Rick Klein, Boston Globe, RW media shill? - my draft LTTE

[paineinthearse]

On CSPAN Journal this morning, Rick Klein, DC bureau chief for the Boston Globe, was interviewed about the Senate proceedings on the filibuster debate. Mr. Klein said a group of Senators was "...working on a compromise whereby the republicans would not change the rules..."

This is a blatant lie, the rethugs are NOT NOW and have NEVER proposed to "change the rules". What they are doing is an end run around the rules (maneuver to have the President of the Senate rule that a majority vote can be used to terminate debate). If the "judicial confirmation process is broken", as stated by Sen. Cornyn, change cannot be effected by fiat, it must be done by changing rule 22.

Mr. Klein, is an intelligent man, he knows what is happening in DC. Witness his piece dated today:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/05/19/face_off_over_filibuster/
Face-off over filibuster
Vote urged on nominees as compromise sought
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | May 19, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Months of jockeying and sniping over President Bush's judicial nominees and the tactics Democrats have used to stop them have come down to a historic showdown on the floor of the US Senate, as lawmakers engaged in a slow-motion battle yesterday with the nature of Congress and the federal government's system of checks and balances at stake. The long-anticipated debate over filibusters, which has been shaping up for more than two years, began with Senate majority leader Bill Frist asking for approve-or-deny votes on two of Bush's controversial judges and accusing Democrats of using filibusters ''to kill, to defeat, to assassinate" them.

<snip>

But the grand speeches and public gestures are probably precursors to a vote that could ban filibusters of judicial nominees, including future nominees for the Supreme Court. The move -- and the Senate slowdown the Democrats promise in retaliation if it passes -- has the potential to so drastically alter the way the Senate conducts its business that it is known as the ''nuclear option." If the GOP majority votes to eliminate filibusters, it would wipe out the minority Democrats' ability to stop judicial candidates, making it far easier for Bush to have his choices approved -- a privilege that would extend to any future president whose party controls the Senate. The debate also has implications for Frist's political future as he mulls a 2008 campaign for the presidency.

<snip>

On the Senate floor, Senator Edward M. Kennedy said the Republicans are trying to eliminate all opposition to Bush's judicial nominees. ''The nation's founders understood that those in power might believe that the rules that most Americans live by don't apply to them," said Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. ''Without these checks and balances, without the right to debate, the Senate will be nothing more than a rubber stamp for a president's nominees."

<snip>

Still, if a filibuster ban comes for a vote, it is still not clear which side will prevail. With all Democrats lining up behind Reid, Democrats need to pick up six of the Senate's 55 Republicans to win. They are saying they have three solid crossover votes, with about a half-dozen other GOP senators on the fence.

Kleins words, both spoken and written, are nothing short of media shilling for the * administration, a dodge of the actual facts and an attempt to spin the CSPAN listening audience, spin the Boston Globe reading audience, and placate the right wing "base".

On the floor yesterday, Senator Kennedy entered into the record part of the process needed to change Senate rules:

Here are some of the rules and precedents the executive will have to ask its allies in the Senate to break or ignore in order to turn the Senate into a rubberstamp for the nominations:

First, they will have to see that the Vice President himself is presiding over the Senate so that no real Senator needs to endure the embarrassment of publicly violating Senate rules and precedent and overriding the Senate Parliamentarian the way our Presiding Officer will have to do.

Next, they will have to break paragraph 1 of rule V, which requires 1 day's specific written notice if a Senator intends to try to suspend or change any rule.

Then they will have to break paragraph 2 of rule V, which provides that the Senate rules remain in force from Congress to Congress, unless they are changed in accordance with the existing rules.

Then they will have to break paragraph 2 of rule XXII, which requires a motion, signed by 16 Senators, a 2-day wait, and a three-fifths vote to close debate on the nomination itself.

They will also have to break rule XXII's requirement of a petition, a wait, and a two-thirds vote to stop debate on a rules change.

Then, since they pretend to be proceeding on a constitutional basis, they will have to break the invariable rule of practice that constitutional issues must not be decided by the Presiding Officer, but must be referred by the Presiding Officer to the entire Senate for full debate and decision.

Throughout the process, they will have to ignore or intentionally give incorrect answers to proper parliamentary inquiries which, if answered in good faith and in accordance with the expert advice of the Parliamentarian, would make clear that they are breaking the rules.

Eventually, when their repeated rule-breaking is called into question, they will blatantly, and in dire violation of the norms and mutuality of the Senate, try to ignore the minority leader and other Senators who are seeking recognition to make lawful motions or pose legitimate inquiries or make proper objections.

By this time, all pretense of comity, all sense of mutual respect and fairness, all of the normal courtesies that allow the Senate to proceed expeditiously on any business at all will have been destroyed by the preemptive Republican nuclear strike on the floor.

To accomplish their goal by using a bare majority vote to escape the rule requiring 60 votes to cut off debate, those participating in this charade will, even before the vote, already have terminated the normal functioning of the Senate. They will have broken the Senate compact of comity and will have launched a preemptive nuclear war. The battle begins when the perpetrators openly, intentionally, and repeatedly break clear rules and precedents of the Senate, refuse to follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and commit the unpardonable sin of refusing to recognize the minority leader.

Congressional Record, May 18, 2005, Page S5410

Contrast Senator Kennedy’s presentation of the facts to Mr. Klein’s casual dismissal of reality. So, is Klein shilling, or being lazy or??? If you agree with my observation, he can be reached at [e-mail]

This is an informational post, draft LTTE and call to stand up to media shilling. I'd appreciate your input and support.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Isn't this just semantics, though?

Yes, Kennedy is more specific, but isn't Klein just using the phrase "rules change" for the sake of simplicity?
A quick glance at Rick Klein's reporting for the Globe, and you can hardly call the man a rightwing shill. In fact, much of his reporting skews leftward if anything.

[paineinthearse]

2. point taken

I'll pare the "shill" part and focus on the "dumbing down" aspect.

[Roland99]

3. Yeah...I got the same vibe

But, Sen. Kennedy's remarks are very bright and shining points in this dark event.