The major news networks blamed the shutdown on Republicans 41 times, Democrats 0 times.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Working for the Democratic Party: The major news networks blamed the shutdown on Republicans 41 times, Democrats 0 times.

In Congress the shutdown was a team effort, involving both parties. To pin the blame on one party is to reveal your partisanship.

But then, this really isn’t news. The major news networks have been unabashed Democratic Party operatives for years. This detail just provides another one of thousands of illustrations that prove it.

Share

12 comments

  • Stu Harris

    Yes, and republican shout-radio blamed it on the President how many times?

    For the tea party to have used this opportunity to attempt to emasculate a law that was passed by both houses, signed by the president, affirmed by the Supreme Court, and got the President re-elected by the people, borders on treason. My opinion.

  • Garry

    How was this any different than Congress approving George W Bush’s fence with Mexico, then a later Congress refusing to fund it? I mean what’s different besides one party having absolutely no chance to influence the drafting of Obamacare, then it being ramrodded through by a single party on Christmas Eve, and when Scott Brown was elected to be the 41st vote against it, they used sketchy (though legal) maneuvers to get it passed?

    Congress proposed nothing extra-Constitutional the past few weeks, other than surrendering balance of power by giving the President the authority to exceed the debt limit.

    Many voters already regret the re-election (which was not just about Obamacare), and many more will regret it as Obamacare comes into force.

  • Stu Harris

    Memory fades on that Mexico fence, Garry. You’ll have to remind me if the Congress refusing to fund it did so by attaching a rider to a bill that was the nation’s only chance to avoid bankruptcy.

  • I am baffled. Obamacare was a new law, overturning previous law passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Was passing this treason?

    Slavery was the law, passed by Congress, signed by presidents, and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Was overturning slavery treason?

    Woman were once denied the vote. This ban was passed by Congress, signed by presidents, and affirmed by the courts. Was changing the law so they had that right treason?

    I find your selective approach to changing the law quite partisan. If liberals have the right to change the law, so do conservatives. You might disagree with them, but that is what freedom of speech and the vote is about.

    And I repeat, Obamacare as law is a disaster. It seems to me to be the height of responsibility to challenge it, to either get it repealed or revised. To call such an effort “treasonous” is to demand the end to all democratic freedoms and to establish a fascist totalitarian state.

  • Stu Harris

    Bob, the simple answer is that this was not an honest and democratic move to change a law. It was a cynical and ill-conceived attempt to prevent a democratic law from going into effect. Big difference. Thank $deity it failed.

  • Garry

    Whether the funding on the funding on the fence was tied to anything is immaterial.

    To put things in perspective:

    -The Constitution requires Congress to pass a budget every year. The House has passed a budget every year, but Harry Reid has not allowed the budget to come to the Senate floor since 2008. I blame both parties; they can get away with spending more if they pass a series of continuing resolutions rather than the budget.

    -As with all programs, there is one law to approve of the budget, and another bill to fund it. Actually, the appropriations bills for the budget are traditionally passed in a seriesof bills (if I recall correctly, 13 of them). The House passed individual appropriations bills since as early as June, but Harry Reid did not allow any of them to come to a vote.

    -The debt ceiling comes from time to time, and any increases have to be approved. I remember a certain junior senator from Illinois very publicly speak out against extending the debt ceiling back in 2006 (I may be off a year), saying that running up $8 trillion in debt is unpatriotic.

    -Obamacare falls under the House and Human Services appropriations bill. It was Harry Reid and company who insisted that all the appropriations bills be bundled together, because they wanted to make sure there was a government shutdown if Obamacare was not funded.

    -Under the circumstances, I’m glad the Republicans tied Obamacare funding to the appropriations bills and the debt ceiling, and hope they do it again in a few months.

    -If the debt ceiling were not raised, we would not have to default for several months at least; the government still takes in funds, and the debt servicing is but a fraction of what the government takes in. The shrill calls about default and even the world economy collapsing (as I heard one of my senators say on the radio yesterday) are just scaremongering. A repeat of the shrill calls over the sequester.

    This is all just more sausage making; both parties do it, the main difference being that the media only blames Republicans. The passage of Obamacare was the mother of all sausage making.

    If I had my way, I would not authorize an increase in the debt ceiling, or would authorize as small an increase as possible, in order to force government to shrink.

  • Garry

    You mean a Democratic law, not a democratic law. Big difference.

  • The Republican actions might have been cynical and ill-conceived, but it was not treasonous, which was your first unreasonable and vicious accusation. It is that to which I was objecting. If you had simply said this to begin with, I wouldn’t have been bothered in the least, and we would have been able to have an intelligent discussion. Instead, you started out by making a dishonest attack that bordered on hate.

    I have been documenting this kind of leftist, liberal incivility now since the Tucson shootings. It disgusts me. They made a big deal about the need for civility after that terrible event (which had literally nothing to do with the political debates of our time), but seem to only demand civility of their opposition. They however have the right to say anything, no matter how vicious or hateful.

    I would have thought you would have been above such things.

  • wodun

    Ya, considering the way Obamacare was passed (taking a tax bill already passed by the House and stripping all the text from the bill, replacing it with a bill no one read except the special interest groups who wrote it.) Democrats have no right to complaign about anything.

    Democrats need to demonstrate they have ethics before lecturing others about the moral way to run government.

  • wodun

    Hey Stu, we print money. We will never go bankrupt unless we run out of ink and trees.

  • Stu Harris

    How much do you think your life savings will be worth if the national debt is paid by printing $$?

  • Garry

    Yet another reason why we have to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse, trim federal spending, and grow the economy so we can get to work on the national debt problem.

    Whatever happened to the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles? Not a perfect solution, but a great conversation starter. The president talked about it a lot before it came out; once it came out, it just got lost down the memory hole and very few have mentioned it since.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *