Monday, January 3, 2011

Fair & Balanced

From (emphasis, eh, added):
The Republicans' pledge to hold an early vote to repeal the health care law is widely seen as symbolic. Republicans reason that the voters who gave them the House majority in November expect them to at least go on record against the health law in the next session, though congressional rules make it highly unlikely that they'll be able to overturn it while a Democratic president is in office. 
I'm not sure exactly what bureaucratic, nit-picking, undemocratic "congressional rules" FoxNews is referring to.  Perhaps the veto?  Perhaps the even more unfair rule allowing the majority of the Senate to vote down things they don't like?  Perhaps the existence of the Senate?  Perhaps the outrageous practice of actually seating Democratic Senators who manage to steal elections by getting a plurality of the vote?

Unreported, so far, is whether the House intends to get their repeal bill scored, and if so how they're going to deal with the likely result that simple repeal will raise the deficit.  Well, beyond ignoring it, obviously.  Gosh, if only there was some rule mandating that legislation did not increase the deficit..


  1. I'm not sure what level of outrage this merits. On the one hand, yes, the bastards are making all those implications you note, and doing so gleefully.
    On the other hand, I'm not sure that they don't often use the term "congressional rules" to refer to any situation that a majority of one chamber cannot rule by fiat. I seem to recall seeing them call the filibuster, employed by their own side, as "congressional rules."

    I could be wrong...that could have been some other TV news.

  2. Yes, but "congressional rules" is an accurate, if euphemistic, way to refer to a situation in which majorities favor something but don't pass it. "Congressional rules" is not an accurate description of a situation in which something loses a 48-52 vote (my guess at what would happen if Reid takes up a repeal measure). It's Constitutional rules, not congressional rules, that say that the House can only act if the Senate and president concur.

  3. Ah, but they can't blame "Constitutional rules" because they cloak themselves in the Constitution for all things (you know, except for the 14th, 17th, and, why not, 13th amendments)

  4. >the voters who gave them the House majority in November expect them to at least go on record against the health law

    This assumes that the voters who gave them the House majority favor repeal, an assumption contradicted by exit polls which show just 48% of voters favoring repeal, while 47% favor either leaving the bill alone or expanding it.

    As usual, winning an election automatically implies a broad public endorsement of the party's entire agenda...oh, unless you're a Democrat.

  5. I wonder...

    ...this is a bit of a reach, but I think it's well within the realm of possibility. Fox may be referring to OVERALL efforts to repeal or weaken HCR, outside of the simple vote. Specifically, I'm thinking of efforts to defund HCR, which, while a real threat, have a real chance of being stifled by the committee process, reconciliation, etc.

    If THAT is what they're referring to, than it's still a distortion, and an important one. But it's kinda easier to see where they're coming from. Because honestly, the biggest thing about Fox is that they're really just BAD reporters. The bias isn't even the most alarming part, it's that they're just so BAD at it.

  6. Yes, what Fox needs is reporters who are much better at disguising their bias.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who links to my website?