Media reported GOP reconciliation criticisms, ignored their previous support for process
SUMMARY: Print media have uncritically quoted Republican senators criticizing congressional Democrats' decision to use the budget reconciliation process to advance health-care reform and education initiatives as overly partisan, without noting that congressional Republicans -- including the senators quoted -- voted to allow the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass major Bush administration initiatives.
In April 24 and April 25 articles reporting that congressional Democrats have agreed to use the budget reconciliation process to advance health-care reform and education initiatives, print media have uncritically quoted Republican senators criticizing the decision as overly partisan, without noting that congressional Republicans -- including the senators quoted -- voted to allow the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass major Bush administration initiatives.
Examples include:
- An April 25 Washington Post article reported that "Republicans and some influential Democrats have opposed using reconciliation, especially for health care, saying it flies in the face of Obama's pledge of bipartisanship and would poison efforts to produce a health care plan that could win broad support," and quoted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) assertion that the process "would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis."
- An April 25 Los Angeles Times article reported that use of the process "threatens to sow outrage among Republican lawmakers" and that McConnell "warned against the move to limit GOP power," and quoted McConnell's assertion, "Fast-tracking a major legislative overhaul such as healthcare reform . . . without the benefit of a full and transparent debate does a disservice to the American people. ... And it would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis."
- An April 24 Associated Press article reported that the advantages of the reconciliation process "come at a cost: fury among Republicans who protest that overhauling the U.S. health care system is far too big and important to advance under fast-track rules that allow for only a 20-hour debate in the Senate," and quoted McConnell's assertion that use of the process "would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis."
- An April 24 Bloomberg News article reported that "Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said the reconciliation plan would cause a 'tremendous furor' among his colleagues and virtually ensure most oppose any health care legislation," and quoted Hatch's assertion, "With all the complexities of health care, you cannot please all of the stakeholders and if they make it a partisan exercise, my gosh, we'll beat them up for the rest of their lives."
As Media Matters for America has documented, the Post previously repeated criticism from Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Judd Gregg (R-NH), and the Times previously repeated criticism from McConnell, regarding Democrats' potential use of reconciliation to pass health-care reform legislation without noting that those senators supported the use of reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.
As Media Matters has noted, Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, among others. In a March 28 article, The New York Times reported: "[T]here are a couple of problems for Republicans as they push back furiously against the idea, chief of which is the fact that they used the process themselves on several occasions, notably when enacting more than $1 trillion in tax cuts in 2001." The article continued:
That means critics can have a field day lampooning Republicans and asking them -- as Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, did repeatedly the other day -- why reconciliation was such a good idea when it came to giving tax cuts to millionaires but such a bad one when it comes to trying to provide health care to average Americans.
McConnell and Hatch were among 51 senators -- all 50 Republicans and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) -- who voted in favor of a 2001 amendment to the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution that allowed for the consideration of President Bush's 2001 tax cuts -- the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 -- through the reconciliation process. McConnell and Hatch subsequently voted for the tax cut bill itself.
Further, in 2003, McConnell and Hatch voted for the Senate version of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution that called for additional tax cuts to be considered under reconciliation and for the final version of the 2004 budget resolution. They also voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the budget resolution, proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), that would have stripped reconciliation instructions from the resolution. In 2005, McConnell and Hatch voted for the final version of the fiscal 2005 budget resolution, which also called for tax cuts through reconciliation. They subsequently voted for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 itself.
Additionally, while an April 25 New York Times article noted that "Republicans have used the procedure themselves in the past," the Times did not note McConnell's prior support for the use of that process in reporting that he "told Mr. Obama in the meeting that that approach was likely to heighten partisan tensions in Congress." The article also quoted McConnell's statement that using reconciliation "would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis."
From the April 25 Washington Post article:
Republicans and some influential Democrats have opposed using reconciliation, especially for health care, saying it flies in the face of Obama's pledge of bipartisanship and would poison efforts to produce a health care plan that could win broad support.
"It would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a written statement.
From the April 24 Associated Press article:
Those advantages come at a cost: fury among Republicans who protest that overhauling the U.S. health care system is far too big and important to advance under fast-track rules that allow for only a 20-hour debate in the Senate.
"It would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.
From the April 25 Los Angeles Times article:
The plan, which would use special provisions of the budget process to prevent a Senate filibuster, threatens to sow outrage among Republican lawmakers and could complicate Democrats' efforts to push through the rest of their agenda. But Obama and his allies believe their decision to use the "budget reconciliation" process will allow passage of the kind of health system overhaul that has eluded Washington.
[...]
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned against the move to limit GOP power.
"Fast-tracking a major legislative overhaul such as healthcare reform . . . without the benefit of a full and transparent debate does a disservice to the American people," he said. "And it would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis."
From the April 24 Bloomberg News article:
Republicans oppose use of the reconciliation procedure. Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said using it would cause a "tremendous furor" among his colleagues and virtually ensure most oppose any health care bill.
"The partisan side of me says: Go for it, because if they do that, they're going to get hung with the worst health care bill in history," Hatch said. "With all the complexities of health care, you cannot please all of the stakeholders and if they make it a partisan exercise, my gosh, we'll beat them up for the rest of their lives."
From the April 25 New York Times article:
The no-filibuster arrangement is fiercely opposed by Republican leaders, who say health care is too important to be exempted from the Senate rules that usually mean major bills must win support from 60 senators.
At the White House meeting this week, Mr. Obama told senators from both parties that he did not want a health care overhaul to fail if it came up a vote shy of the 60 needed to break filibusters, the people with knowledge of the session said. Republicans have used the procedure themselves in the past, but Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, told Mr. Obama in the meeting that that approach was likely to heighten partisan tensions in Congress.
The arrangement is spelled out in a tentative budget agreement reached Thursday night between Congressional leaders and the White House, allowing health legislation that meets budget targets to be approved by a simple Senate majority, under a process known as reconciliation.
[...]
The Democrats can rely on 58 votes in the Senate, and expected to add a 59th once the courts finish their review of the disputed election in Minnesota. But Mr. McConnell said that using the no-filibuster approach on health care "without the benefit of a full and transparent debate, does a disservice to the American people."
"It would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis," he said.
I think I understand and appreciate the "reconciliation process", but the word "reconciliation" throws me, and puts me to mind of separated and battling spouses trying to make nice and put their differences behind them...
In this Congressional matter, I like the name THE SIMPLE MAJORITY PROCESS, because that doesn't make me think in the least of bickering and battling spouses... it doesnt even evoke battling political parties either: it just means the Democratic way, the Majority Rules of a Democracy, THE SIMPLE MAJORITY PROCESS.
I think for the most part, it's better to have straighforward names for things. It cuts down on the confusion. And it makes it harder to propogandize, as is being done in this case. Also euphemisms should only be used for offensive terms (ha!), and I don't find a simple majority offensive at all. But of course it's evident that the party out of poop (or Poops) find it very offensive to be in their position. I say too bad, so sad for them. Sorry, Poops, I'm all out of empathy. Please reconcile your little selves with THAT fact.
You know, it would be nice if we could have so called bipartisan cooperation and meaningful debate to make sure that all points of view are considered. But, unfortunatley, the current, fatally intransigent Republican party, doesn't really seem to want that. They just want to scream. And they offer no meaningful debate. So with that in mind, and the fact that I'm in a talkin' smack sort of mindset, I'll confer a limerick.
When the Repug's were having their way,
They left Dems without any say.
The worm has now turned,
And they're feeling mighty burned.
That Karma's a bitch to repay.
Aw, just what I needed right now, a little bit o' JJ's poetry corner.
I think JamesB takes the weekends off, just as the totally different person Tommy used to do, but if he was here, I believe I know what he'd say;
"This is more whining by MMFA. Of course the media won't mention that the same thing was done under Bush. Bush ran on a solid platform of incompetent mediocrity, and Obama promised to shoot rainbows out of his azz, so it's only reasonable that the media takes this into consideration. whiny whine whine."
Seriously, can we really expect the media to note the hypocrisy in a detail lke this? They can't even seem to differentiate between the fiscal fairyland of three decades of RayGunomics that paved the road to our current mess and the extreme measures now being used to try to stop the bleeding.
Very true and very strange since it is about like the difference between a platypus and a flamingo
Now, now, the lad in question isn't here right now to defend himself. He's probably just out boxing his shadow for the weekend (just like Tommy). So be nice. ;-)
I have to agree with you on Reagan and the R's predilection for pursuing his policies. Bottom up economics is best for everyone. The Reagan Revolution has failed.
yeah, whatever happened to the Joint Strike Fighter contract, handed to lockheed by none other than Dick Cheney. I would have expected to see some birds flying by now, after eight years of military strength posturing ?.
This business of discussing National and other Public Policy, but using buzzwords and slang and metaphors and even completely made-up fad words, this plagues the supposed policy talk on these many cable talk shows, and renders the language they babble in as just a fraudulent appearance of expressing and exchanging ideas, when in truth they're only bartering and trading in vague and dim concepts.
The best analogy of it I can make, is if in actual trade involving actual currency, people kept trying to pass off on you, notes and even checks that had the denominations and amounts on them, all smudged and blurred and therefore uncertain doubtful and disputable... you'd never accept a bill of which you couldn't truly know if it was a ten or a twenty dollar bill, because the numbers on that bill were smudged and blurred... yet that's virtually all of what these cable television political talk shows deal in: smudged and blurred words, that they pass off on us and act like those words are fifties and hundred dollar bills, when upon a closer and sharper examination, they're more like counterfeit bills, or just the play money of children and fools.
An example of late: right about the time that President Obama had convened his National Security team, for a very serious appraisal of the mission U.S. Troops are on in Afghanistan (and Pakistan also as being related to that mission), and right when the President assembled that team and gave a speech intended not just for the American People, but for all the people of the world... right at that time, certain ignorami of the cable variety (chris matthews and this todd character I recall specifically), began saying something like "President Obama 'owns' the war in Afghanistan": "owns" the war?
What could that have possibly meant, I thought to myself when I first heard it: does it mean that President Obama has "inherited" the U.S. Armed Forces mission in Afghanistan?
If so, then one, why not say it that way, and two, isn't that too obvious a thing to even say, that President Obama has "inherited" the mission in Afghanistan from George W. Bush?
If what was meant by saying that the President now "owns" Afghanistan, was more like saying he's now the custodian of the mission there, or any other word you'd use to indicate obligation and responsibility, then again, why not say it that way, and again also, isn't that just a bit too obvious a thing to even state, seeing as how just about everybody must know that President Obama is now the Commander in Chief of all the U.S. Armed Forces, in Afghanistan and everywhere else... isn't that also childishly obvious?
Then why did those idiots chris matthews and todd, use that language and say that President Obama now "owns" Afghanistan, if not to essentially say he had inherited the mission in Afghanistan from George W. Bush (without actually saying so), and that also he now has all the responsibilities and obligations attendant to that same mission (whether he'd want them or not), why choose the word "owns" in that instance?
Well anyway, the word "owns" as used in that instance, is I guess a metaphor or maybe slang or a buzzword, in place of the more sensible and clear and precise manner of speaking, that says President Obama has inherited the mission of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan, and is now responsible (as a custodian of sorts) for that mission, by way of being the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
I could really go on about this problem, this problem of vague obscure language in National and Public Policy discussions, as it's both serious and far too common, but I'll end by just saying: when words fail to describe actual persons, places, events, and the relationships between persons places and events, then the words must describe abstractions and concepts of some sort... and that's where fraud and counterfeit begins in this trade, because people often think they're describing something real and true, when they describe their concepts to you: but as often as not, they are just describing the vague dim impressions of the world they have, in their dim minds... like when they invoke the concept of ownership, where no such thing actually exists: or when they use words ending in "ism", which are words that never ever describe actual people or places or events... and so from such people you get smudged and blurred bills, when you might only accept exactly defined denominations (words), in the serious trade of Policy talk.
Very good exposition as usual Dem 02020.
I just have three words for you as a historical reference. The Final Solution. Probably one of the worst euphemisms of all time. Look what those three little words wrought.
Words do matter.
...and this particular problem, of using slang and buzzwords and other disputable language, when discussing (or more like pretending to discuss) National and other Public Policy: as I said, it's a very real and serious problem, and it's so common that it seems that it's all these 'pundits' on cable television do, is prattle on and chatter away and babble in those kinds of words.
I want to point out the simple and preferred test of of the clarity and precision of language in this kind of serious talk, talk about National and Public Policy, but first here are just some examples of the slang and buzzwords etc., that cable television political talk shows seem to deal almost exclusively in, and they're all taken from MMfA item headlines in just the past week or so:
"Banana republic" and "chickened out" and something about a "wall" between the CIA and the FBI (and the "wall" is usually referenced to, when discussing how the Bush administration failed to do anything at all to protect the lives of 3,000 Americans murdered on Sptember 11 2001: a "wall" that always amazes me, when I consider that three of the hijackers who murdered those Americans on that day, actually lived with an FBI informant, in that FBI informant's home in San Diego: true), and "socialist-leaning" and "Marxist-resembling" and other references, compounded or not, to "Mao" and "Stalin" and "fascism" and "Hitler" (and if you're talking about something or someone current, why not cite particular details about the current thing or person: why cite Mao and Stalin etc.?) and of course, the All-Time Great "palling around" with whoever, you fill in the blank (maybe "palling around with Mao", why not) and "extremists" (the Bush administration gave us that you know, in place of actually citing by name anyone who might threaten the American People, such as the 9/11 hijackers) and "anti-American" (which has been used this week to describe both President Obama's foreign policy, by dick morris, and Hugo Chavez too of course) and "cult-like" and "mass euthanasia" and two more "palling arounds" I see, and then "anti-Americanism" by limbaugh on Tuesday (there's that "ism" crap again) and "raping America" and yet another "palled around", this time by someone named geist, in reference to President Obama and Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas...
That's only as far back as Tuesday, just four days ago!
OK, you get it, it's extraordinary how much these buzzwords and slang and made-up fad words and mongrel hyphenations ("socialist-leaning" and "Marxist-resembling"), how much they form the prattling and chattering and babbling of the media monitored here by MMfA.
I referred to a standard, a touchstone if you will, by which to measure and ultimately accept or reject the language of National and Public Policy discussions, whether in the wasteland of cable television or anywhere else really... it is this:
Would such buzzwords and slang etc. ever be allowed and admissible, in the testimonies of witnesses and others, in a Court of Law?
Do not the People who testify in our Courts, speak in the common language of regular People?
Of course they do.
But are they allowed to use slang and buzzwords and made-up fad words and strange mongrel hyphenations, like "socialist-leaning" and "Marxist-resembling"?
Of course they are not... no way does the Judge allow such nonsense on the Public Record of Judicial proceedings: then why would we allow such stuff in discourse on National Policy, from the idiots on cable television?
Were anyone giving testimony in a Court of Law to say that someone was "palling around" with someone else, the Judge would stop them: "What do you mean 'palling around'? Do you mean they're friends, or simply acquaintances, or neighbors or co-workers or what? Be specific and precise in your testimony, and knock off the slang and buzzwords please."
Anyway, that's the standard of admitting words into any serious matter: would such language be admitted into the testimonies in a Court of Law?
In such testimonies, does "socialist-leaning" and "Marxist-resembling" actually mean anything, or do those terms just represent the vague and dim impressions in the mind of the person who uses them?
Lastly, there is another standard of language, with a high threshold for exactness and clarity: the language of Contracts... but seeing as Contracts in truth are not written in the language that regular folks speak (for the fact that Lawyers write them), we would do well to keep in mind instead, the clear and precise standard of language required in Courts of Law, where regular folks are often the ones who speak, and speak always in the common words they know... as how else could they ever speak.
And let's not sign off on this matter, without invoking the true and real standard of all words: The Dictionary...
But not just any dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (11th Collegiate being current): the absolute Gold Standard of our language, I say.
A good if to rarely brought up point. Many of us do ask for clarifications. I don't recall to many offerred in reply. Still, a good thing to do.
There's some classic reply to an offer to debate, badly remembered. "You wish to debate, very well then. Define your terms."
Dem02020, I don't know if you've heard of George Lakoff, a linguist, but he has a good article about this very subject which I'll excerpt here. RH and a few others may find this interesting:
George Lakoff, The San Francisco Chronicle: "You turn the AM on and there's Rush, or Savage, or another of the army of right-wing radio talk show hosts. You may not be listening hard, just working, driving, doing busywork or the laundry. Yet if you listen day after day, year after year, your brain will begin to change. Words, even those heard casually and listened to incidentally, activate frames - structures of ideas that are physically realized in the brain. The more the words are heard, the more the frames are activated in the brain, and stronger their synapses get - until the frames are there permanently. All this is normal. It is how words work. And the right-wing message machine has found a way to take advantage of it - activating, as it were, a conservative system of thought."
http://www.truthout.org/042609Y
Sure, it's not very hard to do either, it's not rocket science.
To actually plant suspicion or fear or anger or hatred, in a heart or mind not already disposed and taken by those things, is difficult to do... but to cultivate and bring forth those things, from hearts and minds already afflicted and predisposed that way, is easy: because people who are chronicically suffering from suspicion and anger etc., are always looking for an object, any object, to focus those feelings on, and to blame, as being the cause of their fears etc. (instead of looking inward or to their past, to find the real and root causes of their troubled hearts and troubled minds).
The human voice is key in these things, as it is talk (angry suspicious fearful hateful talk) that the poor suffering Souls will listen to, and are almost hypnotized by... and in turn that kind of talk is easy to make, whether sincere or not... and those kinds of hypnotists are common: they're all over the AM dial I believe (because talk is cheap, and talk radio is about the cheapest programming format there is... and small power radio broadcast stations were cheaply purchased and consolidated, along with the many FCC Licenses they hold, beginning in the 80's, and resulting now in this powerful and wicked political tool, wielded by and for Republicans, and about the only real political power they are reduced to right now).
Anyway, it's easy to do, it's not rocket science: it's as old as suspicion or fear or anger or hatred is, or at least as old as our ability to give voice to those things, and work ourselves and each other up, by way of mere talk.
And there's something I'm reminded of here: there's a movie called "The Parallax View" that has an extraordinary amazing scene in it, where we see a man who's been recruited (as an assassin in this fictional story), recruited for the very traits that he is believed to be greatly predisposed to, namely suspicion fear anger and hatred (and by way of his having taken a psychological profile test to uncover that predisposition), and the amazing wonderful scene in the movie, is where he is subjected to a further test, where he is placed in a small and sterile theater, all alone, and in the most comfortable and calm surroundings, is asked to merely watch a series of still photographs on the screen and in the dark, all of it accompanied by a musical score, and occasional puncuated by words flashed on the screen... and all of it happening in a more and more rapid sequence of pictures and words (and there are very few pictures and words at that, as the same images and words keep getting shown again and again, but in ever faster progressions)... and what this amazing scene in that movie shows us, is how not only can you measure how angry and fearful etc. people are, by measuring their reaction to pictures and words (the subject in the scene is asked to place his hands on a panel where his fingertips can be sensed), not only can you measure a person for these powerful and potentially destructive emotions, but you can induce them as well: as once you have discovered the response, you now know the stimulus too.
Anyway, it's an amazing and powerful scene in a movie, that demostrates the powerful and emotional effect that pictures and words (even just printed words) can have on us, especially if we are in any way predisposed to those kinds of pictures and those kinds of words... and whenever I see that scene in that movie, I am at once amazed but then not so much: as it is merely a case of good moviemakers telling us one of the little secrets they know, and that make them so powerful.
Anyway, it's an amazing and powerful scene in a movie, that demostrates the powerful and emotional effect that pictures and words (even just printed words) can have on us, especially if we are in any way predisposed to those kinds of pictures and those kinds of words... and whenever I see that scene in that movie, I am at once amazed but then not so much: as it is merely a case of good moviemakers telling us one of the little secrets they know, and that make them so powerful.
Dem02020, have you read Al Gore's book "The assualt on Reason"? He goes into the very thing you just articulated. If you haven't read it, it might be of interest to you.
And thank you for the exchange. I appreciate your views as always. ;-)
Thank you JuliaJayne, the feeling is mutual.
And no, I haven't read that book, but I will look for it. Thanks for the tip.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
McConnell‘s like the Black Knight who won’t admit defeat (“Just a flesh wound!”) even after he gets his limbs cut off by King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
They want to be the party of NO. The Dems just have to show these people on the right how ridiculous they really look. Let them use this process.