From the DNC to the N&O
If you put the DNC talking points about a particular issue next to the N&O editorial about the same issue, it is difficult to tell the difference.
Todays Steve Ford/DNC rant deals with the filibuster compromise:
A successful compromise was reached that avoided a proposed change in Senate rules that opponents said would alter the intentions and the great accomplishment of the founding fathers, the United States Constitution.
No comment about what those in favor of the rule change think? No comment about the real purpose of the rule change - to get up-or-down votes on judicial nominees? And why, after pushing for judicial activism and believing that the Constitution is a living document (changeable as a judge sees fit) do liberals all of the sudden fawn over the founders?
Bill Frist ... has been threatening to invoke the "nuclear option" ...
Frist has called the rule change the "constitutional option" for some time. In a paragraph about Frist that does not mention his opposition, why refer to the name that the opposition has given the rule change?
Bush has heated up the rhetoric himself, portraying Democrats as going after qualifying judges just for the partisan sport.
No mention of heated rhetoric on the side of the Democrats or the interest groups they are beholden to. Only Bush is to blame here.
Some conservative Republicans indicate they regret the compromise, and the White House, which has been none too helpful in the course of this discussion, seemed lukewarm.
That sentence is the winner. "None too helpful" to whom, or to what? Does Ford want the White House to be helpful to those who have constantly tried to stall anything the Bush administration is trying to do?
The president, after all, wants to be able to put anyone he chooses on the U.S. Supreme Court when there are openings, without potentially pesky review.
Is there any shred of evidence that the president would like to eliminate the Senate's ability to advise and consent on his Supreme Court nominations? The whole effort here is to get plenty of advise and then vote whether to consent to the nominee taking a position on the bench. All Bush wants is for the vote part to take place.
Editorials like this contribute to the decline in readership of papers that purport to report and analyze the news (the N&O calls itself "The Old Reliable"). This kind of Bush-bashing rant from political hacks, even if on the editorial page, takes away any limited credibility the paper may have built.
Media Bias
Todays Steve Ford/DNC rant deals with the filibuster compromise:
A successful compromise was reached that avoided a proposed change in Senate rules that opponents said would alter the intentions and the great accomplishment of the founding fathers, the United States Constitution.
No comment about what those in favor of the rule change think? No comment about the real purpose of the rule change - to get up-or-down votes on judicial nominees? And why, after pushing for judicial activism and believing that the Constitution is a living document (changeable as a judge sees fit) do liberals all of the sudden fawn over the founders?
Bill Frist ... has been threatening to invoke the "nuclear option" ...
Frist has called the rule change the "constitutional option" for some time. In a paragraph about Frist that does not mention his opposition, why refer to the name that the opposition has given the rule change?
Bush has heated up the rhetoric himself, portraying Democrats as going after qualifying judges just for the partisan sport.
No mention of heated rhetoric on the side of the Democrats or the interest groups they are beholden to. Only Bush is to blame here.
Some conservative Republicans indicate they regret the compromise, and the White House, which has been none too helpful in the course of this discussion, seemed lukewarm.
That sentence is the winner. "None too helpful" to whom, or to what? Does Ford want the White House to be helpful to those who have constantly tried to stall anything the Bush administration is trying to do?
The president, after all, wants to be able to put anyone he chooses on the U.S. Supreme Court when there are openings, without potentially pesky review.
Is there any shred of evidence that the president would like to eliminate the Senate's ability to advise and consent on his Supreme Court nominations? The whole effort here is to get plenty of advise and then vote whether to consent to the nominee taking a position on the bench. All Bush wants is for the vote part to take place.
Editorials like this contribute to the decline in readership of papers that purport to report and analyze the news (the N&O calls itself "The Old Reliable"). This kind of Bush-bashing rant from political hacks, even if on the editorial page, takes away any limited credibility the paper may have built.
Media Bias
posted by SCP at 4:57 AM
<< Home