« | »

NYT Drama Queens Hate GOP ‘Theatrics’

An editorial so snide and uninformed that it could only come from the pages of the New York Times:

Pomp, and Little Circumstance

January 4, 2011

A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress.

Mind you, this is coming from a newspaper whose motto is: ‘all the news that’s fit to print.’ An operation that calls itself the ‘newspaper of record.’

A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution.

What is wrong with this? And never mind that it could be argued that this is already an implicit requirement of legislation? Certainly it is supported by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution. (If it is still allowed to cite such things.)

A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law.

Oh, the outrage of ‘representatives’ actually doing the bidding of the people who elected them to office. And doing what 2/3rds of the American public wants.

On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber.

This clearly is what has given the editors at Times the vapors.

And in one particularly self-important flourish, the new speaker, John Boehner, arranged to have his office staff “sworn in” on Tuesday by the chief justice of the United States.

It is "self-important" to try to impress upon your staff that they too have to uphold the Constitution and the laws of our country? Who knew? (Certainly not Nancy Pelosi’s staff, who had no such qualms.)

Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.

Lest we forget, the 111th Congress did not even pass a budget last year. Which it is actually required by the Constitution to do.

But The Times chides this new Congress for squandering all of its time in self-glorification (by reading the Constitution) and not finding the time to govern. When they have been in office for how long? One day?

The empty gestures are officially intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate — presumably to the Republicans’ Tea Party supporters — that things are about to be done very differently.

Note that reading the Constitution is deemed to be an ’empty gesture.’ Likewise trying to repeal one of the most costly and most despised pieces of legislation in our nation’s history.

But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation’s foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?

So what if they are suggesting that? Let the other side prove them wrong. Let the Democrats stop trampling on the Constitution and passing un-Constitutional legislations – like Obama-care.

In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.

This last sentence alone should be enough to discredit the editorial board of the New York Times forever. Are they really unaware that the 14th Amendment is currently part of the Constitution?

This abject ignorance shows the crying need to have the Constitution read aloud as often as possible. Since even the Solons at The Times are woefully unaware about what it says.

There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it.

Then the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution are "vacuous" also. Or are these two more Amendments that the editors of The Times are pig-ignorant about?

The new House leadership says this is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker’s chair.

So the Congress should never be concerned as to whether their legislation is Constitutional or not? They should just pass whatever they want and let the courts sort it out, if somebody eventually decides to take the law to court. What a novel approach to legislation.

By the way, The Times also railed against the lawsuits brought against Obama-care by the states. Perhaps they have already forgotten that.

All of this, though, is simply eyewash — the equivalent of a flag-draped background to a speech — compared with the actual legislation the Republicans plan to pass. And though much of that has no possibility of being enacted, it does suggest the depth of the struggle to come.

Funny how the New York Times is suddenly against symbolic gestures. They normally call efforts to pass doomed legislation — such as surrendering in Iraq — heroic and noble. But that is only if these futile gestures are for a cause that they approve.

The bill tauntingly titled the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” has nothing to do with increasing employment and will never reach the Senate floor, but shows that the leadership is willing to threaten the hard-fought access to health care for millions of the uninsured, just to make a political point.

Really? Requiring businesses to provide government decreed levels of healthcare insurance for their employees or face a stiff fine is not a job killing bill? Then why have more than 222 businesses (and unions) already gotten waivers?

Is the New York Times really this un-informed, or is advancing Democrat propaganda that much more important to them than the facts?

On budgetary issues, the House Republicans’ new rules bypass the chamber and even their own Budget Committee to give all power to set spending levels to the committee’s new chairman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. It is hard to imagine how long such an aggrandizement of power will last in a contentious body like the House.

The plans by Mr. Ryan and his colleagues to simply cut all spending back to 2008 levels also have no chance of being enacted.

Then what is the problem?

The one good thing about these meaningless rules and bills is that they finally seem to be prodding House Democrats into standing up for their own programs as they enter the minority. Democrats have begun to remind Americans of what is at stake in repealing health care: popular provisions like the elimination of lifetime coverage limits, insurance under parents’ policies up to age 26, and coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The Democrats and their lickspittle minions like The Times have been reminding Americans of these so-called benefits for many months now. And Obama-care is more unpopular than ever.

Perhaps The Times slept through the November elections.

The Republicans’ antics are a ghastly waste of time at a moment when the nation is expecting real leadership from Congress, and suggest that the new House leadership is still unable to make tough choices.

"The new House leadership is still unable…" Yes, they have been unable to make touch choices for almost a day now.

Besides, trying to repeal Obama-care and trying to cut spending back to 2008 are not tough choices? This isn’t leadership?

Voters, no less than drama critics, prefer substance to overblown theatrics.

That is rich, coming from the substance-less drama queens of the New York Times. — Frank Rich.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 6th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “NYT Drama Queens Hate GOP ‘Theatrics’”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    It’s official. There are just too many hippies around. Hippies who have made themselves very wealthy in a capitalist nation, yet who decry it like a pair of dirty socks. I have to laugh at what a difference time has made in their worlds. None. Except their staggering income. The things they bitched about in the 60’s are now the very things they, themselves are responsible for. They are “the man”, man. Yet their grasp of fundamentals remains pathetically absent. The fundamental that, in order to survive, one needs a method by which to acquire the necessary wealth to feed, clothe and take care of oneself. Given that they make obscene amounts of money, I guess it’s up to them to tell me how to commune properly and how I need to be governed. That ol’ rag, the Constitution is just a whimsical mental meandering of a bunch of old, white slave owners and should thus be dismissed entirely. And replaced by what, is my question. I suppose they, in their infinite ivy-league educated “wisdom” have a better idea? Maybe something with over 2,000 pages to it that only a LAWYER could read? Like the healthcare bill?

    I am so sick of hippies. Everything they do is counterproductive and counter intuitive to normal human beings. I think they simply are what we in The South call “contrary”. They simply go against the grain because that’s the way they are. Difficult, obnoxious, and usually quite stupid.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      “I am so sick of hippies. Everything they do is counterproductive and counter intuitive to normal human beings. I think they simply are what we in The South call “contrary”. They simply go against the grain because that’s the way they are. Difficult, obnoxious, and usually quite stupid.”

      Back in the 60’s they called it the “Counter Revolution.”
      Very clever……eh, Rusty?

  2. tranquil.night says:

    Bitter Clinger.

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      Rusty, or the clown who wrote that NYT POS?

    • tranquil.night says:

      Hm, lifetime patriot or unhinged professional propogandist.

      But taken on the merits of each’s arguments alone it shouldn’t be too difficult for discerning individuals to figure who’s the bully and who’s the righteously upset victim.

  3. proreason says:

    The Slimes really needs to stop recruiting its “journalists” from junior high school.

  4. beautyofreason says:

    “suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. ”

    Ah, and the crux of the matter returns. Democrats want to reinterpret and twist the Constitution until it bears no resemblance to the original document or even the vision of liberty. As long as it serves the current populist agenda of the day, which for the Democrats is open door amnesty, special benefits to terrorists, and persecution of free speech as “hate crimes” (if Europe is any indication). Oh, and a thousand nuanced regulations that slowly carve away at the remaining liberties that we have – mandatory health insurance is but one example.

    Sometimes looking at the Constitution and its ideals as a whole is a good thing. I’m glad the Supreme Court overturned a state law banning contraception (Griswald vs. Connecticut) and overturned segregation (Brown vs. BOE). But it’s also important to read the fine print. The 14th amendment doesn’t have a thing to do with illegal immigrants and shouldn’t be twisted to provide automatic citizenship to anyone who sneaks into our country and breaks the law. And if we’re interpreting rights within the broad scope of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” then why is abortion legal and not the other way around? Activism is a slippery slope. If Supreme Court justices want to change the fabric of the country then Mark Levin has a point; they are not very different from the black robed mullahs of Iran.

    I’m glad that we are a nation of laws, not just of men.

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      BoR,
      We are a nation of laws, not men, which also means that the Constitution cannot be taken in any but it’s most strict and literal form. Sorry, but just feeling good about or agreeing with a ruling doesn’t make it right. This is true for libs and conservatives. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits states from banning contraceptives. And truthfully, there is nothing prohibiting the states from putting into their own laws things that “violate” the constiution. The intent of the constiution was to protect the states first, and the concept of US national citizenship was a bit unusual for many of the founding fathers’ states’ citizens, thus much like the federal government iteself, the Constitution should have little impact on the daily lives of the people. The restrictions in the constitution are on the federal government. Period. It took until after the death of state sovereignty to finally get amendments ratified that could restrict states legal rights to do as they wished. Now there are certainly merits to the 14th amendment, and the 13th was clearly required for our country. However, the purpose of the constiution changed at the end of the so called civil war, and it became a means of restricting states and municipalities. This may rub some people wrong, but it’s true.

      The federal supreme court system has become the lazy man’s way of addressing his greivances, and that is not it’s purpose. The idea at the onset was that we as citizens would take care to preserve our own liberty. This meant we would never allow a town to ban handguns or allow access to unrestricted, unlimited abortions, or allow one judge to define marriage against the stated will of the people. Instead of taking on those fights ourselves, we tend to run to the federal government and make the case that “Well, you can’t do (fill in the blank) so why can my other governments do it?” . Because in theory, you gave those governments that authority. Whose fault is it?

      For example if a town in Maine tries to ban pornography being sold near a church or school. The porn store owner loses the case with his town council, the state supreme court, all the circuit courts etc, but still insists that his “1st amendment rights” have been restricted. He takes it to the supreme court and they make the same ruling they did on Mcdonald in Chicago, essentially saying that the 1st restricts municipalities because the 14 says the Fed can say so. Just like in Mcdonald, we get assurances that this doesn’t spell the end of municipalities being able to set their own regulations.

      Ten years down the road, one guy in Utah tries to set up a porn shop in a heavily mormon town. 99.99% of that town is opposed to him setting up there. He cites Sleazeball V. Hoboken. The Judge who swore this was a one shot deal specific to the instance of that case has left the bench. Therefore “TA DA!” he wins his case and gets what he wants. This is not what was intended in the Constiution at all, and any interpretation of the Constitution that is not completely lifted from the current text is unconstitutional. To view it any other way is to nullify the Constitution. Sound unlikely? Then why does it happen all the time?

      I guess my final point is that the when the Constitution starts becoming a document that affects every aspect of our lives, that is in itself a form of restriction on our liberty and freedom to govern ourselves as we choose. If there is a small town or even an entire state that wants to ban unions, require firearms ownership and membership in a local milita, outlaw hybrid cars, allow smoking everywhere, drop the drinking age to 16, require every law to be put to a vote, and only limit new legislation to 10 bills a year, and set their taxes to 3% of yearly income no matter what, would you not want to live there? Imagine a state or town that could determine it’s own definition of “drunk” “married” “unemployed” etc. I’d be in heaven.

      But that would never fly now because some hippy dippy would go run to the Supreme Court saying all this violates the constitution. People who would otherwise have no interest in living there would come running to the cause because they love hybrids and want more abortions. To turn power over to the fed in any form should be done with extreme caution, prudence and forethought. They gave us a republic, if we could keep it. Well, we didn’t.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »