« Hearts Of Fire | Main | Colonial Shame Caption Contest »
March 10, 2005
Stop The Presses! NYT Inconsistent On Filibusters!
What a difference a decade makes:
To the Editor:"The Senate on the Brink" (editorial, March 6) supports the "historic role of the filibuster," which is a curious position for a newspaper that 10 years ago said filibusters were "the tool of the sore loser" and should be eliminated ("Time to Retire the Filibuster," editorial, Jan. 1, 1995).
...Now you praise the filibuster as a "time-honored Senate procedure." In 1995, when Bill Clinton was president, you called it "an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose."
You disparage the Republicans' view that 51 votes should be enough for judicial confirmation. Yet the 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as "nuclear," even though they were once endorsed by such leading Democrats as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer and Robert C. Byrd.
John Cornyn
U.S. Senator from Texas
Washington, March 7, 2005
Posted by Cassandra at March 10, 2005 09:07 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/426
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stop The Presses! NYT Inconsistent On Filibusters!:
» I need a tidy-up post for some loose ends... from Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..
There are many retired vets in Leavenworth. Some well-off, most of us comfortable, some of us, well, aren't. Interestingly enough, the better-off you are, around here, the less likely you are to fly a flag... I wonder what it is... [Read More]
Tracked on March 10, 2005 12:27 PM
Comments
"Stop The Presses! NYT Inconsistent..."
Oh. Dear. Me. Please, say it ain't so!
I am shocked. Appalled. Transmogrified. No, wait. Cancel that last. Just looked in the mirror and I'm still ugly. (And aren't *I* the lucky one?)
The whole insitution is a study in inconsistency. It procims itself in liberal terms (while denying it's Liberal) and publishes reactionary defenses of passé post-modern moonbattery as a matter of course.
Ah! I see it now: its very core of inconsistency is its consistent character! Free speech! (Unless you disagree with the NYT) Justice! (Unless it's for someone we don't like, say Martha Stewart?) Etc.
Won't read the rag any more, myself. The editors probably spit in the ink. (Not that that would make it any more harzardous a waste product than the content does... )
Posted by: David at March 10, 2005 10:07 AM
Can we say 'double standard?' Good. Now, can the democrats?
Posted by: Cricket at March 10, 2005 01:17 PM
Looks like there will be an immediate opening for a "Letters" editor after the present one is impaled for allowing this one to slip through.
Posted by: cw4billt at March 10, 2005 01:56 PM
Impaled? No no no, they'll be forced to sleep with Theresa Ketchup.
Posted by: Ciggy at March 10, 2005 07:05 PM
Attaboy John!! Don't mess with Texas.Freaking Dimwits at the NYT better toe the line from now on! OK, sarcasm off---just a waste of breath, who reads their shiite anyway?Just as relevent as The Flat Earth Society.....
Greg
Posted by: Greg at March 10, 2005 08:41 PM