All the News That's Unfit to Print

The NY Times is a thoroughly discredited puppet of the Democratic National Committee. We all know it, but it's worth reminding ourselves every now and then.

Not only are New York Times editors regurgitating Democratic talking points in their editorials, they aren't even bothering to check them out first. The proof appears in this morning's editorial on judicial filibusters, titled Opinion > Editorial: Mr. Smith Goes Under the Gavel" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/opinion/28sun1.html?oref=login&ex=1259384400&">Mr. Smith Goes Under the Gavel:

Judicial nominees have never been immune from filibusters. When Republicans opposed President Lyndon Johnson's choice for chief justice, Abe Fortas, they led a successful filibuster to stop him from getting the job. More recently, in the Clinton era, Republicans spoke out loudly in defense of their right to filibuster against the confirmation of cabinet members and judicial nominees. Republican senators, including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Mike DeWine of Ohio, used a filibuster in 1995 to block President Bill Clinton's nominee for surgeon general. Bill Frist, now the Senate majority leader, supported a filibuster of a Clinton appeals court nomination. Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, was quoted in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1993 saying, "On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster."

I looked up this last quote. Contrary to the clear implication of the editors, the quote from Senator Bond has nothing to do with judicial filibusters. It related to his participation in a filibuster to block President Clinton's economic stimulus package. Here is the full context for the quote:

This month, the Republican minority used their unity and Senate rules to block Clinton's $16.3 billion economic stimulus package. "On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster," declares Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., who offered four amendments and orated as part of the Republican campaign.

You might well wonder: where did New York Times editors get the idea to include this irrelevant quote from a 1993 article in a St. Louis paper? A quote that has nothing whatsoever to do with filibusters of judicial (or even cabinet) nominees?

Wonder no longer. A Google search of that quote yields two results: today's NYT editorial, and a Democratic Policy Committee page of talking points about judicial filibusters, titled "The Republican Flip-Flop on Filibusters."

Would the editors of the most influential paper in America actually swallow DNC talking points without even checking the facts? Indeed.