[johninvegas]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Matters not.

If you choose to take on a high level operator like Reid bascially on an "Anybody but" basis - don't miss.

I would think Reid can be expected to return the favor. And I would think that good and fair.

I doubt you will see any open legislation directed at the RJ et al...but I would not be surprised if they have a certain amount of trouble getting earmarks or direct aid with regulators.

But the Tea Party does not want any of that anyway. So the RJ gets what it wants...what could be fairer.

First part I agree with (except for the "matters not" part), and Reid certainly will return the favor, in spades. But, and this is a HUGE but, if what Golfinnova says is true, then it is a massive abuse of power and should not be condoned no matter who it is.

I have no love for the paper, but I would think that Harry Reid would be above extortion to get his personal agenda done. If not, then he needs to be put out with the rest of the garbage.

[owelles]

Originally Posted by RCCCB

Most all papers are arms at this point of the Democrat party, and that is why I think they are drying up.

Totally ridiculous and absurd. Most papers apparently don't adhere to your political leanings, so you claim they're affiliated with the other political party.

And I would argue that they're not drying up, most are simply not making the millions and millions they used to. How many can you name that have actually gone out of business? I think of a couple that have ended their print product - Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Can you name more that back up your claim that newspapers are "drying up"?

[KonaKat]

Here is one article about how many have shut down, from July 2009

The Year The Newspaper Died

(Partial quote)
"But you may not quite appreciate the magnitude of the collapse.
So far this year:
105 newspapers have been shuttered.
10,000 newspaper jobs have been lost.
Print ad sales fell 30% in Q1 '09.
23 of the top 25 newspapers reported circulation declines between 7% and 20%"

And this website: Newspaper Death Watch

[dano]

An example of the change in policy can be seen in today's RJ in the disjointed column discussing proposed legislation on a new specialized license plate that supports the Tea Party Movement with a "Don't Tread On Me" theme.

Although the plate would pay for itself and contribute to charities, the author is against it saying there are too many such plates already making it difficult to identify the actual state of origin and that plates shouldn't promote political views.

His conclusion: put a 10-year moratorium on specialty plates and says its a "more fitting tribute to the Tea Party Movement". Huh?? why does he conclude this?

I submit because the author is a bitter liberal/progressive/socialist (whatever you want to call it) who despises the "right" to the point that he wants to further restrict free speech and free choice despite the fact that it would also restrict charitable contributions. Sounds like a change in guard to me. The RJ may be on a short list of subscriptions I am eliminating this year.