Earlier today I decided I'd had enough of the amnesia in the MSM about Republican filibusters.
I was prompted to action by today's WaPo story on the energy bill, featuring the now-routine line in the lede graf, "Senate Democrats failed to muster enough votes this morning to close debate on the energy bill," etc.
In other words, what used to be known as a filibuster -- that is, when Republicans were in control and valiantly fighting those darned obstructionist Democrats. Nowadays, not so much.
So this is what I e-mailed WaPo writer Jonathan Weisman:
"Why are you no longer using the word 'filibuster' to describe what happens when a vote is not allowed on a bill, as happened today with the energy bill in the Senate? When Republicans were in control the word was used all the time to describe Democratic 'obstructionism.' But today you simply said 'Senate Democrats failed to muster enough votes this morning to close debate.' Can you even attempt an answer?"
Yes, I was a little irate.
And this is Weisman's response, in full:
Where is this lunacy coming from???? This is from this morning's paper:
'We want everyone to know we have tried every alternative possible,' Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said with a sigh after a House-passed AMT bill, to be paid for largely with tax increases on wealthy Wall Street titans, fell to a Republican filibuster. Just 46 senators, all Democrats, voted to cut off debate on the measure, 14 short of the 60 needed.
Who is putting you up to e-mailing nonsense?
Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post congressional writer
weismanj@washpost.com
I appreciate the fact that Weisman even answers these things. And I appreciate the fact that in another story -- not the one I was citing -- he dared to use the once-common term "filibuster," now as rare as sighting a blue whale.
And I guess he can be excused a little attitude since I came equipped with one of my own.
But why not use "filibuster" in every story where it's applicable? And why is my original question "nonsense" since in the energy bill story I cited Weisman clearly chose to studiously avoid the term?
I won't be bothering to get into a pissing match with Weisman. If you follow his chats you already know he's one of the WaPo's most juvenile, snarky, and dismissive writers, very typical of the arrogant Beltway "opinion leaders" we're stuck with these days.
But I pass this episode along to you just so you'll know that the next time you have what you think is an independent criticism of the mainstream media -- someone must have put you up to it.