Green Room

Revealed: The NYT editorial board’s shameless filibuster hackery

posted at 2:26 pm on July 19, 2013 by

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto is often at his best when he’s skewering the New York Times.  Thus, his commentary on the Grey Lady’s hilarious flip-flop-flip on “filibuster reform” is priceless.  To recap: Times editors supported nuking the filibuster when Republicans were using it to frustrate President Clinton, then decided that it was an important and “effective” tool during the Bush years, only to revert back to their previous position now that the maneuver is again being wielded by the GOP.  Taranto concludes:

It’s now clearer than ever that the Times’s guiding principle is nothing other than the tactical interests of the Democratic Party. If the Democrats hold both the presidency and between 50 and 59 seats, as they do today, abolishing the filibuster is in their interest and thus a matter of high principle to the Times. If the Republicans do, as in 2005, maintaining the filibuster is in the Democrats’ interest and thus a matter of equally high principle.

Here’s the money excerpt from the Times’ 2005 editorial, expressing “lessons learned” contrition — which they’ve abandoned now that the roles have again reversed:

A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the “nuclear option” in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton’s early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it’s obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.

That “hope” has become a reality, so the Times has re-embraced its “own error.”  I don’t know about you, but I’m looking forward to the Times’ thoughtful re-examination of this critical issue next time someone with an (R) next to his or her name is the Senate Majority Leader.  Who needs principles?  Ends, means, etc.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Rule of law is a joke. Why pretend to have principles when brute force reigns over truth?

StubbleSpark on July 19, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Revealed: The NYT editorial board’s shameless filibuster hackery [fill in the blank with any radical liberal position]

Fixed for accuracy

Bitter Clinger on July 19, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Who needs principles? Ends, means, etc.

“Principles? What do school administrators have to do with the filibuster?”
/NYT Editorial Board

Bitter Clinger on July 19, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Life must be so much easier when you don’t have to think for yourself or figure out what to say…someone else just feeds it all to you!

nextgen_repub on July 19, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Who here thought the NY Slimes was anything other than the official Rat Print Presstitute Organ?

I thought so.

Steve Eggleston on July 19, 2013 at 4:00 PM

NYT- Fast Food Journalism.

Jabberwock on July 19, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I’d heard Hugo Chavez always intended on purchasing the NYT. No one could understand why. The elites simply refused to give up their cash cow I supposed. Our tax dollars somehow at work no doubt.
He dies and suddenly Venezuela runs out of toilet paper. Just say’n.

onomo on July 19, 2013 at 4:28 PM

The Slimes shamelessly hacks for the left? Gee, next you’ll be trying to tell me that the sun rises in the east, or that water is wet…

RoadRunner on July 19, 2013 at 7:57 PM

The Slimes shamelessly hacks for the left? Gee, next you’ll be trying to tell me that the sun rises in the east, or that water is wet…

In other news, Francisco Franco is still dead.

Horologium on July 20, 2013 at 11:34 PM

These are my principles.

If you don’t like them, I have others. — Groucho Marx.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 21, 2013 at 1:26 AM

This is nothing new. You should have seen the Boston Globe Democrat over the past few years. For those that missed it when it looked like Kerry might win and “OH MY GOD, ROMNEY WILL PICK HIS SUCCESSOR!” they were totally for changing the rules here on how we pick a temp senator. Then a few years later when “OH NUTS, NOW WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE ELECTION, BARRY CAN’T WAIT!” they had to change the rules again to let the governor pick a temp candidate before the election. Just to be cute BTW the law says he can only do this when it’s an emergency. So naturally governor Barry Lite (75% the hope and 60% the change) pretty much said it’s always an emergency no matter what. I bet if we have a republican governor in the near future and he tries to do the temp replacement the Globe Democrat will claim “OH NO YOU CAN’T, IT’S NOT A REAL EMERGENCY.”

Dave_d on July 21, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Old news. When the rules don’t suit the left, they simply change the rules.

Only one of the countless reasons they must be destroyed – not merely defeated.

Midas on July 21, 2013 at 2:11 PM

when it looked like Kerry might win and “OH MY GOD, ROMNEY WILL PICK HIS SUCCESSOR!” they were totally for changing the rules here on how we pick a temp senator. Then a few years later when “OH NUTS, NOW WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE ELECTION, BARRY CAN’T WAIT!” they had to change the rules again to let the governor pick a temp candidate before the election.

Dave_d on July 21, 2013 at 1:30 PM

And remember that without that rules change in MA, Obamacare would NOT have passed a Senate filibuster!

The Dems didn’t really start moving on Obamacare in Congress until Al Franken was seated and gave them the 60 votes they needed to break a filibuster.

Then Teddy Kennedy died and Dems lost their 60th vote…

… and the MA rules had been changed in 2004 (at Teddy Kennedy’s insistance) so that only a vote of the people (not a Governor’s appointment by Republican Mitt Romney) could have filled John Kerry’s Senate seat had he won the Presidential election.

The Democrats didn’t want to follow their own rules and wait for the January election, so they CHANGED THE RULES to seat one of Teddy Kennedy’s staff (Paul Kirk) in that seat until the election. Paul Kirk gave them the 60th vote in the Senate on Christmas eve.

When they lost that seat to Scott Brown, they lost the 60th seat. So, they could no longer break filibusters. And the House did not want to pass the Senate bill. For a while, it looked like a stalemate, and looked like Obamacare would die.

But the Dems decided to pass the Senate bill in the House, then pass a new bill in the House with “Fixes”, including the takeover of the student loan industry, and then pass it through the Senate using the Reconciliation process, requiring only 51 votes.

The whole process, from start to finish, epitomizes the very, very worst of politics in this country, especially the corrupt practices of the Democrat Party.

ITguy on July 22, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Whenever some lib paper or lib legislator talks about differentiating “journalists” vs “bloggers” regarding first amendment rights, remember this. Before the early 90s it was nearly impossible for JOURNALISTS like Taranto to widely disseminate views opposing “official” press organs like the NYT, and to use their own previous words against them.
Of course the powers-that-used-to-be don’t like that, and would like to put what they identify as “bloggers” (read: not real journalists worthy of full first amendment rights) back in their place, and in the process take us back to the 1970s in terms of information availability.
Whatever else, we cannot give an inch on first amendment rights for ALL.

Marcola on July 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM