LA TIMES WRITER FORGETS FILIBUSTERS EXIST…. Stopping by the L.A. Times‘ website this morning, I noticed a bizarre headline: “Obama now blames poor job numbers on congressional inaction. Wait! His party runs Congress.” The emphasis was in the original.
This seemed pretty dumb on its face, so, naturally, I clicked on the link. It turned out to be another Andrew Malcolm tirade, with inane policy insights. Did you know, for example, that “employers are holding back on hiring” because of “the certainty of new taxes after Nov. 2”? Probably not, since no one who knows what they’re talking about would present such nonsense as fact, especially when writing for a major newspaper.
But then we get to the heart of the matter.
According to the president, he’s been “adamant” with Congress for months now about a new jobs bill to help small businesses. Obama says this really good bill is stalled in the Senate, where so much administration legislation has been crammed through so effectively by Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Reid’s been so good at it, in fact, that he’s now running for his political life in a reelection campaign back in Nevada where Obama’s legislation is not so popular.
Reid’s up against a conservative Republican. So, That means that Harry Reid must be a Democrat, just like Obama, and just like 59% of the Senate’s votes.
The very same party that has controlled both houses of Congress since the 2006 election and really controlled them both since the 2008 hopey-changey balloting.
So, facing the growing grim possibility of a GOP surge on Nov. 2, is this maybe the start of buddy-bickering within the Democratic huddle? Vulnerable people pointing the proverbial political finger of blame at someone else? That’s ridiculous, of course.
I just have the hardest time understanding why the L.A. Times would publish such lazy drivel. Obama and Reid want a bill to boost small business incentives; Republicans don’t. This might be “the start of buddy-bickering within the Democratic huddle”? Given that Dems agree on the policy, what does that even mean?
And if the Democratic majority wants to pass a bill, and Republicans refuse to allow an up-or-down vote, why is it “ridiculous” to blame the GOP for its obstructionism?
The point of the childish item seems to be that Democrats control Congress, so they should be able to pass what they want. That might be true, if the Senate operated by majority rule, as it used to before modern abuses became commonplace. But Malcolm’s little rant acts as if filibusters don’t even exist.
To be sure, Malcolm is a partisan activist. I get it. His work is intended to reflect Republican press releases, so items like these serve their intended purpose.
But shouldn’t the L.A. Times, as a major news outlet, feel some qualms about paying to publish deliberately misleading nonsense?