How did media cover GOP's 2003 use of reconciliation? They didn't

[babylonsister]

Jamison Foser
How did media cover GOP's 2003 use of reconciliation? They didn't
March 03, 2010 4:48 pm ET


For weeks, the news media have been obsessed with the question of whether congressional Democrats would use a legislative mechanism known as "reconciliation" to pass changes to the health care reform legislation that passed the Senate in late December.

Unfortunately, that obsession has not actually resulted in reporters consistently getting the story right. Basic facts that should be central to the debate over the propriety of reconciliation have gotten lost in the mix. First, nobody is talking about passing the entire health care reform package via reconciliation -- the Senate has already passed its bill, and did so by overcoming a filibuster. Reconciliation would, instead, be used to pass a much smaller package of changes to that legislation via majority vote. Second, there is nothing hasty or debate-stifling about using reconciliation in this case: Congress has been considering health care reform for more than a year. Finally, reconciliation isn't all that unusual, having been used in connection with some of the highest-profile legislation in recent decades, including President Bush's tax cuts and the welfare reform bill President Clinton signed. Those are facts, and they are not in dispute.

And yet the media are referring to reconciliation as the "nuclear option" and portraying it as an obscure procedural gimmick being considered in an attempt to circumvent Senate rules and "ram" health care legislation through Congress. The conservative media are going so far as to claim that use of reconciliation would be "unprecedented."

Funny, I don't remember this level of media outrage in 2003, when Republicans passed President Bush's tax cut legislation via reconciliation.

But what's really striking about the media's approach to reconciliation is how much it differs from the way they treated the Republicans' use of reconciliation to pass President Bush's 2003 tax cut legislation. Only two Democrats voted for that bill -- one of whom, Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, doesn't really count, as he was a de facto Republican -- and Vice President Dick Cheney had to break a 50-50 tie. (Three Senate Republicans joined 46 Democrats and one independent in voting against the bill, which these days would be described as "bipartisan opposition.")

And yet, in the weeks leading up to the reconciliation vote, the media didn't portray the Republicans as ramming tax cuts through Congress via unprecedented use of an obscure procedural gimmick to circumvent Senate rules. In fact, they didn't say much of anything at all about reconciliation.

more...

http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003030032

[FrenchieCat]

1. Eery, isn't it? And I remember that so many were against those unpaid for rich people tax cuts!

The media didn't give a shit.

[OHdem10]

2. It is beginning to appear: "We will let the Democrats think they won

an election. However, it they do not hang out on the Right
with the Atilla the Huns, we will constantly remind them
the Right Rules.

There are too many instances of the Right doing things, but
if the Left does something similar the Media is on them
like dogs on a bone. When it gets to be one thing after
the other. Also when the Media start every sentence with
"the Republicans......this tells you who runs the show.

[lib_wit_it]

3. No, they didn't make a big deal of it, but, once again, the Rs just know how to play the game. Ds Me

are unable or unwilling to catch on the the "squeaky wheel" concept. This, in addition to our failure to have our own Frank Luntz, has and will continue to be one of the reasons that the MSM fails to present a "fair and balanced" view.

[babylonsister]

6. I'd say the corporatists who own the m$m have

been protecting the Rs for a very long time. It doesn't have much to do with squeaky wheels; we see today events happening and things being said that deserve media scrutiny and we get crickets. The "media" is invested in covering the backs of the rethugs.

[lib_wit_it]

11. Very, very true, but I think the Rs also benefit from their constant poutrage and bitching. If it

were more profitable for the M$M to cover from the D's perspective, we'd see more of it. We need marketing geniuses to find ways to package the D message in a more sensationalist, "entertaining" way. Ugh, it's revolting to me, but if it would benefit the success of progressive policy, then it'd be worth doing.

[depakid]

4. Democrats can't blame the media for this fiasco

Instead of just getting it done (as Republicans would have- and did many times) they sat back and yammered, hemmed and hawed about it for 8 months, "debating" among themselves on the "propriety" of it- and causing frustrated proponents like Ed Shultz, strategists like Howard Dean and numerous Democratic politicians to repeatedly bring it up. Again and again.

All the while appeasing the likes of Lieberman, Nelson and Blanche Lincoln because, as the "leadership" dishonestly insisted, they needed "60 votes."

Much as one might dislike the corporate media, you can't really blame them for running with that gift- given to them on a silver platter.

[AJD48]

5. They are propaganda networks

[Jefferson23]

7. K&R

[JohnWxy]

8. RECOMMENDED!

If Democrats get the chance, are on a tv broadcast where a Corporate Lobbyist (Republican) is talking about how the Dems are "ramming" HCR through with an "arcane" device (Lamar Alexander was saying this, several times, on Charlie Rose, suck-up up to Corporate Lobbyist partiers), .. the Dems, rather than say "Republicans used reconiliation to pass Tax cuts for wealthy." .. they should make it a question: "Why did you use reconciliation for your tax cuts for the wealthy??" ...putting a question out there leaves it hanging in the air.. I think that has more effect. If they don't answer it, people remember that better.

Plus, the Dem, if they ignore it, should say: "I still haven't heard Sen.________ answer my question." THen repeat the question!

Democrats are not very good at verbal sparring techniques. You can't be gentlemen when dealing with Corporate Lobbyist propagandists.

[jbfam4]

9. excellent points

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Reconciliation does NOT = "Nuclear Option"!!!!

I know that we can't count on the corporate media whores to tell the truth but it's infuriating hearing them compare a legitimate legislative maneuver that the Repubs have used in the past without any outcry and compare it to a proposed tactical maneuver that the Repubs were seriously considering using against Democratic filibusters in the Senate!!! :banghead: