Particularly when you consider the ramifications for millions of children growing up without a two-parent family, the news that 51% of women in America now live without a spouse [up from 35% in 1950] is serious indeed. But the decline of the basic building block of society was nothing but a laughing matter for the boys of the Early Show.Rather than seeing any cause for concern, CBS displayed the graphic seen here blithely informing viewers: "No Husband Needed."
As Russ Mitchell threw the story to Harry Smith, he mirthfully proclaimed:
"So Harry, now there's now statistical data for what we always knew: they really don't need us, do they?"
A chuckling Smith was happy to agree: "They really don't."
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So which is it liberals, male
January 16, 2007 - 15:03 ET by dscottSo which is it liberals, males are not necessary or you as a male aren't worth the effort which lets you off the hook for responsibility?
It seems that feminism is getting it's victory, a male free society. They convinced women to have kids without fathers, now being alone is the ultimate freedom. There is a definite upside to this, once this generation dies out it won't reproduce it's failures.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
So women have more choices no
January 16, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Agnostic frontSo women have more choices now than they used to. I find it to be inconsequnetial that less women are married now than in previous years. BTW, Mark, how is this liberal bias? That these two guys make a joke about women needing men less shows their liberal bias? That's a stretch.
I'd add that the graphic, &
January 16, 2007 - 15:28 ET by Mark FinkelsteinI'd add that the graphic, "No Husband Needed" goes beyond joking into the realm of CBS expressing its view on the subject.
I concur.....
January 16, 2007 - 23:11 ET by acumenI concur.....
More women aren't married r
January 16, 2007 - 15:22 ET by balboaMore women aren't married right now.
So? What's wrong with that?
I'd say indifference to the
January 16, 2007 - 15:25 ET by Mark FinkelsteinI'd say indifference to the decline in marriage is typical of liberals. And yes, as stated in the first sentence of my item, I do consider it a problem, a very serious one, because of the implications for the millions of children growing up as a result in homes without a stable two-parent unit.
Well are we talking about s
January 16, 2007 - 15:29 ET by balboaWell are we talking about single women or single mothers?
Well are we talking about s
January 16, 2007 - 15:29 ET by balboaWell are we talking about single women or single mothers?
"Well are we talking a
January 16, 2007 - 15:34 ET by Mark Finkelstein"Well are we talking about single women or single mothers?" - Surely you can see that there would be a correlation between the two?
What, that all single women a
January 16, 2007 - 15:42 ET by balboaWhat, that all single women are single mothers?
No, but the converse is tru
January 16, 2007 - 16:05 ET by Uncle JohnNo, but the converse is true. Hey, I'm cool with a decline in marriage, if it's among liberals, and they stop reproducing because of it.
Liberalism ≠ liberty.
it's all inbreeding anyway
January 16, 2007 - 16:08 ET by misterbillfor libs--it's all inbreeding anyway--that is why eventually they will cease to exist either on their own or getting some country to nuke us!
Ha. You're hilarious. No re
January 16, 2007 - 16:08 ET by balboaHa. You're hilarious. No really. Stop. I can't breath.
I was trying to get some clarification on the numbers mentioned in the article. Mark seemed to suggest that this 51% were all mothers.
When you catch your breath,
January 16, 2007 - 16:11 ET by Uncle JohnWhen you catch your breath, let me know if you can breathe </eyeroll>.
Liberalism ≠ liberty.
With respect, I suggested n
January 16, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Mark FinkelsteinWith respect, I suggested no such thing, Balboa. Don't know if you read the linked NY Times article, but the percentage in 1950 was 35%. That tells me that something very significant is happening, and it's hard to read it as good, especially for children.
You are spot on Mark. This is
January 16, 2007 - 16:59 ET by florida_chadYou are spot on Mark. This is bad news for kids.
Liberal union - any two people, kids? not necessary, but can be obtianed if necessary.
Conservative union - husband, wife and probably kids from the old fashioned way of having kids.
Gee - one way has worked for, well, ever.
The other way is nothing but sad.
"Gee - one way has worke
January 16, 2007 - 17:44 ET by RunningBeer"Gee - one way has worked for, well, ever. The other way is nothing but sad."
That's the same thing I said recently when someone mentioned how great it is that we can get cloned meat and poultry now. I thought, why are we reinventing the wheel?
But how many of these 51% a
January 16, 2007 - 17:04 ET by balboaBut how many of these 51% are mothers?
Just because there are more single women, I don't see a need to raise the alarm. More single mothers is a concern, but it depends on lots more than just whether or not the mom is single.
Bal, the idea that single p
January 16, 2007 - 17:55 ET by RunningBeerBal, the idea that single parent households can raise good kids is one thing but to thwart the notion that it's better for the child to be fatherless (or motherless) is ludicrous at best. This is something the secular progressives have been pushing for awhile and apparently CBS is now in agreement.
I think you would be real har
January 16, 2007 - 22:06 ET by crsheddI think you would be real hard pressed to find a quote from a legitimate source that says a single parent is better than two parents-progressive or otherwise.
Good Gosh, crshedd, lucide thought comes through?
January 16, 2007 - 22:10 ET by acaiguanaGood Gosh, crshedd, lucide thought comes through?
Good good hope yet.
Keep reading those books my man.
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
IDK why, but it seems that no
January 17, 2007 - 01:06 ET by The PresbyterIDK why, but it seems that no one has answered Bal's question completely. I would have to say that no, not all the single women are necessarily mothers. That factor was probably left out of the survey/study. But as Mark said, there's probable some sort of correlation. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the number of single motherr's has also grown since 1950.
I'm also curious as to what the age range of these single women are. If they're young then I'm surprised that it's not higher than 51%. If it's women who go through life without marrying even once, then I'm surprised it's as high as 51%. That would sound like a number sampled from a country in Europe with they're bassackward population rates.
Eh, I just read the article,
January 17, 2007 - 01:10 ET by The PresbyterEh, I just read the article, i guess it was a count of all women alive. I think this is just a natural result of people marrying later. That would increase the number fer sher.
Eh, I just read the article,
January 17, 2007 - 01:10 ET by The PresbyterDuplicate :::deleted:::
This is a strange way to fram
January 16, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Tony SThis is a strange way to frame this story. After all, men do the asking in marriage, right? Why not frame it in terms of no men are asking American women to marry?! Why would that be?
Or why not frame it as "men are refusing to get married because they get destroyed in divorce court?" Because that's the word amongst young guys who have seen their fathers' lives ruined (or never seen their dads at all). Why is it always "how does this affect women?"
Here is a link to The New York Times' story about this subject, which takes much the same view:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html?ei=5065&en=fd431ee3a6bf026f&ex=1169528400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
That is also an interesting a
January 16, 2007 - 15:50 ET by dscottThat is also an interesting angle, men electing not to get married, obviously it takes two to tango. You are probably right about the reasons, however, this is not necessarily a bad thing for the moment. Consider that men being gun shy for a while is just them being more selective for a better spouse. If men are expected to pop the question, then them being more selective in popping the question may be a larger factor than the article let's on.
Now that websites like eharmony.com and match.com are looking for compatibility matches, we may see a long term trend in computer match making thus reducing the percentage of divorce.
The biggest factor in marriage is selflessness versus selfishness. It only takes one selfish person to destroy a marriage. While this increase may seem a problem on the short term, the long term is another story. All imbalances eventually correct themselves and in this case those unsuitable for marriage will select themselves out of the gene pool. The next generation will bring things back into balance.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Right Bal. These stats don't
January 16, 2007 - 15:28 ET by Agnostic frontRight Bal. These stats don't have anything to do with children. Just unmarried women.
You don't think there's a c
January 16, 2007 - 15:32 ET by Mark FinkelsteinYou don't think there's a correlation between a decline in unmarried women and an increase in children living outside two-parent homes? Are you disturbed by the fact that more than 30% of children are born outside marriage, more than 70% of black children? Or is that just another "inconsequential choice"?
Not disturbed, no. Many heter
January 16, 2007 - 15:45 ET by Agnostic frontNot disturbed, no. Many hetero couples are now choosing to raise their children in a family unit without getting married. Also, many gay couples who would like to get married to raise their children in families, can't.
double?
January 16, 2007 - 15:56 ET by acaiguanaMan that's three double posts this year...
:<)
ACA
Gay couples would affect family unit marriage statistics?
January 16, 2007 - 15:56 ET by acaiguanaGay couples would affect family unit marriage statistics? If only we let Gay couples get married?
What's this, outcome based math? If it sounds smart say it?
I don't think so...
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Hetero couples living togethe
January 16, 2007 - 18:00 ET by RunningBeerHetero couples living together??? Wouldn't that put them in the "living together" dept rather than making them part of the stats quoted above?
I wonder how many of the wome
January 16, 2007 - 16:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberI wonder how many of the women are widows, with all the baby-boomers getting older...
I think some of you guys are
January 16, 2007 - 15:29 ET by SchwabertI think some of you guys are losing some perspective here. I've met some republican feminists, and they're just as committed and fearsome as their democratic partners. I don't watch the Early Show or whatever it's called, but if these two men decide that they aren't needed that just means more women for the rest of the men. I've yet to meet a feminist who was truly satisfied with her home life.
--Perpetual itching without benefit of scratching to the enemies of America.--
extension of thought
January 16, 2007 - 16:11 ET by misterbillextension of thought--as the cities are being evaporated--these clowns will be saying, ha ha well we didn't really need them anyhow!!
The decline of marriage is no
January 16, 2007 - 16:40 ET by florida_chadThe decline of marriage is not good for society. I just don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. Heteros who live as a family unit without being married is nothing but sad. Make a commitment!
Marriage
January 16, 2007 - 16:59 ET by BeanManI agree. Maybe women are single because men don't find in necessary to marry them to get what they want.
I agree with your sentiments,
January 16, 2007 - 17:04 ET by dscottI agree with your sentiments, however, until the Family Law system starts behaving like the Constitution exists and thus meets the expectations of the citizenry, there is no reason to get married. The Family Law Court is nothing more than an organized lynch mob. You might as well be Black in 1940. Who willingly goes to their own lynching unless taken against your will or tricked into doing so?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
So Barbara Boxer was wrong?Ap
January 16, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Eric TurnerSo Barbara Boxer was wrong?
Apparently you don't need a husband only if you are a liberal feminist. If you are a conservative female (because apparently conservatives can't be "feminists") then you have to have a husband and children in order to sufficiently carry out your functions in life.
"Perpetual itching without benefit of scratching to the enemies of America." - July 4th toast during the Revolution
I would love to see some stat
January 16, 2007 - 17:40 ET by paperheadI would love to see some statistical data around the incomes of these children growing out of single mother families. I will bet anyone a Ruth Chris steak that children born into two parent (man and a woman) families earn much higher incomes and are better off. Of course better off is in the eye of the beholder. If you are a liberal and depend upon the government for your well-being, then these kids are exactly what they need. More victoms. I find it curious that they would tout this given how much poorer our students are preforming in school. The MSM obviously does not think that we can put two and two together.
Actually, try here. Excelle
January 16, 2007 - 21:05 ET by CrimsonfistedActually, try here. Excellent article on this topic.
can you summarize your arti
January 16, 2007 - 21:31 ET by Conservative Voicecan you summarize your article, or cut and paste the part you particularly like...I don't want to have to sign in
I would make up stats for a R
January 16, 2007 - 22:09 ET by crsheddI would make up stats for a Ruth Chris steak. Haven't had one for years!
Here's the real problem: Midd
January 16, 2007 - 18:19 ET by Mr. KafirHere's the real problem: Middle-class American women not reproducing. Or reproducing without a male to help raise the children.
And I assume you have some ki
January 16, 2007 - 19:43 ET by balboaAnd I assume you have some kind of data to back up your "ill-mannered ill-bred illiterate children" theory?
Balboa, don't be questionin
January 16, 2007 - 19:51 ET by Rupert CadellBalboa, don't be questioning the anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-Feminist platform. It makes sense because the "Aw-shucks, I'm gonna take my best gal out for a malt and propose the day I turn 18 so we can have horribly awkward wedding night sex and spawn some little brats to take our place" ethos of the sexually-repressed Eisenhower administration was clearly the best way.
Well, let's not forget the to
January 16, 2007 - 20:00 ET by Eric TurnerWell, let's not forget the tolerant liberals that are being raised. Should I post a link to the comments they make on digg.com? Wow, now that's tolerance!
"Perpetual itching without benefit of scratching to the enemies of America." - July 4th toast during the Revolution
If I wait long enough, he'll
January 16, 2007 - 20:04 ET by balboaIf I wait long enough, he'll tell me I can't find my ass with both hands. That's my favorite.
rupe locks & loads
January 16, 2007 - 20:20 ET by tumbler_2007Here's Rupert taking aim,
"Don't be questioning the anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-feminist platform."
What are you here for, then? To later go over to Huffyarpost and send up yucks out of proportion to your humor, telling the cretins how you puffed yourself up to the size of a pickel-barrel? Come over and question all you want, the door's open. Just be ready for the straight answers. Bring your Kleenex.
Jeeze Rupert, I never made fun of your sex life.
January 16, 2007 - 21:32 ET by acaiguanaJeeze Rupert, I never made fun of your sex life.
"Aw-shucks, I'm gonna take my best gal out for a malt and propose the day I turn 18 so we can have horribly awkward wedding night sex and spawn some little brats to take our place" ethos of the sexually-repressed Eisenhower administration was clearly the best way."
Now, let's take this apart. "Aw shucks." One of my favorite phrases. I personally think, "Aw shucks" works in a variety of situations.
For example, <Albert Einstein> "I hate consensus science because at that point, everyone stops thinking".
"Aw shucks."
"I'm gonna take my best gal out for a malt..." (we'll get to the rest later)
<Rodeo math> I'll sell my saddle I just won and buckle for enough hay and gas to get to the next town; my second-best girlfriend will let me stay her with her until I get up in the morning; assuming I don't drink so much beer I forget where she lives."
"...horribly awkward wedding night sex."
We were both virgins, stuck on stupid and can never learn how to make each other happy" - kinda sex, huh Rupert?
"...little brats to take our place' ethos?"
"...Sexually repressed Eisenhower adminsitration..."
See, I told you I'd get to the rest of it.
First I want to thank you Rupie, for at least being honest enough to demonstrate your absolute disdain for anything that might even be considered part of America's past and dreams. That was good.
Was that sorta like the movie that started out in Black and White and ended up in color. What was it's name? Smallville, or Hickville, I don't remember.
I see you now.
Sitting in your living room; sipping your designer water; ringing up the Chinese deli on the corner for a snack. Gee, all of us were just so cute 'dog smoking cigarette' icons on the living room setee.
Keep on coming back.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Pleasantville. Smallville i
January 16, 2007 - 21:38 ET by balboaPleasantville.
Smallville is the CW show about Superman (his hometown), and Hickville is...I got nuthin'.
Mmmm, designer water.Seriou
January 16, 2007 - 23:11 ET by Rupert CadellMmmm, designer water.
Seriously though, Aca and Tumbler, I
was only trying to prove a point with my obviously ridiculous
hyperbole. You guys can dish it out like nobody's business when it
comes to insulting anybody perceived as liberal, or even make blanket
statements like "anybody who doesn't see that the MsM is biased is an
idiot!" but you get so wholesomely indignant when the same sort of
virulence is returned in the opposite ideology. Sorry for insulting
everyone's old-fashioned values (my post was, of course, meant to pack
as many cliches into one statement as possible), but let's not be
hypocritical.
You're right. We conservat
January 17, 2007 - 01:53 ET by JerryYou're right. We conservatives shouldn't be questioning the anti-American, anti-straight, anti-male platform.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
As a straight American male
January 17, 2007 - 09:49 ET by Rupert CadellAs a straight American male who has a wonderful wife and daughter, I can assure you I am not anti- any of those things. I also have no wish to impose my lifestyle, sexuality, or personal choices on anyone else. If you don't want gay couples having kids, you'd better start pushing for legislation against divorce, cause it's only fair...and you know that ain't gonna happen.
Repeat after me: There is NOTHING inherently wrong with homosexuality.
Methinks thou dost protest to
January 17, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Mr. KafirMethinks thou dost protest too much. Fool.
Well Kafir, if you're using
January 17, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Rupert CadellWell Kafir, if you're using that phrase in its Shakespearean context, you're saying that my protestations are a painfully transparent bid to cover something up. I'd like for you to elaborate on what you mean by that.
If, on the other hand, you're using that phrase to simply express your opinion that I complain too much in general, forgive me for laughing. I post here a handful of times a week, and I have yet to reach the level of apoplectic, name-calling hysterics that appears to be the norm for at least 1/3 of the posters here.
So....clarify and rebutt, if you would. Knave!
Actually, studies have shown
January 16, 2007 - 22:11 ET by crsheddActually, studies have shown NO adverse affect on children raised in a gay/lesbian household. The stigma is strictly conservative.
Actually, you are totally wrong, crshedd.
January 16, 2007 - 22:29 ET by acaiguanaActually, you are totally wrong, crshedd.
The best they could do was say that being raised in a Gay/Lesbian (what the hell is the difference anyway) household is just as hard (they said no harder than) being a child of divorce.
Now, take the child of divorce who's mother was gay, for example, and lied to the father about it, for example, to come to the US, for example, to escape the prejudice of their own culture, for example, and the kid has to attend school and explain to all the other children of divorced parents (for example); my mom has a woman lover and my dad is sorta OK.
For example.
Get out of here.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
ACA, Imagine, if you will, be
January 16, 2007 - 22:40 ET by BlondeACA, Imagine, if you will, being a grown up married woman, with children, and a full blown family life.
To find out that your mom is a lesbian....and has been for years. Your beloved father was faked out of his shoes for years and years, while he provided a lovely home for (lesbo) wife and four children....college educations, etc. etc.
Imagine how horrified one would be at, oh say, thirty five, to find out that your entire family life had been a lie. Imagine exactly how utterly horrified you'd be. And imagine, then, how people who couldn't stand you in the first place would rejoice at your discomfiture.
True story.....I'm sorry I'm laughing a bit....but I was one of the ones who had a good laugh over miss high & mighty's , um, mom (rude words).
So of course....it's no great difficulty to have a gay parent. Unless one lives in the real world.
Is this a story that I've mis
January 16, 2007 - 22:48 ET by balboaIs this a story that I've missed?
Of course you never heard it
January 16, 2007 - 22:55 ET by BlondeOf course you never heard it before, Bal.
It's a true story....someone I knew in a former life who was the nastiest, most stuck up witch you could imagine. But, unfortunately, when you marry into a family.....well, you know....
It's a good story, yes?
And true, too.
Exposure of personal issue isn't the point of NB.
January 16, 2007 - 22:48 ET by acaiguanaExposure of personal issue isn't the point of NB.
But...
I raised my daughter because my ex-wife (after the age of 2.5 years by the baby) joined the Navy (good for her) because she was Gay.
Now, having said that, I really hate the idea that Gay life is somewhat superior to the normative.
Having said that, Gays politely tell me it's my fault because I enforce the idea the lifestyle is 'bad'.
For this they defend 'Rock Creek Park meetings'.
For this they defend 'hetrosexual marriages' the - so-called 'beard'.
For this they defend destruction of other's lives as if they were just obsticles in their pursuit of 'happiness'.
Well, for this they also commit felonies.
ACA
:o<
peace
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
The breakdown of tradition
January 16, 2007 - 23:01 ET by kathleenirishThe breakdown of traditional marriage and the rise of promiscuous and casual sexual behavior as an equal alternative has really hurt children and women the most. It indirectly helped gays and lesbians, because their lifestyles became more acceptable.
What bothers me most is all the foster children in 'the system' right now. Half a million. Overlooked and neglected, and nothing changes.
He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
I think what really gets me about Liberals is they 'think' for..
January 16, 2007 - 23:11 ET by acaiguanaI think what really gets me about Liberals is they 'think' for us.
They 'feel' what? They don't feel squat. I'm sorry, but the whole idea that some Liberal 'feels' for me or anyone else is beyond stupid.
And then what. So what?
And that becomes my answer to this stuff, 'so what'?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
ACA,My post is just a small
January 16, 2007 - 23:01 ET by BlondeACA,
My post is just a small example of how being the child of gay parents may not be the most wonderful thing on the planet...which is how the libs would care to have us all think.
This particular person, to whom I referred, deserved every miserable moment that her mom's "coming out" caused her. After alot of laughing, though, all of us who knew her (and for the most part despised her) felt really badly at such a rotten turn of fate.
Well I was an older first time bride but . . .
January 16, 2007 - 18:59 ET by terrigI was 35 when I met my husband and 36 when we got married. We did not live together, in fact he was over 500 miles away in GA while I lived in VA & I didn't move in until we were then Lt. & Mrs. G. It wasn't like for lack of trying but I could have married some real losers but decided not too make a mistake just because I wanted to get married.
I think that children should grow up in two parent homes if possible and it would be even better if those parents were married before the child was born.
I need my husband. Maybe Russ & Harry's wives don't need them but they sure don't speak for me. My parents will be married 51 years on the 28th of January. I hope that we attain that goal as well.
Liberals
January 16, 2007 - 19:20 ET by iveseenitallIt is disturbing to see the liberal comments concerning marriage on this blog. But it is proof positive that modern liberal brainwahing has been quite effective. Nothing (except your disagreeing with them) disturbs the selfish, soulless young this putred philosopy has produced. In their defense, however, at least some of them talk from sheer ignorance and inexperience.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
My congratulations to your pa
January 16, 2007 - 19:34 ET by Eric TurnerMy congratulations to your parents that is fabulous. I'm been married 13 years this February and it's sometimes been the hardest thing I've done. But it's also been the most rewarding. We have four children who will all be future conservative voters, not liberal lemmings. It is my goal to be married my entire life to only one woman - till death do us part.
"Perpetual itching without benefit of scratching to the enemies of America." - July 4th toast during the Revolution
I've been married 42 years. I
January 16, 2007 - 19:43 ET by iveseenitallI've been married 42 years. It keeps getting better. The young who go liberal will miss this. Conservatism works for many, helps many. Liberalism works for a few, destroys most.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
The answer is simple: more liberal voters
January 16, 2007 - 21:11 ET by w0tmThis is news?? Democrats (especially liberals) have publicly stated single women and, especially, single mothers are one of their most reliable voting blocks. Ever wonder how long a newscaster has to look when doing a story concerning those living in poverty to find a "standard family" to interview? The answer is a veeery looong time. I understand there are three in the country and they're booked out on interviews through the year 2010. If the government didn't do everything possible to encourage single-parent families (95% of the time the single parent is female), the poverty rate would plummet. Liberals have total government dependency of as many people as possible as their long-term goal. So, as I say, "this is news?"
The "voting blocks" of single mothers/single women added to new voting blocks of illegal immigrants voting courtesy of "motor voter" and "no I.D. voting" and the felon voting laws winding their way through most state legislatures right now, the (approximately) ten million new voters virtually all pushing the "D" button, will guarantee the Democratic Party dominance for decades to come. When they take over the White House in 2009, they will be able to pass a national felon voting law. Then the two-party system will become a relic of American history.
We had our window of opportunity but frittered it away playing by the rules we let the media set for us. Don't expect the Democrats to play with the same civility now that they've regained power and don't expect this opportunity we wasted to come our way again during the life times of most of us. The Republican Party is speeding toward becoming a mostly ignored weak second party with no power of any value. This "news" is just one of many confirmations that we've lost. Get used to it. We've lost. As someone famous once said, "I know I've lost. I'm just trying to lose as slowly as possible".