Yeah, that government shutdown sure taught them a lesson
by digby
I’m sure most of you are familiar with Congressman Mel Watt. He’s been in congress a long time and has spent plenty of time on TV. Here he is:
Republicans in the U.S. Senate made history this week when they successfully filibustered the nomination of Rep. Melvin Watt (R-N.C.) to become director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Watt received 56 Senate votes, four short of the 60 necessary to end the filibuster.
The move represented the latest round of raw, extremist obstructionism that Republicans have proudly practiced for the last five years, particularly when it comes to mounting extraordinary efforts to block presidential appointments that in the past were considered to be routine.
The historic element of the Watt rejection was that throughout American history it has been virtually unheard for a sitting member of Congress to be filibustered — to be denied the courtesy of a final vote — when selected by the president to fill an administration position. Prior to this week’s partisan blockade of Watt, a Congressional rejection like his hadn’t happened since before the Civil War, in 1843.
They’re not even trying to hide it, are they? Unfortunately, the press is barely mentioning this stuff so people don’t understand just how radical this is. (Old news, dontcha know?)
That important historical context should have been included in every story about the Watt filibuster, but it wasn’t. That’s not surprising considering the Beltway press corps seems to have made a conscious decision during the Obama presidency to omit virtually all context with regards to the Republicans’ continued radical behavior as they cling to filibusters to methodically block, stall and reject most White House policy proposals, as well as countless nominations.
The pliant coverage over the years has likely only enabled Republicans to push ahead with their corrosive strategy, knowing there’s certainly no downside with regards to adverse media attention. After all, Republicans moved to recently shut down the government, yet lots of journalists suggested the radical, destructive move was because “both sides” just couldn’t agree, essentially blaming Democrats for Republican extremism.
They also blocked yet another judicial nomination, the highly qualified (but penisless) Patricia Willet, claiming that the president trying to fill the vacant seat is “court packing.” Not kidding.
Meanwhile:
Of the filibuster coverage that does exist, the tell-tale shortcomings that have defined the media’s work on GOP obstructionism are on display. For instance, the Associated Press categorized the filibusters as “a setback for the president,” which is precisely how Republicans want the story to be portrayed: They embrace extremist tactics, reject the president’s picks, and the press chalks it up as a White House failure, or “setback.” (If you’re a Republican, why stop?)
The Washington Post pointed to the filibusters as examples of “partisan rancor,” suggesting Democrats were partially, or equally, to blame.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that while judicial nominations remain an issue of deep contention, “Among senators of both parties, there is agreement that a president should be granted deference in picking members of his cabinet and top executive branch positions.”
But that just completely ignores recent history. Last November Republicans launched an unprecedented, preemptive smear campaign to make sure Susan Rice was not picked as Obama’s next Secretary of State. (It succeeded.) Then they engineered an unprecedented campaign to try to stop Republican Chuck Hagel from becoming Secretary of Defense. (It failed.)
This now business as usual in the US Senate. And it’s largely because the press portrays it as business as usual. It’s so common place that they are now barely reporting it at all.
.