The Volokh Conspiracy has had a couple of excellent posts about judicial filibusters in recent days.

Juan Non-Volokh says that, contrary to recent claims by Democrats and their shills, President Bush has the lowest appellate nominee confirmation rate of the last three Presidents. And that’s even before he has hit lame duck status!

Meanwhile, Todd Zywicki analyzes the history of the filibuster, and says that (contrary to Harry Reid) it has traditionally been thought of as a tool to ensure full debate, rather than as a minority veto:

I can’t find anything in the Senate history that suggests that it has ever been thought an appropriate use of the filibuster to kill legislative action even after all debate and deliberation is effectively complete.

Good posts, both of them.

Earlier, I reported that the L.A. Times edited out information about a satellite recording which proved that the car bearing Giuliana Sgrena was speeding towards a U.S. checkpoint, just as the U.S. had always maintained.

It turns out that even Al Jazeera has reported about the satellite footage:

The CBS television network reported yesterday that satellite data had shown the car had been travelling at about 60mph.

When Al Jazeera is giving you a more complete picture than your own hometown paper, you know you’re in trouble.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh notes that the Islamic Republic News Agency (the official news agency of Iran) has also reported on the satellite recording.

Vik Rubenfeld has an excellent critique of an L.A. Times sub-headline that reads:

Thirty years after the fall of Saigon, the firmly Communist nation has a flourishing economy, social freedom and deep ties with the U.S.

Vik shows how the article itself shows that Vietnam’s economy is anything but communistic. As Vik notes:

The subhead could just as well have been: “Capitalism Brings Vietnam Out of a Communist Dark Age.”

An excellent post. Read it all.

Los Angeles Times editors have edited a Reuters story to remove critical facts supporting the U.S. position on an important international issue.

This morning’s L.A. Times publishes an article about the March 4 shooting by U.S. soldiers of a car bearing Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena. The shooting killed Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari, and created an international controversy, which strained U.S.-Italian relations.

An important contested issue in the controversy was the speed of the car as it approached a U.S. checkpoint. Sgrena has maintained that the car was traveling at a “regular speed” — no more than 25-30 mph. Americans have said that the car was traveling at least 50 mph.

The L.A. Times story today portrays that critical issue as a still-unresolved queston:

WASHINGTON — The United States and Italy disagreed Friday in the conclusions of a joint investigation into the slaying of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.

. . . .

A U.S. Army official said this week that Italy was disputing two issues in the report: the car’s speed as it approached the checkpoint and the nature of communications between the Italians and American forces before the shooting.

Italy’s government has said the Italians were driving slowly, received no warning, and advised U.S. authorities of their mission to evacuate Sgrena from Iraq.

The Army says the car was speeding toward the checkpoint and that U.S. soldiers tried to get it to stop by using hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots, and then shot into its engine block when it did not stop.

As presented in the L.A. Times, the question of the car’s speed is a “he said, she said” issue, with no definitive evidence that would resolve the disagreement.

Here’s where it gets interesting.

The L.A. Times story is actually an edited version of a Reuters story that appeared on the news service yesterday afternoon. The Reuters story reported that investigators using satellite footage of the incident have conclusively determined that the car was speeding, just as the U.S. has always maintained. On page two of the story, the Reuters news service reported:

CBS news has reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had been established the car carrying Calipari was traveling at more than 60 mph per hour [sic] as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad.

Thus, the Reuters story reported that there is definitive proof that the car was speeding towards the checkpoint — critical information that tends to justify U.S. soldiers’ decision to fire on the car. But in the version appearing in the L.A. Times, editors cut out the passage reporting that proof.

The evidence is conclusive that this cut was made by L.A. Times editors. We know this because the version of the Reuters story that was printed by the L.A. Times is unique to the L.A. Times. This can be seen by a simple comparison of the first sentences of the respective stories. The Reuters version opens with this sentence:

The United States and Italy on Friday disagreed on the conclusions of a joint investigation into the killing of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.

A Google search of that sentence reveals 58 hits, all of which are reprints of the story, using the same sentence worded in the same way.

The L.A. Times slightly alters that first sentence to read as follows:

The United States and Italy disagreed Friday in the conclusions of a joint investigation into the slaying of an Italian agent by U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.

In this edited version of the sentence, Times editors moved the word “Friday,” changed the word “killing” to “slaying,” and replaced the word “in” with “on,” making the sentence grammatically awkward. [UPDATE: In the comments, Dafydd ab Hugh notes that the use of the word “slaying” tells you something about where L.A. Times editors are coming from.]

As of the time of this post, a Google search of the first sentence of the Times version of the piece reveals only one hit — in the L.A. Times.

The evidence is incontrovertible: this edited version of the Reuters story is unique to the Los Angeles Times. Times editors removed the fact that there is proof, in the form of satellite footage, supporting the U.S. version of the event.

There is no excuse for the L.A. Times story not reporting this information.

P.S. Following up on that last point, I did a review of the The Times’s past reporting on the issue of the speeding car. The paper repeatedly trumpeted Sgrena’s contention that the Americans had no reason to shoot at the car, because it was only going 25-30 miles per hour. In the extended entry, I provide a detailed history of the paper’s reporting on this issue.

Extended entry:

(more…)

Ernest Miller catches the L.A. Times misquoting a source.

I’m not entirely sure, but I’m starting to suspect that the L.A. Times wants readers to believe that there have been some recent missteps by Arnold Schwarzenegger:

From an April 28 news story:

Since his speech in January, the governor has watched his political fortunes fall amid a series of missteps and miscalculations.

From an April 27 editorial:

Buoyed by such missteps, Democrats went on the attack.

From an April 26 news story:

During an appearance in Chatsworth, Shriver dismissed reports that she was worried about recent political missteps by her husband and his aides.

From an April 26 letter to the editor:

After reading how Maria Shriver felt compelled to “step in” to help her husband correct his missteps, the phrase “girlie governor” came to mind.

From an April 22 news story:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is facing infighting among his senior staff and campaign team, which has contributed to a series of political missteps that threaten the once soaring governor’s ambitious agenda, more than a dozen aides and lawmakers said Thursday.

But the folks at The Times don’t have a one-dimensional view of Schwarzenegger. They chronicle his missteps, to be sure . . . but, on the other hand, they also tell readers about his miscalculations:

From the April 28 news story mentioned above:

Since his speech in January, the governor has watched his political fortunes fall amid a series of missteps and miscalculations.

From an April 25 news story:

Although outside forces played an important part in Schwarzenegger’s slump, even those sympathetic to the governor say many of his problems are self-inflicted, a result of overreaching, hubris, poor staff work and serious miscalculations.

. . . .

Above all, Schwarzenegger’s friends and enemies agree, the governor miscalculated by trying to accomplish too much in too short a time, without laying the necessary groundwork.

Not surprisingly, Democrats agree. From an April 10 Steve Lopez column:

But that’s the governor’s fault, said Democratic consultant Darry Sragow, who helped promote the governor’s borrowing and budget-balancing propositions last year.

“I think he made an incredible set of miscalculations,” Sragow said.

I’m sure Democrats are pleased to see their point of view so faithfully represented in the L.A. Times — time and time and time again.

Barack Obama presented himself well at the Democratic convention last year, and came across as a good guy in subsequent interviews. But he undermines his image for credibility today. Quoted in the L.A. Times about the filibuster controversy, Obama makes this silly statement:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) denounced [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist’s offer as insincere, saying that if it were a serious compromise, conservative activists would be unhappy. He said [Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid “took a hit” when he made his own compromise offer to Frist on Monday.

Oh, please. If the Democrats accepted just three of the current disputed appellate court nominees, in return for an assured veto over any future disputed judicial nominations, Democrats would be dancing in the streets. And Barack Obama is smart enough to know that.

According to the L.A. Times, when Republicans reject Democrat offers to compromise on the filibuster, that shows an eagerness for confrontation on the part of Republicans. And when Democrats reject Republican offers to compromise, that shows an eagerness for confrontation on the part of . . . Republicans.

Yesterday, the paper ran an article about the Republican rejection of the Democrats’ silly non-starter of a compromise offer, which contemplated confirming three judges in return for an unlimited Democrat veto over all future Bush appointees. That laughable “offer” was portrayed yesterday as a genuine effort to compromise and avoid confrontation:

Senate Republicans on Tuesday rebuffed a Democratic overture aimed at ending a confrontation over federal judges, saying that any agreement must include a pledge not to filibuster future nominees — especially Supreme Court nominees.

(More on yesterday’s article in my post from yesterday.)

Today Bill Frist has made his own offer. It is an effective response to the left’s nonsensical claims that efforts to shut down the filibuster are an effort to shut down “debate.” To demonstrate the insincerity of that Democrat argument, Frist has offered Democrats 100 hours to debate judicial nominees, on condition that the nominees get an up-or-down vote at the end of the debate.

If the filibuster controversy were truly about debate, this compromise offer would be accepted.

Naturally, it was rejected.

The rejection shows clearly that this controversy isn’t about preserving the right to debate — it’s about blocking nominees, pure and simple. If this is a non-starter of an offer, that’s because one the Democrats’ prime arguments in favor of the filibuster — the need for robust debate in the Senate — is completely disingenuous.

So how is Frist’s compromise offer portrayed in the L.A. Times? Simple: Frist is choreographing a confrontation:

In a piece of parliamentary choreography that moves the Senate closer to confrontation, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) offered today to give Democrats 100 hours to debate judicial nominees on the condition that they permit a vote on each nominee at the end of the debate.

So: Republicans reject a Democrat compromise offer — that’s Republicans seeking confrontation. Democrats reject a Republican compromise offer — that’s still Republicans seeking confrontation.

To the L.A. Times, it doesn’t matter which side makes a compromise offer, which side rejects it, or what the actual merits of each offer might be. In each case, the theme is always the same: any confrontation is the Republicans’ fault.

P.S. Today’s Times story looks like a first draft. The extended entry will memorialize the content in case it changes.

(more…)

Michelle Malkin has a good roundup of past statements, both from Democrats and the New York Times editorial page (but I repeat myself), supporting the idea of an up-or-down vote for judicial nominees — or just opposing the idea of filibusters altogether.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

However . . .

I just have to wonder whether there is a similar collection of quotes from Republicans of that era, justifying blocking judicial nominations. If anyone knows where a good, succinct collection of such quotes can be found, send me the link. I am reluctant to go trolling through a bunch of nasty leftist sites to find them myself.

The L.A. Times recently ran an article about a talk given by Janice Rogers Brown. The L.A. Times reporter didn’t attend the talk, but this fellow did. His conclusion:

In the end, what is most annoying about the Times article is the way it brings what was really a profound presentation down to the level of a partisan political spitball fight.

Read the whole thing. The blogger is obviously a fan of Justice Brown’s, as am I. Still, his post contains many specifics that support his conclusion that the Times article was a cartoonish view of a powerful and intellectual speech.

Many blogs have discussed last night’s fabulous L.A. Press Club event:

Hugh Hewitt has a comprehensive post, and also includes the text of his prepared remarks.

Mickey Kaus complains that none of the bloggers blogged about the event. You just need to give us some time, Mickey . . .

Quarens has a picture, where you can barely see me, off to the left.

SoCalPundit promises pictures, but hasn’t delivered — yet. (I think Hugh called him Kevin Drum! He was obviously mixing up SoCalPundit Kevin with Kevin Drum, the former CalPundit. He must have been surprised at the right-wing question that “Drum” asked.)

Flap does have pictures. The red eyes in the picture of me are due to his camera — not the wine I had. I assure you.

Mack Reed was appalled by the Times-bashing.

Kevin Roderick — who, like me, was surprised to find Hugh Hewitt inviting him to speak (but who, unlike me, wisely declined to) — has some thoughts.

Gay Patriot has a comprehensive list of people he met.

So does Cathy Seipp — who says she met me, but really didn’t, properly (which I regret — hopefully next time).

I did meet Carol Platt Liebau, who sometimes guests for Hugh Hewitt on the radio.

Justene from Calblog says her daughter was thrilled that her mom got to hear Hugh Hewitt . . . you know, the blogger.

Luke Ford has a post, though I can’t figure out how to permalink it.

Jason Apuzzo of the LIBERTAS blog has a post. Baldilocks, Vik Rubenfeld, and I enjoyed talking to his wife Govindini Murty about conservatives in Hollywood. Apparently they exist!

Other folks I met who didn’t/couldn’t blog it — and I know I am missing some — include L.A. Times editor Bob Sipchen; the pseudonymous LAPD officer Jack Dunphy and his lovely (and equally anonymous) wife; Amy Alkon; Jill Stewart; Roger L. Simon; Mark Alan Stamaty (who does the full-page Sunday Opinion comics for the L.A. Times); Brady Westwater; and (as I mentioned last night) frequent commenter Dafydd ab Hugh and his lovely wife Sachi. Old friends not already mentioned included Justin Levine, Richard (Calblog Justene’s husband), and Marc Danziger (aka Armed Liberal from Winds of Change). And probably some others that I somehow forgot.

I got to speak with all of these people (except for Cathy Seipp). Can you tell what a great evening it was?

UPDATE: Jay Rosen wasn’t there, but has a post that touches on the event.

There has been no resolution in the U.S. Senate of the dispute over the use of the filibuster to block President Bush’s nominees.

How do you figure that has been portrayed in today’s L.A. Times story on the issue?

Your choices are:

a) The Republicans have attempted to resolve matters through compromise, but the Democrats have rebuffed the offers and insisted on the right to filibuster.

b) The Democrats have attempted to resolve matters through compromise, but the Republicans have rebuffed the offers and insisted on the elimination of the filibuster.

c) Each side has made an offer of “compromise” that the other side considers unserious.

If you guessed choice “b,” you win the gold star.

Here’s how today’s article begins:

Republicans Reject Democrats’ Offer to Settle Judicial Dispute

The deal would allow votes on three nominees. But the GOP says it’s focusing on future picks.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday rebuffed a Democratic overture aimed at ending a confrontation over federal judges, saying that any agreement must include a pledge not to filibuster future nominees — especially Supreme Court nominees.

Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered to back away from Democratic filibusters on three of seven of President Bush’s appellate court nominees if Republicans would pledge not to change Senate rules to end the use of the parliamentary tactic to stall votes on proposed judges.

But Republicans said they were less concerned about current nominees than they were about future ones, especially with an anticipated Supreme Court vacancy this summer.

Now, that sounds like an offer by the Democrats and a counteroffer by the Republicans. More accurately, it sounds like a ridiculous offer by the Democrats, and an equally ridiculous counteroffer (described further down in the story) by the Republicans. But the story’s angle is: Republicans are rejecting compromise.

I can best illustrate what I mean by rewriting the story to reflect the opposite spin. I could easily begin the story in this way, using the same exact facts reported in the story:

Democrats Reject Republicans’ Offer to Settle Judicial Dispute

The deal would allow a change to committee procedures. But Democrats want the right to block GOP future picks.

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats on Tuesday rebuffed a Republican offer aimed at ending a confrontation over federal judges, saying that they would accept no agreement that restricted future use of the filibuster.

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky offered to change committee procedures in return for an end to judicial filibusters.

“There’s a lot of finger-pointing going on on both sides,” he said. “This is a way to cure that.”

But Democrats said they were less concerned about current nominees than they were about future ones, especially with an anticipated Supreme Court vacancy this summer. They insisted that Republicans pledge not to change Senate rules to end the use of the parliamentary tactic to stall votes on proposed judges, leaving the two sides at an impasse.

See the difference? That is effectively the mirror image of the spin presented in today’s story, in which Republicans are the ones portrayed rebuffing a compromise.

Why this particular spin?

I don’t know for sure. But I do know this: the spin of today’s story matches the spin that Democrats are putting on the impasse:

“Republican leaders don’t want compromise,” Reid said. “Republican leaders don’t want Democrats to have a voice in this debate. Republican leaders don’t want any check on their quest for absolute power. They want total victory.”

And so do you, Sen. Reid. You want the absolute right to block any judge that doesn’t meet your party’s preferred judicial philosophy. Even though Republicans have won the Presidency and a majority of the seats in the Senate, you don’t want them to have the ability to place judges on the bench who reflect their preferred judicial philosophy.

Lucky for you, you have found at least one newspaper happy to portray the controversy the way you’d like it portrayed.

UPDATE: I finally looked at the article in the dead trees edition of the paper (I blogged this entry from the Internet version). The article in the paper obligingly runs a photo of Harry Reid standing in front of a lectern that prominently states: “PROTECT OUR RIGHTS. STOP THE PARTISAN POWER GRAB.” It’s as prominent as the headline of the story.