Apparently, you don't have to know anything about politics to write about politics for the Washington Post
November 02, 2009 12:21 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Baltimore: The filibuster is out of control. Why should 40 Republicans get to veto what the majority wants? Do you think we'll ever get filibuster reform? It wasn't always like this -- filibusters used to be rare.
Perry Bacon Jr.: The Democrats filibustered lots and lots of things from 2003 to 2007.
Bacon's questioner is right. Filibusters used to be much more rare. It's hard to believe it's even possible that a Washington Post political reporter would be unaware of this basic fact. And yet, here we are, with Bacon pretending there's nothing unusual about the Republicans' use of the filibuster.
Then another questioner (who apparently reads this blog) noted that last week Bacon wrote "I think we may have misstated the strength of the opposition to the public option in the first place" and asked Bacon to explain why the media got it wrong. Here's Bacon's response:
Perry Bacon Jr.: I'm skeptical of polling on issues as complicated as the public option that I think I fairly complicated. I'm still convinced the most energy around that issue is conservatives opposed it, as opposed to liberals backing it. Polls often don't influence what Congress does because polls don't reflect intensity, who is calling offices, etc. I think the big thing here was not the polls, but the intensity of the public option supporters in Nevada, as they pressed Harry Reid on this issue.
I'm sorry, but ... Huh? Bacon said (last week) he and the rest of the media overstated the strength of opposition to the public option. Asked to explain how and why that happened, he says he's skeptical of polling, that he's "still convinced the most energy around that issue is conservatives opposed it," then says "the big thing here was ... The intensity of the public option supporters in Nevada." Not only is that seemingly random and contradictory, it doesn't have anything to do with the question.
More Bacon:
The candidates Democrats recruited in 2006 and 2008 are pro-life and pro-gun
Following the November 7 [2006] midterm elections, Media Matters for America examined the policy positions of those Democratic House candidates who, as of the morning of November 8, had defeated Republican incumbents or been elected to open seats previously held by Republicans.
...
Only five of the 27 candidates describe themselves as "pro-life."
And finally:
Connecticut, born and bred: How come none of you ace political reporters are asking Joe Lieberman a very simple and obvious question - why is he against the public option when polls clearly show that more than 60 percent of Connecticut residents support it? Aren't elected officials supposed to represent the beliefs of their constituents? We ain't Texas - start listening to us Joe, or in 3 years I guarantee that you'll be out of office.
Perry Bacon Jr.: Well, Connecticut, lots of poeple [sic] there didn't like the Iraq War, and Lieberman still has his seat. I take him at his word he thinks the public option is bad public policy.
Why would you do that? Lieberman's stated reasons for opposing the public option appear to be bunk. Why would a reporter think it's appropriate to take "at his word" a politician whose words seem to be at odds with reality?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Huh? Bacon said (last week) he and the rest of the media overstated teh strength of opposition to the public option.
and
Perry Bacon Jr.: Well, Connecticut, lots of poeple there didn't like the Iraq War, and Lieberman still has his seat. I take him at his word he thinks the public option is bad public policy.
Thanks to you pinko-scum-driveby-thumb-downer...
way to keep the average IQ level down
Kinda...Most voters support candidates who they believe hold the same beliefs. But that's why we adopted a republican form of democracy...to avoid mob rule and protect the rights of the minorities.
The elected representatives are charged with acting in the best interests of the country...using their own judgment...not necessarily the will of their constituents.
Don't like how they conducted themselves while in office? Then feel free to act on your constitutional right to "guarantee" that they'll be out of office in 3 years.
It's a silly argument that elected officials have to follow polling and vote in lockstep with their constituents...if that's the case...why are they necessary? Remember Brown v Board of Education?
So that "reason" doesn't hold water. And if he doesn't have a good reason to go against what his constituents, then he should go with what his constituents want.
See, no one raised your strawman argument that you knocked down - no one said that elected officials have to follow polling. They should unless they have a good reason not to do so.
And they are for the public option more stronly than any other state I've seen.
Of course, he wasn't elected by Democrats this past election. He was elected by Republicans voting for him because their candidate was too lame and Joe dissed the Democratic primary voters.
He's scum. Too bad he fooled too many people for too long.
It's really unfortunate that have have elected leaders in the USA who support genocide (the taking of land from one group to give to another is genocide under the UN conventions). If it weren't for people like Lieberman, guys like Netanyahu could be voted out of office and reconciliation could be possible.
Before you get on your high-horse, I don't respect terrorists either; but let's remember Israel was born of terrorism against the British.
Obama lied, troops are dying. US out of Iraq and Afghanistan now!
Hillary Clinton:
"I am sick and tired of people who call you unpatriotic
if you debate this administration’s policies. We are Americans
and have the right to participate and debate any administration."
If Israel dropped a nuclear bomb somewhere without provocation, Citizen X would apparently think any criticism of that would be a form of prejudice.
Perry Bacon Jr. is being bribed or blackmailed -- something criminal he is hiding (besides being unqualified for his job, his college is much ashamed he has their name on him) -- is the only thing I can figure out ... to explain Why he is so stupid.
It is obvious the Washington Post is going the way of the dodo bird.
And Bacon in the house is one obvious Why the Post is toast.
So, like, whoever would like all that advertising revenue abandoning the sinking ship Post, only needs to start up an alternative daily. Bye-bye Henry Luce and all the little lucre lickers.
-
The filibuster was designed for wacky legislation, not everything one party doesn't agree with.
Gingrichism is alive and well.
Any elected official who ignores polls (at least the carefully conducted ones) doesn't understand s/he is in a democracy.