It isw not good journalism because it is an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal. It does not require a close reading to run across mis-representation of fact; it is all Obama's fault that the budget negotiations are going nowhere; and so on. The article reverses the standing matter that the Republicans did not take "yes" for an answer in the last budget negotiations and walked out. So, now this writer says that the Republicans have a winning hand if they play it carefully. The Republicans did not win the Presidential election, in fact.

Glenn Greenwald is a relentless critic. He is good at it. It never hurts us to have it pointed out that there is a media bubble in which certain media people live because they're located or centred in Washington, D.C., or something. They're rich. They are biased. Their news "reporting" and opinions are formed around what they have been fed in that sense of what their paymasters sya to do. I f good criticsm is good jjournalism then this is an okay articel.

Well, it good criticism of the bad jounarlistic practice of the "false equivalence" mode of reporting, which is one of the points, I suppose. Established reporters/journalists/editorialists/commentators shouldn't have to cringe when they get blowback from the liar on a verifiable fact.

No. It appears to take the "horse race" position, which is will it hurt Romney in his presidential campaign. Of course, it will look like is disputing all of the points in the Washington Post article, which it isn't. Romney's campaign aides and flacks are doing precisely the same thing: blurring distinctions between "off shoring" and "outsourcing" and so forth.... Only my opinion, though.

We have to recognize that this writing is very strong opinion with very acidic humor. If you are not defensive for or about any of these candidates, you have to laugh. And in that sense (perspective) it is really good, I think. Wayland T Washington

Paul Krugman does not "pull his punches", so to speak. So, he can be trusted to take a stand and not equivocate or try to "balance" his commentary. Therefore, one is challenged to verify or refute what he has to say. Wayland T Washington