywhere he went, his constituents bestowed upon him replacement canes.

When John Boehner walks into the Senate and beats Harry Reid unconscious with a cane over a social issue, then Pitts can talk about unprecedented bile. Until then it just goes to prove how short Pitts' memory is.

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 2 months ago

And you obviously don't grasp the difference between "not too very long ago" and "before the Civil War".

Now, one likely could make a strong argument that the last time we saw such "splenetic bile" was, indeed, in the 5 years before the Civil War. But that was 150+ years ago. Things had improved since then. A lot. There was civil discourse. There was compromise on both sides of the the aisle. People could agree to disagree.

But now? People no longer are exposed to alternative points of view if they don't want to be. They can spend 24/7 reading only things that agree with whatever they already believe...to heck with the facts, or even alternative points of view.

It's really sad. And not at all encouraging.

Fossick 6 years, 2 months ago

Sure I grasp the difference, which is why I gave five examples from five different periods reaching from near the time of Lincoln (who is not too long ago for Pitts to mention) up to today. None of what Pitts mentions is unprecedented, and it's not even that impressive compared to real, actual history. Shall we mention near brawls on the senate floor, or how one senator complained in a speech that after Booker T. Washington visited the President, "We'll now have to kill a thousand N*s so they'll remember their place."

Someone set a fire near a Mosque? Someone said, "you lie" during a speech? Big deal. What is that compared to someone bombing a church and killing four little girls and having elected officials do nothing about it because the elected officials didn't care about blacks? Pitts is like a man who survives a cholera epidemic and then complains about the smell of bleach.

Fossick 6 years, 2 months ago

"But that was before a congressman heckled a president..."

I wonder if Pitts realizes that Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina earned the nickname "Pitchfork Ben" by promising, in an 1896 speech on the Senate floor, to stab President Grover Cleveland in the in the butt with a pitchfork.

Maybe I'm taking the "congressman" part too literally?

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 2 months ago

Maybe you're misunderstanding the work "heckled"???

Tillman made his comment while giving a speech. Joe Wilson yelled out his insult from his seat while Obama was giving a speech.

Yeah...you don't know what the work "heckle" means.

Fossick 6 years, 2 months ago

I doubt Pitts has problems with heckling per se. His issue is with public disrespect to the President, of which heckling is an overt act*. So is threatening the president with a pitchfork. Wilson's outburst was just that, an outburst. Tillman's entire speech was calculated to mock the President. One may or may not be worse, but it's hard to argue that Wilson's act is somehow unprecedented.

Fossick 6 years, 2 months ago

"But that was before ... guns were brought to presidential appearances"

(from a source) On September 5th 1901, [President William] McKinley held an open-air speech and then went to hold ‘an audience’ with the public for ten minutes. As the crowd formed into a line and the President prepared to shake hands with the various people who’d come out to see him, [Leon] Czolgosz wrapped a .32 calibre pistol in a handkerchief. Fifty guards were stationed around McKinley that day – federal, state and city – and were supposed to be keeping watch. However, as the President moved through the crowd, no one noticed Czolgosz, who had positioned himself at the front.

McKinley eventually came to Czolgosz. He smiled and extended his hand. Czolgosz never took it, but instead flung the President’s hand to one side and fired twice, hitting him in the chest and abdomen. http://libcom.org/history/articles/assassination-mckinley

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 2 months ago

I don't think Pitts was talking about assassination attempts...and neither do you.

Fossick 6 years, 2 months ago

Of course I don't. But I do think (and so do you) that Pitts is trying to present the guns as an implicit and unprecedented threat to the president, which they obviously aren't.

I didn't even mention abortion, which undercuts his argument completely. According to the National Abortion Federation, there were 14 arson/bombings of clinics in 1997. There have been 2 since 2007.

How is 2 bombings in 5 years something that would have been "unthinkable" ten years prior? It's not, or if it is "unthinkable," it's not in the way Pitts has in mind.

Fossick 6 years, 2 months ago

"But that was before ... someone set a fire at the construction site of a Tennessee mosque"

(from a source) The September 15, 1963 racially motivated bombing of Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, which resulted in the death of four innocent black girls, was the nadir of the Civil Rights movement in Birmingham and perhaps one of the darkest days in Birmingham's history. City authorities, never sympathetic to blacks, did very little to bring the bombers to justice. Not until 1977 was one of the bombers convicted. Locally, the bombing brought the factional Civil Rights leaders together. Nationally, the bombing gave the movement not just a face, but four faces, four young, innocent faces. http://www.useekufind.com/peace/summary.htm

But Pitts does have one thing right. It appears that Rush calling whatsername a slut just might be the first time an unelected radio commentator has used that word on someone on the other side of the political isle. Or not:

(from a source) Nationally syndicated U.S. radio host Neal Boortz last year said a black congresswoman who has since failed in a bid for re-election, Cynthia McKinney, "looks like a ghetto slut." http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/12/industry-usa-race-broadcasters-dc-idUSN1237895620070412

booyalab 6 years, 2 months ago

"It compromised on health care and the Bush-era tax cuts"

Does it count as a compromise if staunch refusal is political suicide?

booyalab 6 years, 2 months ago

To maintain tradition and because the usual people must be taking a nap...."Looks like the racists are getting started early today!"

Mike Ford 6 years, 2 months ago

the gop is a party of white people who seek out minorities that don't upset the apple cart of these particular people's prescribed view of minorities. there is a litmus test of homogenousness that all minorities in the gop must adhere to whether it's Denesh D'Souza, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Allen West, or J.C. Watts. One sees what happened when the Vietnamese Republican congressman Cao from New Orleans voted for the healthcare bill. The gop litmus test people ran him out of the gop. It's telling that Michael Steele is going on msnbc and maher to call the gop litmus police out for their narrow mindedness. The litmus test situation is so bad that these people can't identify with their cultures because it would be in violation of the mythical colorblind post racial malarkey that the gop and right tries to sell. if anything people like math or tom shewmon have selective memory because they refuse to acknowledge the deal with the devil that took southern white males into the gop after george wallace, richard nixon, and ronald reagan recruited them for votes from the late 1960's to 1980. putting assimilation and evangelical religion together as has been done since my childhood is a recipe for no reasoning and basically facism. I have witnessed this in my 41 years leaving louisiana just as the televangelist/gop mess was starting. reading about g.h.w. bush wanting space from the godlicans back then is telling. an educated empirical moderate republican could not make it today just like President Obama said about Reagan. Where's the current Bob Dole or Nancy Kassebaum? tea party purity makes thinking impossible in the gop party. it's funny watching all of the nose holding going on right now with frankenromney amongst the godlicans and state's rights crazies. they're afraid he'll use them just like reagan did in the 1980's. what a circus!!!!

Cant_have_it_both_ways 6 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 2 months ago

And missing all his free throws during the championship game? No wonder KU lost.

Kendall Simmons 6 years, 2 months ago

Considering that the "unhinged far left" is a teeny tiny percentage of the population, why do you think they matter in the least little bit??

I don't know of anyone who considers themselves liberal who is ticked off about the Tea Party wins in 2010. Frankly, most folks I know were not at all surprised it happened.

Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No. Ticked off? Who were they supposed to get ticked off at...besides their own party for not running better candidates and better campaigns?

Ken Lassman 6 years, 2 months ago

Sure, I'll go for that last one about being ticked off about how the Republicans haven't been putting up better candidates and allowed themselves be taken over by folks who in any other decade would be beyond the pale.

Mike Ford 6 years, 2 months ago

gee with those comments I must've nailed it. you had nothing smart to refute with other than the nonsense you usually speak. can't refute speak nonsense... that's what you do right.

geekin_topekan 6 years, 2 months ago

Try asking them to "refudiate", Tuschka. They seem to respond to their own language.

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

Pitts may not be historically accurate, but his point is well taken, at least by me.

We really need to stop demonizing those we disagree with, and start talking about issues calmly and with respect.

It's the only way to get anywhere near solving some of our problems, which are numerous.

Why exactly is this so hard for so many people to do?

Fossick 6 years, 2 months ago

"We really need to stop demonizing those we disagree with, and start talking about issues calmly and with respect."

I wonder who had the bright idea to take a column that urges people to not treat others as enemies and title it "GOP is the enemy of reason"?

johnwoods 6 years, 2 months ago

Probably a copywriter at the Journal-World. The Miami Heralds headline is: GOP has embraced extremism as a virtue

geekin_topekan 6 years, 2 months ago

That pesky civil rights movement really screwed things up didn't it? If only those uppity blacks would have been happy that they weren't slaves anymore and built their own separate society and left us whites to conduct our business without them constantly howlin' 'bout wantin' to be part of our country.

That enemy that lives in his camper by the park. He aint Amerkin. Real AMerkins live in houses.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago


  • Repubs fear a dramatically improved quality of life for all WOULD keep them out of control for decades….. we would hope.

Keep in mind a prospering america can overcome repub fear mongering... it must.

What is the repub party afraid? Why do they ALWAYS say no?


  • Fear a dramatically improved quality of life for all americans

  • Fear Jobs Jobs Jobs for americans

  • Fear New USA industry thus new wealth for america

  • Fear new cleaner energy sources because it would create so many new jobs and reduce rates across the board

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

Repubs aka RINO party:

  • Fear Improved Medicare Insurance for All = huge tax dollar savings to government,public schools,small business and all of us in general. Single Payer Medicare is the answer. http://www.healthcare-now.org/

  • Fear Clean Collar Industries which produce jobs that cannot be outsourced

  • Fear educated Americans because WE ask questions

  • Fear llosing of tax incentives/tax breaks for the wealthy that actually create tax increases for entire spectrum of the middleclass

  • Repubs should NOT fear a dramatically improved quality of life for all Americans but they keep saying NO

  • Repubs should NOT fear Clean air, clean water, clean energy and healthy green space scattered throughout America however they always vote NO

  • Repubs fear a dramatically improved quality of life for all WOULD keep them out of control for decades..... if Americans were smart.


yourworstnightmare 6 years, 2 months ago

"GOP is enemy of reason"

How does this title even hint at what Pitts is saying? Talk about fanning the flames.

The GOP's move to the right and refusal to argue and discuss in a civil manner is what Pitts is describing.

The only way we will ever solve our nation's problems is by discussing them in a civil manner using facts, reason, empathy, and mutual understanding.

We are a long way from this.

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

Why do you think this is so hard for so many people to do?

Fossick 6 years, 2 months ago

I think Jonathan Haidt is on to something: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt/article2394165/

People think they are rational, but they are generally not. They use reason to buttress positions - political and religious - that they reach primarily by emotion. Haidt argues that we have six moral senses – care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity (from a source) but that liberals and conservatives favor different ones. That's why not only you* can seldom "reason" someone to your position, but you cannot understand how the other person could "reasonably" hold it. And he thinks precisely the same about you.

  • In a generic sense, not you, Jafs.

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

That's interesting - thanks.

Liberty and authority seem rather to be in conflict, at least on first glance.

JayhawkFan1985 6 years, 2 months ago

Pitts is absolutely right about the people on the right. They won't listen to anyone else. They are full of hatred and fear. The comments above by some prove just that. It is sad because for democracy to survive there must be a free exchange of ideas...a back and forth debate. The extreme right won't listen to the near right, center or left. To them, it is there way or the highway. We saw that with the debt extension crisis and many other times. I hope the GOP implodes at both the national and state level. It is time for another political realignment.

JayhawkFan1985 6 years, 2 months ago

Like Canada, we should eliminate the penny...penny for your thoughts you have to actualy include a thought.

In what way exactly is Obama worse for America then GW Bush was?

Obama didn't get us into a senseless war in Iraq distracting us from getting Bin Laden who was in Pakistan but was in Afganistan.

Bush's senseless deregulation of Wall Street led to a global economic meltdown that Obama has nearly fixed despite Fox News claims to the contrary.

Obama doesn't want to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Obama is NOT a muslim, but even if he was, so what? The GOP is screaming about religious freedom at the same time they are insulting people of a different faith.

Your post is as empty as your head.

JayhawkFan1985 6 years, 2 months ago

I gotta cry BS on this post too. Nobody in the democratic party is "unhinged far left." Even nutty Jerry Brown in California has moved to the center. The GOP on the other hand has moved so far to the right that Ronald Reagan's policies and Richard Nixon's policies would be attacked as socialist. The GOP loves crazy.

Corey Williams 6 years, 2 months ago

Yep. Very true. Case in point? Republicans in 1993 put forth a health care bill to counter Clinton's health care bill. "In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."

Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx Everything they once proposed has no become socialism.

uncleandyt 6 years, 2 months ago

My Radio agrees with your Radio. I'm not clear on the reasons.

camper 6 years, 2 months ago

The Republicans resemble traitors unfortunately. They would rather see us fail for their own political purposes. I will never vote Republican ever again.

JayhawkFan1985 6 years, 2 months ago

WTF are you talking about? The GOP and Fox News are the only two groups in the country that behave as if they are morally superior to everyone else. Like the rest of the right wingnuts, you've never learned to add, subtract, multiply, divide, you know...basic math...

uncleandyt 6 years, 2 months ago

Imagine if there is any way that parroting Limbaugh and Hannity makes a person sound as if THEY could be the message drinker. Go back and read your posts. It's a Rush and Sean's greatest hits. Reason wants to be your friend.

JayhawkFan1985 6 years, 2 months ago

Who changes your pants for you? You just crapped them again...

Paul R Getto 6 years, 2 months ago

N.B. Your arguments by assertion are getting better.

ThePilgrim 6 years, 2 months ago

Why is the GOP always portrayed as evil (as said above - "They are full of hatred and fear"), while the Left are portrayed as open minded and reasonable? I think that both sides are extreme.
When you have to run extreme people to get the nomination of either party, it leaves no place for people who don't kotow to that system. And this is not just the Right's problem. Just remember, the moderate Dems (blue dogs) lost in the mid term elections to the crazy Left. The Democratic Party in Congress got more extremely Left.

Remember when news was the news? It is hard to remember, but Nightline created the modern day "news" of two ideologically extreme talking heads yelling ay each other in a split screen.

Political speeches and rhetoric are reported as news - "Obama call GOP bad names", etc.

It is time to take it back folks. Call people on the carpet - both Left and Right. It is not a war. This is not, as radio pundits say "the most important election in our lifetimes".

Paul R Getto 6 years, 2 months ago

+1. I agree; now let's figure out how to change the dialogue and solve some problems.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 2 months ago

"We don’t have enemies in our political environment here..." === Excellent point. We forget in the electoral disputes we are all Americans. Pitts could have titled this "Republicans and Democrats are the Enemy of Reason" and it would have also been accurate. Both parties are in denial about significant issues and they play the Sheeple like cheap guitars when they campaign for office.

tbaker 6 years, 2 months ago

The “…splenetic bile that would have been unthinkable not too very long ago” Mr. Pitts claims characterizes the political discourse these days is not emblematic of just the Republican Party; far from it. Politicians in both major parties are equally guilty of displaying this behavior. They both embrace ideological extremism, but this is a ruse. The two major parties go to great lengths to divide us and make us think there is a stark difference between democrats and republicans. Listen to what they say, but watch what they do folks. There is not a shred of difference between these two when you look at how they vote/what they do. It takes both parties to spend $4 billion dollars of borrowed money every day. Both parties are quickly ruining our country.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 2 months ago

+1 And we are all sitting here typing on blogs letting both parties get away with it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.