And yes, it's still the media's Noun That Cannot be Mentioned.

Take the New York Times, which posted a piece today about the politics surrounding the debate over the 9-11 first responders bill:

How Did Republicans End Up Against 9/11 Responders Bill?

The question is a fair one since if you look at the optics, it makes no sense why the Republican Party, which has never hesitated to use the memory of the Sept. 11 terror attacks for its own political advantage, would somehow find itself in the strange position of blocking medical care for the heroic first responders on that day.

So, as the Times piece asks, how did that happen?

Unfortunately, the Times, like so many Beltway outlets, simply refuses to address the rather obvious answer to what Republicans did with regards to the 9-11 bill, and what they've been practicing since Obama was inaugurated: Obstructionism.

And not just everyday obstructionism, but truly radical, unprecedented obstructionism designed to oppose virtually every Democratic initiative. That's how Republicans ended up against the 9-11 bill: Democrats were for it, therefore the GOP opposed it.

It's telling that several Times readers immediately sniffed out the real answer in their posted comments:

Here's the bottom line: If a Democrat supports it, Mitch McConnell has given orders to his Republicans caucus to oppose it.

And:

Republicans are against it because Obama is for it. Simple as that.

But instead, the Times reported the story like this [emphasis added]:

The legislation took a back seat in the lame-duck session as lawmakers struggled with other issues — the Bush-era tax cuts, the military's “don't ask, don't tell” policy, budget bills. Democratic efforts to bring it up for a vote in the Senate two weeks ago failed by three votes.

That's not quite the whole story. When Democrats tried to bring the 9-11 bill up two weeks ago it was unanimously opposed by Republicans who had signed a pledge not to let any legislation proceed (regardless of its content) until they were allowed to vote on giving tax cuts to the rich.

See the difference between that and simply claiming the bill “took a back seat.”

As I've noted before, Republicans have been practicing an unprecedented brand of obstructionism since Obama's inauguration, but the press has been treating it as normal. It's not. It's radical.