Same Old Song And Dance

Over at the Naked Truth, N.Mallory wrote a piece about how conservatives were against the invasion of Bosnia and how all the words they were using then are the same ones the donks are using now. The contention is that their tune changes because the rules apply to everyone else. The point that is missed is that this happens from both sides of the aisle. How it is viewed usually depends upon whose ox is being gored. However, before anyone asserts that the republicans have a different set of rules it should be noted that many of the donks and their media wing have done the same thing. I have pointed out all the instances where liberal members of Congress said Hussein had WMD. They did this when they were supporting the then President Bill Clinton. Ted Kennedy, who wants to ask Judge Roberts a bunch of questions said that a nominee should be judged based on his record, not how he might vote on something. The congressional record is rife with people who have done this. Bill Clinton (as a candidate) said he supported a Flag Desecration Amendment and then opposed it after being elected. John Kerry, as a young protester, said that they (protesters) would never belong to organizations like the American Legion. He is now a member of the Legion.

There has been a furor over the filibuster. Donks say they need it and the republicans say it is obstructionist. This is from the New York Times January 1, 1995:

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 a tool of the sore loser, …an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

That sounds like an honest appraisal and one I have espoused with regard to the current practices by the democrats. It would appear that the Times has hit the nail on the head and has shown us how ugly the Senate can be. Unfortunately, this was only their view when it was the Republican minority. You see, they have no courage of their convictions because they changed their tune when the Democrats were the minority. Here is what they had to say March 6, 2005:

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 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 ideological crusade.

There are stark contrasts in how the NYT viewed the filibuster when each party was the majority and an even greater contrast in how the threat to end the filibuster was viewed. Hooray for the donks when they are going to do it and endangering an institution when the republicans are going to. This lack of fairness and blatant pandering to the democrats is why the MSM is known as the media wing of the democratic party. Another thing, for clarity; The Bush Administration had nothing to do with the filibuster debate. The Senate is not part of his administration. When asked, Bush said it was up to the Senators to work it out. The sadness is that the NYT does not recognize this for what it is. They still think they are fair. One last thing. The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough because that is what the Constitution says is enough. It might be silly of them but they actually want to go by what the Constitution says. I know that concept is hard for the Times. Funny how they want to follow the Constitution when it involves their First Amendment Rights.

So we can find instances where people from all views change what they think depending upon the circumstances. I hold myself to a higher standard and quite frankly this is why I could never be in the Senate. I would not get along well with the people who play this. I am however, not inflexible. I wrote a piece about Israel and the pull out from the Gaza. I am pondering a comment by Surfside and reevaluating what I think. I am at least using the information to reformulate an opinion. Will I change it? I don’t yet know. The point is, if they changed what they said based upon valid information we could tolerate it. This blatant reversal for partisan reasons is the reason we can not get things done.

We might just be better off picking the first 100 people who enter a Wal Mart and have them run the Senate for a year. We would certainly be better off if the NYT went out of business and if the balance of the papers started reporting without the slant.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

2 Responses to “Same Old Song And Dance”

  1. Freedom 7 says:

    The New York Times was correct (ironically and unintentionally, I’m sure) when they published

    “there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of ideological crusade.”

    True enough; within the past few years, endangering great institutions of this nation for the sake of ideology seems to be almost exclusively the pervue of the liberals, not the conservatives. Nothing conservative about them. I’m surprised the NYT actually published something a conservative Republican agrees with. I’m sure it was an oversight on their part . . .

    Freedom 7

  2. N. Mallory says:

    The contention is that their tune changes because the rules apply to everyone else. The point that is missed is that this happens from both sides of the aisle. How it is viewed usually depends upon whose ox is being gored. However, before anyone asserts that the republicans have a different set of rules it should be noted that many of the donks and their media wing have done the same thing.

    I do think this was the point I was trying to make. Maybe I didn’t do it clear enough. It’s who’s in power and who’s not. Whichever party is in power can do no wrong in their own eyes and can do no right in the eyes of the other party…even when they do similar things.