Change IS Coming to the GOP

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="289" caption="Sen. Graham, quietly trying to save the GOP"][/caption]

It's not the kind of change the GOP grand poobahs had hoped for, but it's definitely change.

That is to say, young conservatives are not falling in line with party talking points, specifically on global warming, says Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in an interview with Paul Krugman at the Gray Lady:

“I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. ... From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people.”

I've seen this coming for a while. Republicans sticking to their tired neocon talking points are driving away intelligent people — and worst of all true conservatives.

Global warming is just one example, but you could easily lump in here: health care reform, same-sex marriage and, probably, abortion. These are all losing issues for GOP candidates as time marches on and they stay firmly put in the past.

Krugman and the liberal media?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="328" caption="Timother Geithner could use a liberal media right now."][/caption]

I have a hypothesis about political hacks and talking heads (mostly the big dogs, small town bloggers like myself don't count): Liberal pundits are more likely to attack the actions and plans of Democrats than wingnuts are with regards to Republicans.

 

Or maybe more to the point, when a liberal attacks a liberal, apparently, it's news. 

I have no evidence. Just one, single observation. 

On March 23, 2009, Paul Krugman slammed the Geithner plan to buy up toxic assets off the banks books. (And I don't even have an opinion about the plan, so that's not relevant.)

A Google News search at Midnight showed Krugman's name was mention in about 4,000 articles in the last hour. And a vast majority of them, gauging from a precursory skimming of a few pages, are about how he's blasting Obama's toxic asset plan.

Why is this newsworthy?

Question One: Is he the only damn economist available? Reporters, haven't you ever heard of HARO? 

Answer One: No. But didn't you hear about all the staff cut backs. It's easier just to rehash the wire story, or worse, Drudge.

Question Two: When in the world does the media ever give a crap about Paul Krugman. 

Answer Two: They don't. He gases everyday about something within the confines of his blog The Conscience of a Liberal on NYTimes.com and it hardly ever makes a blip.

Sure the media covered the story about Paul winning the Nobel Prize, but it's all about placement. I guarantee his Nobel Prize win didn't lead the newscast.

So where is the so-called liberal media when Tim Giethner could use it? 

It's a farce. It's a red herring. It's literally a phrase Republicans made up in the '70s to have a scapegoat for why their dirty, secretive president couldn't get any love.

And even though I believe a slim majority of the media probably are more liberal in slant, I think news coverage is slanted to the conservative. It has to be so they can say their actions are beyond reproach.

And this ties into the overall theory here: Liberals are much more likely to be critical of liberals than is true for conservatives judging the actions of conservatives.