It may depend on how populism is defined. However, populism has never been truly liberal. Despite the selective examples in the article populism has always been tinged with racism, anti-semitism, and anti-Catholicism.

Populism is also associated with easy money and a nativist foreign and trade policy.

Overall, populism has traditionally been a reaction to intellectualists and bankers.

There is no doubt that the Washington Post opinion page has become almost unreadable. Too often their answers are simplistic and speak for what is good for the Washington establishment not American as a whole.

The problem however is broader than that. Sirota and Greenwald are themselves, one trick ponies, anit-American and anti-Israel. The villans are always people who are risk takers.

Righwing pundits such as pass for anchors on CNBC preach a selfishness and pro-rich mantra that it borders on racist. It certainly rare offers real thought on any issue.

Americans can now find thinking that is always comfortable to their preconceptions, and have nothing to do with facts.

Citizens should start demanding of opinion makers actual facts not opninions masquerading as facts.

There is no doubt that a sect of Christianity is behind the C Streeters just as a view of Christianity is behind the men who have shot doctors who perform abortions.

Why does the Left has no problem talking about Chritianity, but in the shooting at Ft. Hood the Left can't work any harder trying to deny a connection to a particular of Islam?

The Republican's answer to all questions is "tax cuts." What will the new governors do when they discover that they do have budget deficits that by law they must erase? No doubt they will propose tax cuts and the cutting of government expenditures. It will then be that voters who want something for nothing discover that is not what they voted for.

Lets see how popular these new Republican governors at this time next year.

Why does the MSM go along with the false comparisions, the phoney fairness and in general comparing things are not comprable?

Is it just that they like controversy and they don't care what it is about? Is it their corporated ownership? Is it that don't know any better?

The Rightwing is using the tried and true Nixon playbook of smearing your enemies. Just because Fox calls itself a news outlet does not make something other than part of the rightwing attack machine.

It is like all the "thinktanks" set up with Scaife, Ahmanson and other rightwingers money. They are not just about generating policy ideas. They are about providing rightwing talking points, partisan Op-Ed piecs and generally help to play the Media which tends to be too ignorant or too stupid to realize they are being played.

As anyone who paid attention to Obama during the campaign should know Obama thought it was more important to be bi-partisan than to pass any legislation.

The strangest thing about articles like David Sirotas his how delusional the Left was about Obama. Obama is a compromiser and someone who like Reagan wants to change the "the tone" in Washington. That is gave one speech, and no votes, against the war in Iraq and for many his race presuaded the usual Leftwingers that Obama was something he never was.

What short memories people have. When 3,000 Americans were killed, a reality seems too often forgotten, from forces based in Afghanistan it was stated over and over we had been involved in Afghanistan then we ignored it and we would not make that mistake again.

Bin Laden is out of Afghanistan? How do you know this? If he is in Pakistan what would prevent him from moving back into Afghanistan? Afghanistan is reminiscent of Europe in he 16th Century. If there was less focus on elections and more on civil society the world would be better off. That is part of the new proposed strategy.

I wonder how quickly Joan, Rachel Maddow, will be complaining after the first girls' school is closed, after the first wife is beaten, the first adultress is stoned to death. The whine will be why isn't something being done?

It is a good thing the American Left's spokespeople were not in existence at the time of the U.S. Revolution, the Civil War or WWII. They would have been preaching surrender and living with the intolerable.

I never understand why the media insists on saying this about Clinton except that the Press has it in their wordprocessors and any change would require work.

Who is more self-pitying, more self-service and less thoughtful that the American Media?

As David Brooks should now crediting the Puritans or New England with the fate of American culture is passe. The Chesapeake is the now given as much weight. The Southern gentry were not savers but lived a relatively grand and lavish lifestyle including the ownership of slaves.

I presume David Brooks is an admirer of Alexander Hamilton the New Yorker who cut a deal with the Virginians Jefferson and Madison. Hamiliton was a big believe in the importance of debt as a means to cement the wealthies' interests to that of the new nation.

The Puritans were and are important part of American history. It is not clear how significant they ever were in creating or molding American culture.

The Media has been quite remarkably inept in dealing with the Carter and Clinton comments. Carter never said that opposition to healthcare reform was racially based. He said the opposition to Obama was racially based.

Clinton agreed raced was a factor in oppositon to Obama, but that healthcare reform was a matter of policy in which there were policy disputes that would have to be argued on their merits.

It is often disappointed, if not shocking, how wrong and self-righteous the Media is.

Bill Clinton is often accused of being "self-pitying" when he does not accept the Press' view of his actions No group is more self-regarding and self-pitying than the Media.