Dems and the ‘obstructionist label’

July 19, 2007

Washington Post congressional reporter Lyndsey Layton was online yesterday for a Q&A with readers. Atrios noted this jaw-dropping exchange.

Crestwood, N.Y.: Lyndsey, I like this Harry Reid strategy of late night theater to break the filibuster, because it underlines how many of the GOP Senators are making touchy-feely speeches about opposing the war, but refusing to support any real efforts to end it. I think the next step should be to hold up votes on almost anything Bush wants a vote on, starting with his judicial nominees. I know that this back-fired on Newt Gingrich in the ’90s when he tried it on Clinton, but can anybody remember what noble cause Gingrich was fighting for back then? Ending this war is of a different order of magnitude, and I think the voters appreciate the Dems finally, finally taking a strong stand on something instead of wringing their hands about the iniquities of the senatorial system. Your take?

Lyndsey Layton: Hi Crestwood, I’m not as certain. Recent polls show Americans are frustrated with this Congress and its inability to pass legislation. If the Democrats start blocking every initiative – even in the name of a cause that 70 percent of Americans support – it’ll be hard to peel off the obstructionist label. As it is, the party is worried that it won’t have enough of a legislative record to tout during the ’08 campaigns.

Did I mention that Layton is a congressional reporter? For one of the nation’s most prestigious and influential news outlets?

There’s been considerable discussion lately, at TPM and elsewhere, about the media’s role in the public understanding developments in the Senate. The House passes important, popular legislation, there’s a majority in the Senate who support the bill, but Republicans block everything that moves.

The public, understandably frustrated, can’t understand why a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate can’t pass the legislation they support. As a result, Congress’ popularity tumbles.

But maybe the public wouldn’t be so confused if congressional reporters like Lyndsey Layton weren’t so breathtakingly wrong when describing actual events. Dems are “blocking every initiative”? Dems will have trouble shaking off “the obstructionist label”?

I’m afraid I can’t help but wonder what planet is Layton on.

Consider this list of filibustered bills Chris Bowers recently put together.

January 17, Reid Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007: a bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process.

January 24, Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007: a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

February 5, A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq: disapproving of the troop escalation in Iraq.

February 17, A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq: disapproving of the troop escalation in Iraq (again).

April 17, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007: an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

April 18, Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007: a bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fair prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

June 11, No confidence vote on Alberto Gonzales: a joint resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people.

June 21, Baucus Amendment to CLEAN Energy Act of 2007: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for energy advancement and investment, and for other purposes.

June 26, Employee Free Choice Act of 2007: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

July 11, Webb Amendment to the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2008: to specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

What do you suppose the chances are that most of the country realizes that these bills would have passed, easily, were it not for Republican obstructionist tactics?

And what do you suppose the chances are that people might have a better understanding if reporters like Lyndsey Layton were more responsible in their professional responsibilities?

I don’t deny for a moment that congressional Dems need to work diligently to keep people informed, but they can only do so much when they’re up against journalists who are misleading people.

I’m tellin’ ya, time to start suing reporters like Lyndsey Layton for slander when they egregiously misinform the public in this way.

  • Shills, not suck-ups. Playing dumb, not getting played. Smartly, willingly, enthusiastically performing the role of village idiot to protect the more aware masses.

  • Two legs bad, four legs good.

    Democrats bad, Rethuglicans good.

    If there’s a bad label, stick it on Democrats. If there’s a good label, stick it on the Republicans.

    See, life is easy on Planet Orwell. It’s us who are on the wrong planet.

  • I must have missed something. Who is responsible for changing the filibuster procedure from the Jimmy Stewart or Strom Thurmond exhaustion-while-reading-grandma’s-cookie-recipes to a simple statement by any senator that he intends to filibuster. Suddenly, on one sentence by one senator, passage requires 60 rather than 51 votes.

    And whatever/whenever was involved, why can’t it be changed back?

    I think the whole idea of a filibuster is anti-democratic, oligarchic and stupid, but what passes for one now is ridiculous. I can’t imagine it happening in any other democratic legislative body.

  • If indeed he is a Congressional reporter, she should be fired immediately for muddying the issue beyond any reasonable discernment. She has shown us with this exchange that she is in over her head in understanding the avenues of power and institutional protocols. What an idiot! -Kevo

  • Shameful reporting and extremely misleading…BUT…it seems to me that what Layton was ‘trying’ to say was that IF Democrats in the future started to block all initiatives even in a cause like stopping the occupation of Iraq then they would be seen as obstructionists and would THEN not have any record of having gotten anything passed….BUT it certainly didn’t come out that way. And it in no way reinforced the truth of what ‘Crestwood’ was saying about Republican obstructionism. Layton can’t be that stupid…can she?

    Is it too much to expect reporters in such high positions to at least be able to get a story straight and report it straight???
    Is that too much to ask???

    Do these positions just not pay enough to hire competent reporters with professional standards? Was Layton so deaf that she could not hear what was coming out of her mouth?

  • Sadly, Layton is on the same planet where most people who rely on the MSM for their information reside. It’s difficult to form an opinion or make a decision based on facts when you have no source for facts.
    I suppose writing as many letters to editors as we do comments on blogs is the only way to crack this shell.

  • When will this dark ages end, CB? I don’t know how much more I can stand. Does the term “journalist” no longer mean anything? It’s beyond my understanding how these people can willingly lie/misinform and still not get fired or sued or impeached or shot.

  • She has absolutely no idea what she is talking about. Another reader called her on it and this was the exchange (in which I went insane – just like Atrios):

    New York:”If the Democrats start blocking every initiative…” Did you really just write that? Bills are being fillibustered by Republicans, not Democrats. How is it then that Democrats are the ones blocking initiatives?

    Lyndsey Layton: Blocking confirmation of appointees to the bench, to various federal commissions, etc.

    As I said in a post on this topic earlier today, the msm is THE most important problem. They start reporting accurately, everything else is more likely to fall in place.

  • They did the same thing last night on the NewsHour. Totally refused to utter the word “filibuster”, and made it sound like the Dems couldn’t pass legislation because a majority wouldn’t vote for it.

    This is getting ridiculous.

  • They’re performing exactly as trained by their GOP handlers. Learned stupidity.

  • What’s kind of tragically comic is that even when the Dems were in the minority, they were not obstructionist – thanks to the threats to use the “nuclear option” and get rid of the filibuster altogether, along with the Dems’ misguided belief that if they gave a little they would get a little.

    I have come to believe that the truth is the last thing the media is concerned with. I don’t think they examine what they write or say to see whether it is accurate, I don’t think they analyze the stories to see how context affects the content, and I don’t think most of them regard what they do as any kind of service to the public, or utilize their ability to function as another check on the government.

    I understand that those who write op-ed pieces, or do commentary like Olbermann, are espousing opinion, and whether that opinion is based on fact or fantasy, it is still just opinion. The problem is that people who write and report on the news have also come to inject far too much opinion into their work, with the result that the news cannot be trusted to be accurate, either.

    As entertainment, I would give it two thumbs down – as news, I would give it two middle fingers up.

  • The right worked long and patiently to train the press to do their bidding. it took years of people making fun of their conspiracy theories about the liberal media, but eventually they wore the media down, and sheeple began to believe, and now the right (along with some help from the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine – to the election winner go the spoils – and right-wing corporations purchasing the outlets) has the press singing its song.

    Lessons: (1) the left needs to have a patient, long-term plan of its own for media, media relations, and message delivery; (2) the right has to be monitored and nipped in the bud before it hatch its long term schemes.

    Let me now be slighly more charitable to Layton than she probably deserves and point out that there may also be a problem with “journalists,” trained as writers, used to having time to review in print and having editors on top of that, doing live interviews. There are advantages to the new era of blogs, live chats, public comment sections after stories, multiple 24/7 news TV channels, and 24/7 talk radio, but there are also serious disadvantages. A loss of traditional fact-checking, trying to move too fast, having people in roles they are not cut out for, stretching to fill time, creating controversy to fill time. . . the results look similar to hackery (and I’m not sure it matters if hackery is intentional or incompetent, it is still pernicious to a democracy.)

  • Hey Anne: “I understand that those who write op-ed pieces, or do commentary like Olbermann, are espousing opinion, and whether that opinion is based on fact or fantasy, it is still just opinion.” I just don’t accept that. Whether it is straight news or opinion, it must be grounded in in demonstrable fact. The editors at all of the papers and on TV are supposed to fact check editorials the same way they do news. Writing opinion should not give you a license to lie!

  • But there is a difference between opinion and news – that’s why you don’t see Frank Rich or Paul Krugman or EJ Dionne in the news section.

    Two people of opposing political views can take the same facts and give you two erntirely different opinions about what they mean. And when I read op-eds and listen to commentary, I know that going in. If I have done my homework, and the media has given me a full set of facts, I can agree or disagree in whole or in part with someone’s opinion – we’re on the same field, even if we’re at opposite ends.

    When I look at the front page of the paper, I expect to find facts – as many of them as possible. And I expect to form an opinion – all by myself – using those facts. I don’t want Peter Baker or Adam Nagourney telling me the facts they want me to know so that I will form the opinion they think I should have – and I believe there is far too much of that in the media today. It’s one of the reasons we ended up in Iraq with as much support as there was at that time – because the media were feeding people only the facts that provoked the desired response.

    I am not, by any means, excusing the lack of facts that form the basis for an op-ed or commentary – I;m just saying that I’m already approaching that form with some skepticism, knowing that it is opinion. And if I have reason to know or suspect that the basis for what I am reading is woefully short on facts, I’m not givng much, if any weight to the opinion that results.

    • Comments are closed.