GOP Obstructionism of Obama Nominees--And "Mainstream" Journalism Enabling

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 13:00

Maddow handles this appropriately:

The NY Times?  Not so much.

This the Times weighed in with "balance"-blinded look at growing GOP obstructionism towards Obama nominations, in which Duckworth figured not at all.  She wasn't the only missing, however.  Putting too many nominees into the story might be confusing.  It might give folks the wrong idea.  And so, we got a story with just two nominees mentioned, and only one discussed in any detail at all: "Storm Clouds Gather Over Obama Nominees".  (Storm clouds "gathered" as if by magic.  Look, ma!  No hands!)

WASHINGTON - Although the parties have changed places, the nomination wars continue.

Senate Republicans are struggling to adapt to an altered political world when it comes to candidates for federal courts and senior Justice Department posts.

No longer able simply to defend choices made by a fellow Republican, as they did under President George W. Bush, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have turned into vocal critics of many of President Obama's legal nominees. They complain that several are committed liberal ideologues, much in the way Democrats complained that Mr. Bush's choices were committed conservative ideologues.

But so far, facing a solid Democratic majority in the Senate, they have been able to do little beyond briefly delaying confirmation. Now they are weighing whether to use the filibuster - a threat of extended debate, the tool many Republican senators regularly denounced when it was used by Democrats to block some Republican nominees. These are certainly different times.

Several things are worth noting here.  First off, by arbitrarily limiting itself to "candidates for federal courts and senior Justice Department posts" the picture it paints significantly minimizes the scope of GOP obstructionism--despite the very first line that refers to "nomination wars" with no such arbitrary qualifications.  The qualification is why Duckqworth doesn't appear in the story.  But consider who else wasn't mentioned. Think Progress yesterdy posted a brief overview of some, in which DUckworth does appear:

In the last week alone, at least four separate nominees who thought they were on track to be approved will have to wait at least a few more weeks:

Department of Defense: Sens. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) announced today that "they are blocking President Barack Obama's nomination of Ashton Carter as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics." The senators want assurances that Carter will not "change the criteria" on which the Pentagon considers a refueling tanker contract that could benefit defense contractors in their state.

Department of Veterans Affairs: Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) asked the Senate Veterans Affairs committee to delay voting on the "nomination of Tammy Duckworth, an injured Iraq war helicopter pilot, to be an assistant secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs." Contacted by ThinkProgress, Burr's Press Secretary, David Ward said that Burr is waiting for the answers to several questions he's put to the White House and Duckworth, but would not disclose what those questions were.

White House Office of Legal Council: Dawn Johnsen's nomination as head of the OLC has been delayed in part because Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has ideological differences with her. As the Legal Times explained, "citing Johnsen's criticisms of Bush national security policies, [Cornyn] accused her of lacking 'the seriousness and necessary resolve' to fight terrorism," while "other Republicans have targeted her work as legal director for NARAL Pro-Choice America from 1988 to 1993."

Department of State: Right wing commentators are working to block the appointment of Harold Koh to the State Deptment's top legal adviser, smearing him as a "threat to democracy" for his being an international law expert. As the Century Foundation notes, "The fervent opponents of Harold Koh turn out to be enthusiastic defenders of John Yoo."

Additionally, Chris Hill's nomination as ambassador to Iraq is still being held up by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) at the behest of the right wing. This despite the fact that Secretary of State Robert Gates recently issued a rare statement on a diplomatic appointment saying, it is "vital that we get an ambassador in Baghdad as soon as possible."  These delays are just the latest in a long string of delays. The nominations of Attorney General Eric Holder, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren were also held up for largely partisan reasons.

Of course, Think Progress is an advocacy organization, and the Times is an "objective newspaper."  But how come Think Progress does a better job of simply laying out the pertinent facts?  Is it because the "balance" narrative has to be carefully reconstructed (aka "reinscribed" as they say in the trade) every time a "news" story is written, and that takes up space, time and energy that's thereby not available to bring up stupid facts?

The list Think Progress put together shows the utter venality that's sometimes involved, along with the scope, sheer pettiness, and disregard for the national interest.  This is not a pretty picture for the GOP.  But it is accurate.

In fact, Dahlia Lithwick recently wrote at Slate about the unanswered assault against Harold Koh:

And Then They Came for Koh ...
If mainstream America can't stand up for Harold Koh, we will get precisely the government lawyers we deserve.

By Dahlia Lithwick
Updated Friday, April 3, 2009, at 6:54 AM ET

It's 11:45 a.m. on April 1, and if you run a Google News search on Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School and President Obama's pick for legal adviser to the State Department, here's what you'll find: 13 pieces on far-right Web sites characterizing Koh as dangerous and anti-American; several Fox News stories, updated several times daily, one of which describes the anti-Koh screeds as "burning up the Internet"; and a measly two blog posts defending Koh from these attacks. By the time you read this, I suspect that Fox News will have a scrolling red banner that reads, "Obama's Koh pick imperils us all" (and ... wait for it ... BINGO!), the anti-Koh pieces will number 18, and the pro-Koh blog posts will number three.

And yet by my most recent tally, every one of the anti-Koh rants dutifully repeats a canard that first appeared in a hatchet piece in the New York Post by former Bush administration speechwriter Meghan Clyne. She asserts that Koh believes "Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts." The evidence for her claim? "A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that 'in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why Sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.'"

In short, if the Times were really to engage in objective reporting--reporting the objective facts, as opposed to constructing a phony "balance" narrative--it would have to write a story about a larger number of very well-qualified nominees being blocked by Senate Republicans in thrall to their wignut base and the circulation of baseless rumors and innuendo.

Gosh, where have we seen this before?

Paging Senator McCarthy.  Senator McCarthy to the Green Room!