Diane Sawyer - Stupid, Ignorant or a Republican Shill?


Credit where Credit's Due: Sawyer apologizes:

SAWYER: OK, I have a quick correction about something I said earlier this week. I said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was vowing to filibuster on the whole question of the vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq and it would close out other issues. In fact, Senator Reid held the all-night debate to protest the threat of a filibuster from the Republicans on the same proposal. You wrote me. You were right. I was wrong. I apologize. We'll be back.

Via Media Matters:

During the July 17 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals." Sawyer was referring to Reid's plan to hold an all-night Senate debate prior to the July 18 cloture vote on a Democratic proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq. However, by planning to extend the Senate session throughout the night, Reid is not "vow[ing] to filibuster," as Sawyer reported. Rather, he is highlighting the Republicans' blocking of an up-or-down vote on the proposal; in other words, it is the Republicans who are filibustering the withdrawal proposal by requiring that 60 senators vote for the amendment in order for it to pass.

You know, somehow such "mistakes" are almost always made to the Republican advantage. But I'll give Sawyer some benefit of the doubt - she's probably not a Republican shill - as her performance with Al Gore, and her obsession with his weight showed, odds are she's just a stupid, shallow, vapid person who despite years in public life still doesn't know what a filibuster is.

No wonder people who watch "news" shows know less about current affairs than people who watch, say, a comedy show with Jon Stewart...


Ian Welsh July 17, 2007 - 3:59pm
( categories: Miscellany )

"The Senate minority Republican leadership has managed to use the filibuster -- the Capitol's tradition of unlimited debate -- to prevent Democratic bills aimed at pulling troops out of the war from reaching the chamber floor.

So Democrats are employing a bit of political theater this week to draw attention to the tactic, keeping the Senate in session overnight Tuesday before a vote on an amendment to the 2008 Pentagon authorization bill that would require troop withdrawals to begin in 120 days."

The Senate Republicans have managed to avoid a real filibuster so making them actually filibuster a bill is "political theater"?

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music."
-Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country

jumpinin July 17, 2007 - 4:22pm

I mean, the three choices are not mutually exclusive.

Stranger July 17, 2007 - 4:52pm

stupid, shallow, and vapid!

canuck July 17, 2007 - 5:06pm

Reid

FACTS ON REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM

* Senate Republicans have obstructed almost every bill in the Senate – even ones with wide bipartisan support.

* So far, in the first half of the first session of the 110th Congress, there have been THIRTEEN cloture votes on motions to proceed – each one wasting days of Senate time. (110th Congress, Roll Call Votes #44, 51, 53, 74, 129, 132, 133, 162, 173, 207, 208, 227, and 228)
* In comparison, in the first sessions of the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, there were a total of FOUR cloture votes on motions to proceed.

EIGHT times Republican obstruction tactics slowed critical legislation

* Fulfilling the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (Passed 97-0, Roll Call Vote #53)
* Improving security at our courts (Passed 93-3, Roll Call Vote #133)
* Water Resources Development Act (Passed 89-7, Roll Call Vote #162)
* A joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq (Passed 89-9, Roll Call Vote, #74)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 69-23, Roll Call Vote #173)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 64-35, Roll Call Vote #228)
* CLEAN Energy Act (Passed 91-0, Roll Call Vote #208)
* Funding for the Intelligence Community (Passed 94-3, Roll Call Vote #129)

FOUR times Republicans blocked legislation from being debated

* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform (Rejected 45-50, Roll Call Vote #206)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

FOUR times Republicans stopped bills from reaching a vote

* Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community. (Rejected 41-40, Roll Call Vote #130)
* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

TWICE Republicans blocked bills from going to conference

* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (6/26/07)
* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on ethics reform (6/26/07)

-----

THE EFFECTS OF OBSTRUCTIONISM

Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community… “For the second day in a row, Senate Republicans Tuesday blocked a Democratic attempt to limit debate on the FY07 intelligence authorization bill and open the way for its approval. The vote on the cloture motion was 50-45. Sixty votes were needed for approval. Only two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, supported the motion. Before the vote, Intelligence Chairman Rockefeller called on Republicans to ‘put politics aside’ and vote for cloture…Earlier in the day, the Senate accepted several amendments proposed by Rockefeller to address objections by the White House last week when it threatened to veto the legislation.” (National Journal Congress Daily, 4/18/07)

…denying our country the tools to fight the war on terror. This bill would have provided funding for the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the U.S. government’s 15 intelligence agencies and entities, including the CIA, FBI and NSA. It would have provided funds for combating terrorism, enhancing our intelligence-collection capabilities, and strengthening intelligence oversight. (DPC Report)

Senate Republicans blocked a vote on reforming the Medicare Prescription Drug plan…“Senate Republicans yesterday blocked a bill that would permit the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, a measure backed by Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy and other Democrats. The 55-42 vote was five short of what Democrats needed to end debate and begin voting. While Democrats hold majorities in the US House and Senate, yesterday's procedural move by Republicans could indicate rough waters for other proposals that affect pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including legislation to permit generic versions of biologic drugs.” (Boston Globe, 4/19/07)

...and denied seniors lower prescription drug prices. S. 3, would have repealed the current-law prohibition on Medicare’s using the bargaining power of its 43 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. S.3 would also make Medicare drug plans more accountable and improve the level of information available to seniors about prescription drugs. In blocking S. 3 from even being debated, Senate Republicans have resorted to obstructionism in an effort to protect the drug industry at the expense of our seniors. (DPC Report)

Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage… “Senate Republicans rejected an effort by Democrats to pass minimum-wage legislation without breaks for small businesses on Wednesday, setting the stage for a potential impasse with the House, where lawmakers are demanding a ‘clean’ bill. The Senate vote of 54 to 43 was six votes short of the 60 needed to move ahead with a wage measure that does not include tax benefits for employers. Earlier this month, the Senate Finance Committee voted to add $8.3 billion in tax breaks to the bill.” (New York Times, 1/25/07)

…delaying a much needed raise for hard-working Americans. H.R. 2 would have raised the minimum wage for the first time in ten years to $7.25. Senate Republicans preferred to have hard-working Americans continue to wait. (DPC Report)

Senate Republicans are blocking the appointment of conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations… “In blocking the appointment of conferees for the bill, Senate Republicans are leaving open/delaying implementation of reforms and initiatives that will fill/ dangerous gaps in our homeland security and enable us to more effectively guard against and mitigate terrorist threats.” (DPC Report)

…leaving the United States vulnerable to terrorist threats. “The Senate passed legislation yesterday on a 60-38 vote to implement recommendations of the September 11 commission, despite the threat of a presidential veto over a provision to allow airport screeners to unionize. The measure calls for cargo on passenger planes to be screened as carefully as luggage, guarantees each state its share of $3.1 billion in annual security funding for the next three years, with $1.3 billion allocated for high-risk urban areas, and creates an emergency-communications grant program.” (Washington Times, 3/14/07)

Senate Republicans are blocking the appointment of conferees on ethics reform… “Despite voting overwhelmingly for the ethics bill when the measure was on the floor today, Senate Republicans blocked the appointment of conferees to the bill and in so doing stopped the legislation dead in its tracks and further delayed the effort to clean-up politics in Washington.” (DPC Report)

…halting progress on the “most significant ethics reform since Watergate.” “The Senate legislation, hailed by proponents as the most significant ethics reform since Watergate, would ban gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists, and would force lawmakers to attach their names to special-interest provisions and pet projects that they slip into bills. Lawmakers would have to pay charter rates on corporate jets, not the far-cheaper first-class rates they pay now.” (Washington Post, 1/19/07)

Senate Republicans are blocking a bill to bring transparency to campaign fundraising…“The search continues for the mysterious Republican senator or senators who have blocked legislation that would require senators to file campaign disclosure forms electronically…Feinstein added that if the senators do not want to be identified, she would like McConnell to show her the proposed amendments. If they have bipartisan support, Feinstein said, she might be able to change the bill accordingly. (The Washington Post, 05/09/07)

…denying the American people the right to know who funds Senate campaigns. “The bill would end the Senate practice by which senators and Senate candidates file their campaign disclosure reports on paper, which then requires the Federal Election Commission to have them input electronically, delaying their release. House members and party campaign committees have filed electronically for years. Feinstein has sought to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which would not allow for debate or amendments. Senate rules allow any senator anonymously to block such passage.” (Washington Post, 5/9/07)

Senate Republicans blocked a vote on holding Attorney General Gonzales accountable… “Senate Republicans blocked a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday, dashing Democratic hopes of embarrassing Gonzales and his boss, President George W. Bush, with a formal demand for his ouster.” (Reuters, 06/11/07)

…refusing to hold the Attorney General accountable. This resolution would have expressed Congress’s and the American people’s disappointment with the performance of Alberto Gonzales as the Attorney General of the United States. Recent questions have been raised about the Attorney General’s role in last year’s firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for alleged political reasons and about the forthrightness of his statements regarding those firings. Other serious concerns involve Mr. Gonzales’s role in 1) the misuse of National Security Letters by the Federal Bureau Investigation; 2) allowing the National Security Agency to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in conducting domestic warrant-less wiretapping; 3) politicizing the hiring of career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice; and 4) developing the legal framework for the use of torture and the creation of military commissions.

Senate Republicans blocked legislation to make forming unions easier… “Senate Republicans have vowed to kill organized labor's top legislative priority of the year, and it looks like they'll soon get their chance. The measure, which would make it easier for workers to form unions, cleared the House earlier this year on a party-line vote. It's been awaiting action in the Senate since March, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is circulating word that he'll seek passage before lawmakers begin their July 4 vacation.” (Associated Press, 06/15/07)

…siding with corporations against average American workers. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), sponsored by Senate and House Democrats, would level the playing field and restore workers’ freedom to form unions and collectively bargain by: 1) strengthening penalties for companies that coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against employees during an organizing campaign or during negotiations for a first contract; 2) establishing a timeline for negotiating a first contract that gets employers to the table, and gives the parties the option of mediation and binding arbitration when employers and workers cannot agree on a first contract; and 3) giving employees the choice of selecting a union via majority sign-up over an election. (DPC Report)

Senate Republicans delayed debate on Iraq for weeks… “For weeks, Republican leaders have used procedural maneuvers to delay a debate over Iraq” (The New York Times, 03/27/07)

…and 480 soldiers have lost their lives since the President’s failed surge strategy began. (Department of Defense Casualty Reports)

------

Might that list of Republican obstructionism been overlooked by stupid, shallow, vapid, Diane Sawyer?

canuck July 17, 2007 - 5:28pm

Definitely not stupid. Nor ignorant. Probably but not certainly a Republican.

She is: a believer in American exceptionalism. We have people of that stripe in both parties.

She apologizes for the United States' actions around the world, refusing to consider our own leaders' motives but is very cynical when dealing with foreigner leaders--always looking for hidden agendas. It's a shame we can't get her to grill our own politicians with the same fervor she does foreign dignitaries.

I did inhale.

Don July 17, 2007 - 8:03pm

Your comments:

she's just a stupid, shallow, vapid person who despite years in public life still doesn't know what a filibuster is.

These comments are just crap, in my opinion. They don't elevate the conversation about the real issue, which is not how the republicans always seem to benefit, which smack of victim-hood and is not factual. They sound like sophmoric name calling. I think you can do better. Let 's stick to the real issues that have to do with how we get out of this stupid war without damaging our own culture or the Iraqis any more than we have.

If all you have to say is an insult - I'm not interested in what you have to say.

Lucy July 17, 2007 - 9:00pm

is part of how we got into this war in the first place--the media either playing dumb or actually being dumb and cheerleading for the Bush administration. In many cases, our "opinion leaders" were happy to go along with the whole thing. It's part of the bread-and-circuses that have become our national news.

The "real issue" that Ian is addressing, albeit indirectly, is how painfully inane and stupid our discourse has become--to the point where a very famous news anchor can state the exact opposite of the truth and not be called on it. Or where talking about Al Gore's waist size or John Edwards' haircuts is considered legitimate discussion.

And this is why we're in Iraq today. Because the chattering classes and the elites who control them (Dem or Rep) blab away about stupid things while nearly 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of our actions. They are stupid, shallow, and vapid. Or they're shills for the Republicans--i.e. shills for those in power. Either way, they control a large chunk of the discourse in the US and can guide public perceptions to a worrying degree.

Bolo July 17, 2007 - 11:32pm

Why someone like Diane Sawyer says such a thing is an important issue. Someone in her position should know better and if she doesn't, she desrves much worse than any insult I can ladle out.

Getting out of "this stupid war" is much harder when stupid or mendacious people like Diane Sawyer are misleading the American public.

How'd you get into the war? Part of it is that 70% of the American public thought Iraq was behind 9/11.

The liberal need to be reasonable and not call names and be oh so clean and Marquis of Queensbury is very uninteresting to me because losing is very tiresome to me.

So - thanks for the advice, but I'll keep writing the way I write - somethimes as high-falutin' as you'll find in the blogosphere, and sometimes insulting people who deserve to be insulted. My writing may not be your cup of tea - so be it, it's a big blogosphere and there's a blogger for everyone.

Ian Welsh July 18, 2007 - 2:59am

"The liberal need to be reasonable and not call names and be oh so clean and Marquis of Queensbury is very uninteresting to me because losing is very tiresome to me."

I am constantly amazed at how ingrained this "liberal need" is, particularly in myself. I find it amusing that many liberals who came from a more conservative bent orignally (Ian, Old Man, ...) do not have this pre-programmed governor. They do not approach a conflict with their hands already tied.

I engage in a number of contact sports. I have never been a real fighter (other than getting beat up as a kid in school, probably why!) but I greatly enjoy the activity, in an at least relatively controlled environment. I learn a lot about myself and others. One of the things you see is when people will begin to bend the rules, or less tastefully, cheat. Another thing you see is what you yourself is willing to do about it. It is amazing how potent that liberal sense of "well, I lost, but at least I followed the rules" is, even while you are quite literally getting your own ass kicked.

Eric Gen July 18, 2007 - 5:40am

Old Man, Stirling and I are/were all ex-conservatives. So is John from Americablog, as far as that goes. Yeah, the mentality is different. I despise modern day conservatives, but sometimes I think I understand some things about them better than I do about liberals....

Sport and fighting are two very different things.

I grew up small (I'm still below average height) and not particularly strong. I learned that if I fought "fair" I would pretty much always lose.

Therefore fighting "fair" struck me as very unfair - some guy comes in with height, weight and reach on me and wants me to fight "fair" so he can beat the shit out of me with essentially no risk?

I don't think so.

But in sparring - that's another matter. I'll obey the rules.

And in general I am more than willing to simply turn around and walk away from fights if I decide they don't matter. I'm long past the stage(age) where I think fighting itself proves anything. Fighting is only worth it when what you're fighting for is worth it. If it isn't - turn around and walk away. Hell, I'll even give a fake apology if it calms someone down.

Ending the war, impeaching Bush, saving the Constitution - are all worth fighting for, in my opinion.

(Fighting fair is important when you're maintaining a relationship. If the relationship is already gone (as the rules that governed relationships in Congress are gone) then figting fair is foolish.)

Or more simply: obey rules only:

1) When the other side is also obeying them.
2) When the rules are fair or useful to you. (Don't break rules that give you an advantage you don't want to give up and understanding that breaking rules selectively often turns into breaking rules in general.)

Ian Welsh July 18, 2007 - 6:47pm

and politics. I have been involved with two sports at the International level (sports car rallying and sailing) and always knew the rules backwards, forwards, and inside out and did not hesitate to file protests, or go to the appeal procedures when protests were won that were not in my favour. There were contestants in both sports known as, 'sea lawyers' who believed they could win by twisting the rules rather than excelling in the sports.

It's gut wrenching and tears your heart out to be a bitch when you've won at the sport and lose in the smoke-filled rooms. Republicans are masterful 'sea lawyers' and they must not be given an inch. It's vital that Democrats use all techniques that are available to thwart Republican dishonesty and get the trophy they won (i.e. passage of legislation or insistence on liberal policies)! Democrats must stick up for themselves and fight with all their might for justice. I guarantee that their opponent laughs at them and knows they won a victory unless the fight is continued past the sport and carried through into the rooms where decisions are made.

Such is the world that contestants don't just win at their sport...they have to excel at protests and appeals too to succeed. Never, ever concede defeat to an inferior opponent regardless of what the competition is that you selected to do. Olympic athletes don't and they are the best in the world for a tiny moment in time. All that training and sacrifice must not be squandered.

End of analogy: the reality is that politics are not really a sport that has only trophies and monetary prize winnings...lives depend on representatives carrying the ball for their constituents. Democrats that can’t stand the pressure do not deserve to call themselves senators and congressmen/women.

canuck July 18, 2007 - 7:16pm

They didn't go so far as to say the Democrats were filibustering, but neither did they say the Republicans were. They said that something "like" a filibuster was happening, without saying who was doing it or explaining why they hedged using the proper term. Then they commented further that the action would not do any good, that it signaled the complete breakdown of bipartisan spirit, bla bla bla. Just galling, shameless propaganda.

someofparts July 18, 2007 - 11:25am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.