New York Times, then and now
Via The Weekly Standard, we see two very different viewpoints concerning the tactic of filibustering by Senate minorites -- both from the New York Times:
A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.
A March 6, 2005, Times editorial on the same subject:
The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
It would be understandable, if hypocritical, for a given senator's opinion of the filibuster to vary as a function of his party's political fortune, but when the "newspaper of record" performs such an about-face, it just goes to show how strongly they have become identified with the Democratic Party.
(Hat tip: mal)
Comments
What a great example of media bias. Well done. All the news that's fit to spin.
Posted by: BobG | April 4, 2005 12:37 PM
I've always thought the filibuster idea was pretty stupid, anyway. I think debate should always end at a certain time, and a vote take place. Can you imagine if corporate boardrooms acted this way? Someone who didn't want his rival to broadcast his ideas could talk and talk and talk.
Both sides of the political isle have been guilty of abusing the filibuster to their own ends. No party has a claim to it exclusively. In the 50's and 60's many southern senators used the filibuster to try to prevent passasge of civil rights laws. And I have no doubt that the Republicans want to ease the filibuster "cloture" voting requirements so that they may more easily confirm judges of their liking.
The flip-flop by the Times doesn't surprise me. Most media outlets become very selective of their reasonings when they want to achieve a certain result. For a quick example, some of the more conservative newsletters and web sites had no problem at all with Congress's attempted intervention to try to save Terri Shiavo, despite almost always championing the rule of law, respect for justice (courts), and respect for the sovereignty of states.
Posted by: Tracy Miller | April 4, 2005 03:22 PM
you'd crusade for life too if you were being starved involuntarily.
Posted by: thatguy | April 4, 2005 05:02 PM
Tracy said: For a quick example, some of the more conservative newsletters and web sites had no problem at all with Congress's attempted intervention to try to save Terri Shiavo, despite almost always championing the rule of law, respect for justice (courts), and respect for the sovereignty of states.
Tracy, this is the NY Times, not Hugh Hewitt or Powerline. Those sites, as well as their counterparts on the left, make no bones about bias nor consistency.
This is, or was, the paper of record to most of us who cut our teeth on politics. It still is cited by the MSM news broadcasts on a frequent basis.
The question, given this latest, is...why?
Posted by: mal | April 4, 2005 09:50 PM
Yeah, yeah...I know. And "Fox News" calls itself "fair and balanced".
I've heard a lot of people complain the the NYT has a liberal bias. Maybe so. Maybe not. I think a lot of the choices they make have to do with the editorial staff. It's the same with "Fox News".
Posted by: Tracy Miller | April 6, 2005 12:37 AM