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

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 13:00

On Friday, Rachel Maddow focused attention on the efforts of doomed North Carolina Republican Senator Richard Burr (up for re-election in 2010, makes Liddy Dole look like the homecoming queen) to block the nomination of Tammy Duckworth to be an assistant secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It's not just that Duckworth is herself a double-amputee decorated Iraq War veteran, she has an actual trackrecord doing virtually the same job for the state of Illinois, and earning high praise for it. So, naturally, someone to put a hold on, right?

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!)

Paul Rosenberg :: GOP Obstructionism of Obama Nominees--And "Mainstream" Journalism Enabling

The Times starts off by framing the story thus:

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!

Tags: Tammy Duckwqorth, Howards Koh, Senate Republicans, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

GOP Obstructionism of Obama Nominees--And "Mainstream" Journalism Enabling | 6 comments

Advocacy vs neutrality (4.00 / 1)

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?

I believe its due to the fact that Think Progress has a vested interest in the facts. Of course they have a vested interest in spinning those facts as well, but they can't simply ignore them if they don't like them. Otherwise that would come back to hurt them in their advocacy mission, assuming a self critical, inclusive, healthy sense of mission (which I believe the progressive movement does have, not perfectly but to a much healthier extent then the conservative movement).

By contrast, the NYT believes their mission is to hold itself to its own arbitrarily defined objectivity that in reality gives it way too many blind spots. I'd much rather see a full throttle liberal NYT then its mushy objectivity anyway. They can't get bashed anymore then they already do by the right, and if the idea of "the more you get attacked, the more threatening you are" holds up, as the biggest name in US newspapers, they could be a wrecking ball for accountability and justice. But, alas, the cocktail party industry would be hit hard and require massive government bailouts if that were to occur.

Wasn't there a time in this country when all newspapers were slanted one way or the other? Could you just buy the left and right wing rags of the day and get a somewhat accurate picture of events? I'm sick of all this so called centrist, pragmatic, mainstream, whatever euphemism of the day you want to use, crap. Down with non-openly ideologically informed discourse! Or at least, establishment serving "objectivity".

by: essaywhuman @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 12:26:21 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yes, American Newspapers USED TO BE Avowedly Partisan (4.00 / 4)

In fact, that was the standard model throughout most of the 19th Century. It was only the revenue shift from subscriber-based to advertiser-based as the dominant income source that drove out the partisan model, since "nuetral" papers could appeal to a larger audience.

As for the argument you make in your first paragraph, I'm in basic agreement. I work for an alternative biweekly that adheres to the 19th-Century model. We do advocacy journalism, without apology. And we think we have more of a motivation to get the facts right than the so-called "objective" model papers do. After all, if we want to have influence via what we report, what better way to gain it than by being scrupulously accurate?

Yes, we publish stories no one else will. Stories you wouldn't believe. But our reputation over the decades tells you that should believe, because of how well our past reporting has stood the test of time.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 12:54:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting point about revenue (4.00 / 1)

It seems that every institution in the country has been subverted to the revenue generating process. I appreciate that your journalism consciously adheres to the 19th century model of openly partisan writing. It seems that, as is the case for many institutions, we need to find a way to build 21st century models to become the new mainstream. First and foremost, rewarding those who have been right, elevating reporting that has withstood the test of time, as you put it, needs to be prioritized somehow.

I saw some article or documentary about the BBC which quoted an executive at a media corp in Britain as saying that the BBC keeps their own reporting honest. Public broadcasting is one possible solution, the more social democratic solution I think. In the liberal tradition though, how do we harmonize the self interest of newspapers and journalists with the common good of holding public institutions and officials accountable, especially when those interests diverge? In short, how do we make truth and accountability and justice and all that good stuff products that people consciously recognize and pursue in their media consumption habits? I think Cass Sunstein has pursued that question before?

by: essaywhuman @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 14:11:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good questions, (0.00 / 0)

but I would put it differently. The MSM seems intent on doing things that keep ratings / readership up in the short term (sensationalist, tabloid, celebrity obsessed journalism, regardless of the subject matter) which seems to hurt their bottom line in the long run as these things do not build a solid audience over time. So, how can we get change the incentives so that they focus on their long term health over short term gain? (I don't have any doubt they could figure out the latter question, if it was the one they were trying to answer.)

Come to think of it, that's the same question I ask of political parties, the financial sector, the auto industry, higher education - just about every institution we have.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

by: David Kaib @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 14:52:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]