The NY Times changes their filibuster rhetoric again

The NYTimes Realizes Their Policy Change

Back in 1995, when a Democrat was President and the Senate was majority Republican by 53-47, the NY Times had an editorial entitled, "Time to Retire the Filibuster".

In 2005, when a Republican was President and the Senate was majority Republican by 55-44 (with one independent), the NY Times had an editorial supporting the Filibuster. Within the editorial (which had the title, "Walking in the Opposition's Shoes") was the following language (in which they admit to changing their position),

"...A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide."

In 2012, again with a Democratic President and a Senate that is 51 Democratic (with 2 independents who frequently join with the Democratic Party) the NYTimes again admits to changing their position (they are now against the filibuster) in an editorial titled "Filibustering Must End". Here is their admission of a change in policy,

"...This is a major change of position for us, and we came to it reluctantly. The filibuster has sometimes been the only way to deny life terms on the federal bench to extremist or unqualified judges. But the paralysis has become so dire that we see no other solution..."

The NYTimes here is not acknowledging the obvious, namely, that they seem to oppose filibusters when filibusters will hurt Presidents who are Democrats but support filibusters when filibusters will hurt Presidents who are Republicans. Given that the policy re: filibustering is editorial and editorials are opinions, there is no reason I can see why they don't simply say this.

I think this is actual hypocrisy, although they admit that they are changing their policy. This is because I think they are being disingenuous about their actual reasons, that is I think the editors can't possibly believe the actual logic of their editorial position (and I think this is obvious to most of there readers who also mostly agree with the editorial position and also agree that it would be best to be disingenuous while writing it up).
1995 NYTimes editorial here.
2005 NYTimes editorial here.
2012 NYTimes editorial here.

Jesse Jackson adds to the Civility Hypocrisy Issue

Back on July 6, 2008, Rev. Jesse Jackson, thinking the microphone (and camera - the image is from that event) was off, famously said about then Senator Obama "I want to cut his nuts off." Jackson gestured during this in a way to demonstrate such an action. The footage and audio was captured and shown by Fox News Network beginning July 8, 2008.

On January 28, 2012, Jackson criticized Arizona Governor Jan Brewer for pointing her finger at now President Obama during an argument (or heated discussion) the previous week (the argument/discussion was filmed and shown beginning January 27.

So gesturing about cutting off someones genitals is OK but finger pointing isn't. Eh.

Actually, it is difficult to get around labelling Jackson a hypocrite here. However there are two mitigating facts.

1. Jackson did apologize for the 'cutting off genital' comment.
2. Jackson's comment was when Obama was a Senator. Brewer's is when Obama is President.

On the other hand, no one else has criticized Brewer for this (that I can find) and Brewer hasn't seen fit to apologize (she probably doesn't realize Jackson has called for it).

So, given that the apology was only after it was shown on TV and that the difference between a Senator and a President, while significant, isn't that significant, I'm going to have to call Jesse Jackson a hypocrite here.

Jackson 2008 remarks and apology here.
January 2012 remarks by Jackson here.

Henry Waxman: It's terrorism when they do it but not when I do it.

Representative Henry Waxman (the unflattering image of him is on the left) has been in the House of Representatives for a long time (since 1975) and represents west Hollywood and Beverly Hills (and some of Santa Monica).

Yesterday, he accused Republicans of Terrorism for attaching a 'must build the Keystone Pipeline' rider to payroll tax extension legislation (this bill has not passed the full house of representatives as I type this). The Republicans can do this as they hold a majority on the Energy and Commerce Committee (the ECC) and of the full House of Representatives.

Back in 2009, Waxman's party (Democratic) was in the majority by a bigger majority than the Republicans have now. At that time he threatened the more conservative members of his own party that he would have health care legislation (am altered version of that bill eventually became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(aka Obamacare) bypass the ECC if they didn't go along with what he and the Speaker of the House (at the time Representative Nancy Pelosi) wanted.

Is this hypocrisy?

Well, he was referring to parliamentary tricks in both cases. However, there is enough difference between the types of tricks that someone could argue that one trick is OK but the other is not.

Here is the MSNBC article on Waxman accusing Republicans of terrorism.
Here is the Hotair article on Waxman threatening Democrats in 2009.
Here is a post comparing the image of Waxman with an image of a bat.

Anti Santorum website Accuses Santorum of Hypocrisy

Apparently there is a website specifically dedicated to criticizing former Senator Rick Santorum. One of their criticisms is that, while a Senator (he lost his seat in the 2006 election), Santorum supported a cap on pain and suffering in torts of $250,000. Some years later, Santorum's wife is the plaintiff in a lawsuit in which she is requesting $500,000 in pain and suffering.

Leave aside the fact that the vote was years before the lawsuit.
Leave aside the fact that Santorum and his wife are different people who do not necessarily agree.

It still isn't hypocrisy anymore than Warren Buffet's failure to voluntarily pay the tax rate he recommends (about twice the current rate) for his income (related issue discussed concerning Mr. Buffet in my Aug 29,011 post at this site).

Santorum says the law should be X. However, as long as the law is not X, he acts in conformance with the current law. Same for Buffet. Same for me for that matter.

The site of the 'Santorum hypocrisy' charge is here.

Marianne Implies Newt was a Hypocrite

The 2nd Mrs Gingrich gave an interview in which she said that upon her husband's confession that he had been cheating on her for 6 years with a woman (who is now the 3rd Mrs Gingrich), her husband (then former Speaker of the House of Representatives) indicated he wanted a divorce or an open marriage. This is an "Eeeewwww" moment but has nothing to do with hypocrisy. However, Marianne says in the interview,

"... The day after, Marianne noted, Gingrich gave a speech on “The Demise of American Culture.”

“How could he ask me for a divorce on Monday and within 48 hours give a speech on family values and talk about how people treat people?” she told the Post."

This implies hypocrisy. However, to fully investigate this, I would have to actually listen (maybe more than once) to the 2 hour+ speech and Q&A of "The Demise of American Culture".

I won't do it.

It is likely however, that during this entire time, Gingrich does not praise any great Americans for their marriage fidelity and if this was the case, the hypocrisy charge couldn't stick. The reason I think this likely is because we suspect some great Americans of the past were not faithful marriage partners (for example Benjamin Franklin acknowledged having an illegitimate son early in his life). Furthermore, it would be essentially impossible to prove marriage fidelity where every possible witness was long since dead.

Irwin suggested I might take this issue on.

Article on Marianne's interview about Newt (also where the image was taken) here.

Kerry Kennedy; Is she a hypocrite?

Kerry Kennedy is the daughter of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy. She is also the ex wife (they divorced in 2005) of current Governor of NY, Andrew M. Cuomo (per image).

A post on the Powerline blog accuses her of hypocrisy. The Powerline post references an article in today's NYPost.

The NY Post provides evidence that Kennedy is advocating for a large ($18B) judgment in favor of Ecuador and against Chevron (full disclosure: our family owns some Chevron stock).

Kennedy has apparently appeared on a number of TV shows without disclosing that she is being paid to be an advocate and furthermore stands to make money (some $40M) if the judgment she advocates is awarded and paid (the merits of the case are beyond the scope of this post but interestingly, Chevron has never been active in drilling for oil or gas in Ecuador and is only being sued because they bought Texaco who, 7 year previously, was; furthermore, Chevron paid many millions to carry out a clean up approved by the Ecuadorian govt at the time).

But back to hypocrisy. Nowhere in the NY Post article does Kennedy say that, for example, "advocates of a cause should disclose their financial interests" or anything similar.

Thus, even though Kennedy may be violating some general ethical rules, I don't see the hypocrisy.




Post on Powerline is here.
Article in NY Post is here.

The Recess Appointment

Back when the President was George W. Bush, many Democrats did not like recess appointments. Here is what the NY Times said back in 2006,

"...It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses.

Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments ...".

Here is what the NY Times said in 2012,

"... Last year, Senate Republicans refused to consider any nominee to run the bureau unless the White House first agreed to drastically curtail the bureau’s powers... After Mr. Obama nominated Mr. Cordray, the Republicans blocked a confirmation vote.

Congressional Republicans are calling the appointment “unprecedented” and “illegitimate” — that is rich given that they are determined to use any and all tactics to thwart the bureau and the Dodd-Frank reform law that created it.

Mr. Obama also appointed three new...

Announcing the appointments, Mr. Obama also asserted a welcome new credo: “When Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

Hear. Hear."

Others (many Senators and Obama himself when he was a US Senator) opposed one or more of Bush's recess appointees but typically in terse language (unlike the NY Times).

So is the NYTimes being hypocritical? Not quite. Here is an additional sentence they used by in 2006,

"... Mr. Bush's record in this area owes less to unreasonable Democrats than to the low caliber of some of his choices..."

So the NYTimes has a defense (although maybe it should be called a "defense") against the charge of hypocrisy, namely that recess appointments are bad when the NYTimes thinks the appointee is bad but OK when the NYTimes thinks the appointee is good.

Of course, the above discussion leaves out the problem that in the 2012 situation the Senate was not technically in recess by recent definitions. The NYTimes (two days after the quote earlier noted) has a news story on this in which they pretty much admit that Obama seriously broke precedence and presumably violated the constitution. They excuse this by saying that the situation, " compelled Mr. Obama to escalate matters further on Wednesday, making recess appointments even though the Senate was technically not in recess." This issue is interesting but is not a hypocrisy issue (unless you count that 'uphold the constitution' oath thing).

NYTimes statement in 2006 is here.
NYTimes statement in 2012 (Jan 5) is here.
SeattleTimes report of an Obama quote mildly criticizing a recess appointment in 2006 is here.
NY Times news piece in 2012 (Jan 7) is here.