NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
I don't comment on every idiotic pronouncement from the Times (I do have a day job), but this one is such a hypocritical piece of partisan hackery, that it deserves a mention. Today's NYT contains an editorial entitled "Filibustering Nominees Must End." This editorial, of course, comes just days after the president called for an end to filibusters in the SOTU. Great minds, and all that.
Compare today's editorial to that of March 29, 2005, in which the Times argued that the filibuster was a vital safeguard for the Republic. Remind me, who was president in 2005? And the 2005 editorial itself was a reversal of an earlier NY Times editorial against filibusters in the mid-1990s, during the presidency of ... oh wait, it's on the tip of my tongue.
Today, the editors declare with manly frankness, "this is major change of position for us." But actually, the Times' position in totally consistent: filibusters are good, or bad, depending on who's in the White House.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
Here is the difference between liberals and conservatives, courtesy of Star Trek (The Original Series, which teaches you everything you need to know about human nature).
Yarnek, the omnipotent rock creature, has just observed Kirk and Spock (with Abe Lincoln and Sarek) defeat a band of evildoers, including such luminaries as Genghis Khan. This exercise has perplexed Yarnek, who wanted to learn the difference between good and evil; he's seen that the "good" used the same weapons and methods as the "evil."
Kirk asks, "What did you offer the others if they won?"
"What they wanted most," Yarnek replies. "Power."
Kirk retorts, "You offered us our lives and the lives of my crew."
"I perceive," says Yarnek.
How does this apply? Conservatives warned Liberals that using the filibuster against Republican nominees would result in it being used against Democrat nominees. Conservatives are willing to use the same weapons and methods as Liberals in defense.
But the NY Times and Obama denounce the filibuster as immoral, despite having supported it in the past. Liberals believe that they are the only ones with the moral character worthy of using weapons and methods to attack their enemies. Conservatives defending themselves are EVIL.
Mar '11
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
One amazing feature of the Left is their level of cognitive dissonance; they have no problem holding entirely contradictory positions from one day to the next.
Consider promoting vegetarianism (eating more plants), with the desire to have less land being used for agriculture, with the quest for organic (inefficient) farming, with trumpeting solar power (what is more solar than agriculture?), to hating CO2 (otherwise known as plant food), with hating GM crops that avoid the use of pesticides, with promoting African wellbeing but depriving it of technologies that would allow it to produce food efficiently..... <sigh>
May '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
You gotta ask yourself...are these people nuts? Do they think we are stupid?
Don't answer that second one...their actions tell you all you need to know.
Jan '11
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
What's amazing is that these people go home at night and smugly consider themselves the intellectual vanguard of the country.
Jun '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
"Today, the editors declare with manly frankness, "this is major change of position for us." But actually, the Times' position in totally consistent: filibusters are good, or bad, depending on who's in the White House."
Not who, as in which person, but who, as in which political party.
Jun '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
Or at the same time.
Next year, when the Republicans control the Senate, the NYT will suddenly receive a heavenly revelation and declare filibusters as sacred. Moral relativism at its worst.
Edited on Jan 29 at 2:17pmMay '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
Oh, don't worry. Should Obama lose I'm sure that Gitmo will go back to being The Worst Thing Ever and the subject of endless handwringing.
Oct '11
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
I believe thee was only one filibuster all of last year. It takes a procedural vote of 60% to advance legislation in the Senate. This is NOT a filibuster. It takes a 3/5 vote to close down a filibuster through cloture. The ignorant MSM talking heads can't keep this straight because the percentages are the same. The procedural vote is to push legislation forward. The cloture vote is to stop something from continuing (the filibuster). Let us not continue the misuse of the term "filibuster" in this venue when describing a simple procedural vote.
Apr '11
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
The NYT taking changing positions merely for temporary advantage is the heart of what it means to be unprincipled. The anti-majoritarian aspects of the Senate are frustrating when Republicans are in the majority, but I accept that as the price of being able to block Democratic action when they are in the majority. It is a net positive rule and I take the daily consequences, win, lose or draw.
I guess the NYT never learned that what goes around, comes around.
Sep '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
tabula rasa
Or at the same time. · 4 hours ago
Edited 3 hours ago
I'm sure the Ricocheters recall that Orwell distinguished this as the most characteristic trait of totalitarian ideology in 1984. The Party called it doublethink:
If you subscribe to the NY Times, you are contributing to the Party.
Edited on Jan 29 at 5:58pmDec '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
Please, Adam, your entire argument rests on the absurd assuption the NY Times possesses Integrity or at least some vague sense of fair play. I mean, really Adam, surely you don't wish to imply that you could trust the Times any farther then you could throw them. I mean the probability that the Times would treat almost any subject without bias is like, say, in Holloween Part XXXV Michael Myer doesn't kill anybody but takes Tuba lessons instead.
Adam I am surprised at you. The bias at the Times is something we've all come to expect, even rely on. Like the Sun coming up in the east or Bill Mahr having sexual relations with a duck.
Please, my boy, I think you should take a few days off and think this over. You've been working too hard.
Regards from The Island,
Jim
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
You're right. I'll see you in a week.
Dec '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
Adam Freedman
You're right. I'll see you in a week. · 1 hour ago
Don't stay away too long Adam. You are going to slay a few real Dragons. I don't want you to forget FREE EXERCISE.
Have a nice vacation.
Jim
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
I have never liked the filibuster, no matter the party using it.
It is the antithesis of deliberative democracy. It is so juvenile I'm shocked adults allow it. When I see a filibuster, I envision a boy on a playground with his hands over his ears yelling, "I will win this argument by constantly yelling until the bell rings!"
Filibusters are for those who refuse to accept the outcome of elections.
If you want elections to really mean something, get rid of the filibuster. Nothing will get Americans more interested in government and come in bigger numbers to the polls than if we let those who win congressional elections have their way for 2 years.
Edited on Jan 29 at 8:25pmMay '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
Filibusters are for Democrats.
(Post Civil Rights-era, that is.)
Jun '10
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
I expect members of the parties to change position based on whether they are in power or not. But when the alleged independent non-partisan press and editorial pages do so, it is shameful. It is fine to say a minority should filibuster here but not there. But to say they should never do it just because your democrat hack is president is pathetic.
Mar '11
Re: NYT: Filibusters are bad! No good! No bad!
After "nothing will get Americans more interested in government", You mispelled "end tax withholding and make people write checks to the government every month".