Intellectual Dishonesty At MediaMatters
Caught in a lie.
That’s essentially how Republicans and Conservative talkers have been described by MediaMatters.org and other liberal bloggers.
But a quick Google search revealed that MediaMatters is being dishonest in its portrayal of Conservatives and Republicans as trying to “falsely accuse Dems of hypocrisy.” In fact, MediaMatters actually expose their own complicity in the promotion of this red herring.
The accusation is that the Right is conflating the terms “reconciliation” and “nuclear option” intentionally in an effort to discredit Democrats for wanting to use the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, which would bypass the regular Conference Committee process. However, MediaMatters shows that Conservatives and Republicans are not alone in making that connection.
Here is video that shows CNN anchor Anderson Cooper describing the Democrat maneuver as “the Nuclear Option.”
“Tonight: Breaking news that could change everything in the White House battle for health care reform. Call it the nuclear option.”
And CNN’s Kiran Chetry, on American Morning, said,
“We’ve heard about the nuclear option before, right? I mean, that was when there was talk about maybe bypassing Democratic concerns when it came to judicial nominees. Well, now, the nuclear option is something that we’re talking about yet again. This time it has to do with Democrats considering going it alone when it comes to health care. We’re live from the White House next hour.”
Let’s take a stroll backward through time.
Sean Hannity was condemned by MediaMatters on Feb. 10, 2010:
“Sean Hannity aired clips of Democratic leaders he falsely claimed were criticizing GOP use of the reconciliation process, and accused them of “hypocrisy” for currently supporting the use of reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. In fact, those Democrats were criticizing a 2005 Republican proposal to change Senate rules that was unrelated to reconciliation, which is a procedure that is part of the Senate rules.”
Then, on August 20, 2009, MediaMatters attacks RNC Chairman Michael Steele:
“Nuclear option” term for reconciliation makes jump from media to RNC chairman Steele”
But, the CNN story appeared on MediaMatters.org the day before, on August 19, 2009:
“Echoing Fox News’ Bill Sammon and Sean Hannity, CNN hosts Anderson Cooper and Kiran Chetry both falsely compared Senate Democrats’ potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health reform legislation to the “nuclear option.” In fact, the term “nuclear option” was coined by then-Republican Sen. Trent Lott in 2005 to refer to a possible Republican attempt to change Senate filibuster rules, while reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure and Republicans have used it repeatedly in the past.”
Finally, MediaMatters blasted Bill Sammon in a story that appeared on June 23, 2009:
“Echoing a reported Republican talking point, on Fox News’ Happening Now, Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon falsely compared the budget reconciliation process some progressives have suggested be used to advance health-care reform legislation to the “nuclear option,” a term referring to the Senate rule change Republicans proposed in 2005 that would have prohibited filibusters of judicial nominations. In fact, there is no comparison between progressives’ proposed use of the budget reconciliation process, which already exists under congressional rules and has been used by Republicans in the past to pass legislation with only a majority of votes in the Senate, and the Republicans’ prior proposal to change Senate rules to require a majority of votes to confirm judicial nominees.”
Now, no-one can claim that Anderson Cooper is sympathetic to Republicans or Conservatives. He was, after all, 0ne of the first to use the term “teabagging” when talking about the Tea Party movement. The point is that CNN’s use of the term “nuclear option” to describe reconciliation renders the accusations of MediaMatters and others against Republicans and Conservatives meaningless.
Subscribe to blog feed.
About the Author:
March 6th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Trenton: The Democratic leadership is full of doublespeak. We submit as one example: Harry Reid’s comments on reconciliation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKc4B2tdnuw
March 7th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
“Reconciliation” is Senate jargon for a simple majority vote. Why can’t every bill be passed this way? Because the Republicans are abusing the filibuster. Interestingly enough, Republicans believed strongly in majority rule when they were in the majority.
March 7th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Richard, that is not true. Reconciliation is not standard procedure for all bills in an up or down vote. Reconciliation was designed for budgetary purposes only, and wasn’t even introduced until 1974.
How are Republicans abusing the filibuster? Which of the rules regarding the use of the filibuster are the Republicans breaking? If Republicans are breaking the rules, the Democrats should be able to stop it by calling a Point of Order. Are they?
And, as a matter of fact, almost every piece of legislation that comes to the floor requires only a simple majority to pass. The exceptions are proposals to Amend the Constitution, the ratification of treaties (Senate only), veto overrides, disciplinary actions, proposals to fill vacancies in the executive branch, and to make changes to the rules. All but the last of these exceptions are set forth in the Constitution.
The Democrats could attempt their own version of the “Nuclear Option” and change the rules to disallow filibuster on certain legislation, which would eliminate the 60 votes needed for cloture. But that’s essentially what they’re trying to accomplish with “reconciliation” now, isn’t it?