Monday, May 23, 2005


The News & Observer ran a classic editorial today where they hit the liberal bias trifecta. The topic was judicial filibusters and the editorial writers first explored the history of the filibuster by stating that "Southern senators used to employ filibusters to block civil rights legislation." The more accurate statement would be, "Primarily Democratic southern senators ..."

Second, the writers use that beacon of objectivity, the NY Times, to point out that the potential change to the rules is "making some Republican senators uncomfortable." That is probably true, but the next paragraph of any solid editorial would explain that Democratic senators (especially those up for election in red-states in 2006) are also feeling uncomfortable acting as obstructionists. Otherwise, why would their party leaders be intent on a "compromise?"

Finally, the writers note the "bitter partisan divide that has plagued Washington since the Newt Gingrich-led revolution." Glad to know there was no bitter partisan divide prior to Gingrich. Oh wait, what about those civil rights filibusters noted earlier. That sounds pretty partisan. Watergate? I'll bet that sparked a little partisanship action. Suspected, and actual, communists in the the State Dept? That seemed to set off some partisan rancor.

I am all for an editorial page taking a position, and I have no problem with the N&O operating from the left. But use the facts to convince us, don't ignore the facts and reveal your lack of editorial ethics.