If the administration in power were to behave significantly differently than the former one, and received public support, then it would be easy to say that the Republicans have been discredited.
But as long as the Dems continue to genuflect in the direction of Reagan and BushCo policies, it doesn't even seem as if the Dems think that Republican policies have been discredited. They act as if the only difference is that they are the ones carrying out and profiting by these same policies.

I think there is absolutley a case to be made that this Democratic administration, and this Democratic Congress have not taken advantage of their ability to take several giant steps to the left and make an absolute and principled distinction between themselves and the Republicans.  A relentless campaign of bipartisanship, and in come cases, outright acceptance and furtherance of Bush policies, has given the media little reason to think the policies of the Republicans have been rejected and discredited.

On the other hand, it's possible that the media is so controlled by their corporate masters, who cannot and will not reject GOP BS, that we may never see or be able to count on any significant effort by the media to tell the truth.

Why do NPR anchors earn $300,000 a year?  Precisely what is it that they do that adds that much value to the information given to the listener?  They earn $300,000 because that's what their counterparts in TV earn, not because of any value they bring.

Could the $300,000 distort the anchor's view of issues facing most of America, say on health care, or on the housing bubble, or on tax policy?

On NPR it's time to get rid of anyone earning over, say, $150,000.  Bring in fresh blood, and cheaper blood.  The folks earning more than $150,000 should have no problem whatsoever finding new jobs that pay that much money, since they are somehow worth it, and in return the audience will gain fresh perspectives and NPR will gain a new generation of experienced reporters.

I'd suspect the same is true for PBS (though I don't watch them and don't know.)

You are decrying pundits acting like pundits. That is not the serious part of the show.

The narrative is the narrative until it isn't.  Although we've elected a hugh number of Democrats, we have done nothing to change to the Reagan narrative.  This is why I believe the health care issue is a death match for the Republicans.  If they lose, the narrative changes.  

One reason for our trouble as Democrats is that our marketing sucks.  And one reason that the marketing sucks is that there is a shifting line in the sand or no line in the sand.

We, the Democratic party, should not be surprised that politicians act like politicians.  We don't make our politicians fear that we will punish them for not drawing that line in the sand.  They have more fear of a possible Reagan type backlash.

Republicans are particularly immune from learning lessons because they are zealots and zealots never change.

Piling garbage on the agenda is a way of life that became a virtue with the assassination of Clinton's character and politics. The zealots of the left and the right participated in that. (Mind you the American official left is a caricature of the real thing.)

BTD, you yourself should be sent to the penalty box on piling up and dumping on people without facts. You claim that Rambo is guilty for Obama's idiotic health care politics. This is an invention; you have no facts to justify that. Furthermore, Obama's politics seem to fit his inherently stupid bipartisan pipe dream; Rambo is a much tougher guy who seems to drive a very hard bargain and not the banana squashed the Obama's health care approach appears to be.