[quote name='mykevermin']
It also scares the media at times into a phony "let's have left v right" dialogue with weaklings on the left (though they're easy enough to come by) and braggadocios dumb
s on the right. Someone as smarmy and just plain
ing *stupid* as Eric Erickson would never get air time if they were a liberal.
It also means the media won't stand up to bullshit 'think tanks' that have a vested interest in proving a particular political worldview via dubious analysis (e.g., Heritage, Cato, Club for Growth). They are reticent to analyze, similarly, how
ing absurd policy proposals on the right are (e.g., Paul Ryan's budget proposal).[/QUOTE]
ABC - owned by Disney
Fox - News Corp
NBC - GE
CNN - Time Warner
CBS - CBS Corp
None of these are what I would think of as 'liberal' entities. Adhering to the first rule of journalism best express during Watergate: Follow the money. Since these supposed 'liberal mainstream media' outlets are ultimately backed by multinational corporation money, I find the idea that they are inherently liberally biased laughable at best.
And this 'fair and balanced' act that all of them have adopted result not in reasoned discussion, but rather (IMO irksome) 'political theater'. But I guess that brings in money in the form or advertisers and, in the case of the participants, in the form of fundraising/book sales.
It'd be honestly hilarious if people's lives weren't so affected by it.
As to why the GOP is allowing this 'infighting' to be so public, one article/opinion I read suggested that they pretty much have decided that Obama's re-election is unstoppable so they have put forth sacrificial lambs. Romney is only 'sort-of' like them, but is also a dime-a-dozen so finding a different corporatist to run wouldnt be hard at all (Jeb, Christie, Carly Fiorina). Him losing is no loss to them.
The real thing is to put the so-called tea partiers 'back in their place'. If Romney loses, they can just say it's cause the dumb tea-partiers didnt 'fall in line'. If it's Newt, and he loses, they can say 'see, dummies, we warned you'. Either way, the 'establishment' ends up looking like the 'smartest kid in the class' so they can run one of their (supposed) A-List candidates in 2016 when they are not facing off against the power of an incumbent. I doubt Biden will run and really, who is coming off the Democratic bench? Kaine? Bayh? Giffords? (only slightly j/k).
But I would like to challenge your assessment of the registered "Independents". Fickle? Yes, in the true sense of the word, meaning that they (we) hold no particular alliance to a party. But that doesnt mean that they dont hold particular beliefs and are all wishy-washy, or even uniformed. Many independents that I know are actually more hardline left/right than the major parties and have chosen independent because they dont think Ds &/or Rs go far
enough.
And those in the middle generally really have an ideology that crosses the parties. In my personal experience, I've known many independents who are that way because many of their decisions are filtered through their religion. They are the personification of the "compassionate conservative". They are generally 'pro-life' and the 'traditional' family, but they also believe in educating kids, and not forcing seniors to choose between food and medicine. There was a time when members of both (national) parties expressed views like this so they might vote for a D this year and an R next. (see the rise of the Blue Dog Democrats)
Conversely, there are the fiscally conservative socially liberal types. These are the one you see attaching themselves to Ron Paul. You might argue that they are not informed on all aspects of politics. That's your choice. Kid's crying, I'll cut this short here.
