Skip to main content

Yesterday, I could not find a single news source that would accurately report that a minority of US Senators blocked the Buffet Rule from consideration over the will of the majority.  NPR? No.  Washington Post? No.  Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC?  No.

Not a single one of those sources (and from my observation so far today, no other) reported the fact  that a minority of 45% senators blocked the 51% majority from moving the Buffet rule forward using a filibuster. Instead, they all said things like... Senate rejects... Senate blocked... Couldn't get 60 votes.

Even Rachel Maddow (with Chris Hayes sitting in), which focused a whole news segment on the fact that public policy measures that have overwhelming majority of popular support of voters (Buffet, Public Option, defense spending among others) are continually thwarted in Congress, never mentioned the fact that Buffet was blocked by 45% minority.  They did not once mention the impact the filibuster has had on these measures, or the fact that it's a minority of Senators who helped block such efforts that did have a majority of Senators supporting them.

It's like the filibuster has become so routine they don't even bother reporting on it anymore.  Minority obstruction is the accepted fact, so no one bothers to explain it anymore.  

There is no outrage that the minority is blocking progress. There is no one being held accountable by the media or the majority party.  So how are voters going to hold the obstructionist minority accountable if they don't even understand the tyranny they are exacting on majority rule in this nation?

So, here's my new headline.  "Senate Minority Blocks Buffet Rule Tax Fairness Using Procedural Tricks".

2:17 PM PT: Looks like Jonathan Bernstein of Plum Line over at the Post upstaged me by a mere 4 minutes with a similar dissection of the media coverage.  I think he did a better job of it than i, so check it out over there.


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (8+ / 0-)

    ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

    by EagleOfFreedom on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:41:08 AM PDT

  •  And had it passed the senate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, NM Ray

    the majority in the house would have shot it down, if they ever bothered to bring it to a vote.

    To bad nobody thought to offer this back when the Democrats had 60 senators and control of the house.

    •  Wouldn't Have Served Any Purpose Then. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunbro

      The revenue raised is trivial, and it has none of the policy benefits of the kind of progressive taxation needed to be imposed on the rich. It's only use is for election messaging, and that's a valid use, but right after the 08 there was no point.

      It's pretty clear they wanted to avoid strong messaging for 2010 so they would not have attempted it closer to that election either.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:01:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Although true, that still misses the point (0+ / 0-)

      A majority was ready to vote this up in one house of Congress.  If the other house votes it down, so be it.  At least then voters see whose side everyone is on, and voters can decide which party to support.

      And yes, I quite agree they should have brought this up sooner, but again, like the public option which had I believe 50+ votes also, it was a minority that blocked it.  A minority that blocked progress and thwarted the will of the majority.

      ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

      by EagleOfFreedom on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:02:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nicely stated. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, EagleOfFreedom

    Thanks for your take on still another example of the intentional mistakes and misses of current broken Big Media.  

    I strongly agree with your sentiments.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 11:02:04 AM PDT

  •  From your keyboard to editor's screens (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, EagleOfFreedom

    Wish it were accurately reported as you suggest.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site