Here’s an extensive article about the biased MSM’s failure to report good news out of Iraq. I think its a well written article, but it seems that everything in it has been said a hundred times before on the blogosphere.
I’d say that’s more a testament to the blogosphere being ahead in the enlightenment game, than an indictment of David Limbaugh. Reading it reminded me of the fact that most of the public is still in the dark on MSM bias and other issues regularily discussed on blogs. Last year, before I entered the Matrix, that article would have seemed so radical to me.
I find it hard to imagine that that framers of the Constitution silently wanted to have a process which is designed to thwart the other explicitly created processes. That’s like saying a car maker intended its line of cars to have a chronic stalling problem. At least let’s start with an honest debate and recognize that the filibuster was a political tool created after-the-fact and cut out all this “it’s part of our constitution” nonsense.
But as a longtime constitutional reformer, Hertzberg is himself an anti-filibusterist, recognizing that the Constitution–which doesn’t mention filibusters–already makes it way too difficult for the government to pass laws desired by a majority. Think about it: An identical bill has to pass two different legislatures, with differing terms, and then be approved by a President who may or may not be in the majority party. Isn’t that difficult enough? Why add an extra, non-constitutional rule that makes it even harder to get anything done?
But Kaus and Hertzberg go on to state how appointing judicial nominees is different than passing legislation because its a permanent decision and we don’t want to be left with a radical judge for life. But again, isn’t this just another ex post facto political rationalization? I don’t think you can have it both ways without saying “the Constitution be damned”. And I don’t hear too many Democrats saying that.