Comment: What's changing is that the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I sure do hope so (see in situ)

What's changing is that the

What's changing is that the Internet broke the corporate (lamestream) media's stranglehold on people's perceptions - especially those of the congresscritters.

The media's power came mainly from creating an illusion of popular will in order to steer the politicians into making the decisions they wanted them to make.

To a lesser extent it hamstrung the people by denying them social reinforcemet, projecting the illusion that they were out-of-step with the other members of their communities, leading them to be silent in order to avoid a perceived threat of ostracism, rather than pursuing their own interests with other like-minded people.

Add to that various forms of gaslighting: Misreporting facts, biased reporting that distorts perceptions of risk (such as reporting crimes with guns and not defense with guns), and the like.

Now people can see that there are millions of others with similar opinions (such as opposition to war or government programs). So they're speaking out and pushing their representatives. (Thus the shocking surprises and mob scenes in the politicans' town-hall meetings.)

Perhaps more importantly, politicians are also seeing the truth behind the curtain, rather than relying on the media's reporting, polls, lobbyists, and the occasional constituent contacts (which can be dismissed as outliers rather than typical voters).

Conglomerates mixing media empires with military equipment manufacturers (such as Westinghouse/CBS or GE/NBC/Comcast) or powerful politicians owning media empires (Romney/Bain Capital/ClearChannel) are losing their ability to run the show by feeding fiction to the decision makers - governmental or voter.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.