FactCheck.org, a part of the Republican Party

[forsyth]

I mean, seriously. This is pure Republican spin. Bashing an ad about the Republicans trying to override the filibuster rules in the Senate because filibusters have been used for bad purposes. Like Strom Thurmond's famous filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. They leave out, of course, the fact that Strom Thurmond LOST, and the Civil Rights Act became law. They leave out the fact that the Republicans have systematically dismantled all the methods for the minority party to have any say in the Senate. They've dismantled the rules that let Senators oppose judges, rules they happily abused during the Clinton years. There's about ten judges Bush wants to appoint that haven't been approved. When Clinton was President, the Republicans stopped over a hundred in the first TWO YEARS. There used to be rules that let a senator from the judge's home state block a judge. There used to be rules that let the American Bar Association offer reviews of judges. There used to be rules that let the Judiciary Committee stop judges with a minority. Since the Republicans took power, those have all been removed. And Factcheck.org completely ignores this. The only reason filibusters are even being considered on judges is there's NO OTHER WAY to stop judges, and Bush wants to appoint as many right-wing hacks as he can. The ten who've been stopped are the MOST extreme.

It's not about judges. It's a power grab, trying to make the opposition irrelevant, and seize control of the judiciary. Of course, what the Republicans are ignoring is the fact they won't always have power, but hey, once they lose, they'll start whining about how they're being ignored and how the Democrats aren't using the old rules that let the minority do things. And they'll get plenty of help from the "liberal" media. Like factcheck.org, which doesn't even bother to check its facts. Feh. Looking at their main page, half of their things are wrong. Because, yes, the STATED PURPOSE of Bush's "private accounts" is to lead to the dismantling of Social Security. Idiots. But they're doing the old "one side says this, other says this, truth must be in the middle" thing. If the I say 2+2=4, and Bush says 2+2=5, the answer ISN'T 2+2=4.5.

Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles, News, The Internets

Comments

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

It's NOT bull though, that's the point. They make it out like "OMG! The Fillibuster isn't really an important and longstanding rule! It's been used for bad things!"

Which is, y'know, bull.

[leticia.livejournal.com]

Mmm. If you read that out of what effectively summarizes down to this:
"[An] ad campaign... portrays the Senate filibuster as a noble tool of American democracy. ... Real-life filibusters are another matter, however. They can be used for good or evil. ..."

[raanab.livejournal.com]

Hmm, well, looking over the site, it is biased on this one the title of the page being "A Fictional View of the Filibuster".

Plus there are some talking around the issue going on in it, like where it takes up the line "Filibusters allow both sides to be heard" it says that there's still plenty of opportunity for a senator to speak. That's like saying "Any last words" is a opportunity to expose your innocence, too little too late.

I summed up the ad as "Filibusters are a part of the rules, republicans used them, and it's not right to change the rules when they don't suit us." and the factcheck bit to be "Ad campaign says filibusters good, but look at the ebil people have used them for, Ebil!"

From my read over, they distorted the message of the ad and harped upon the misuse of the filibuster while, except from mentioning the movie filibuster, I couldn't find a single example of a well used filibuster.