Seriously, how do these journalists have such a short memory?!
We were under the impression that the Texas Democrats and their super-spreader field trip Flee-ibuster had killed off talk of killing off the filibuster. Once the press went all in cheerleading their illegal blockade of legislation, that kind of erased all the arguments they had been making about the legal blocking of legislation that is the filibuster.
But now the LA Times has reentered those waters, and it appears the paper would have been better off addressing another topic.
Opinion: Remind me, why do we need the filibuster? (via @latimesopinion) https://t.co/mvbtXTGOsz
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) August 7, 2021
This hot take was written by Deputy Page Editor John Healey, but it would have been wise if his headline had been altered by his boss (is it the Sheriff Page Editor?!). Wiser still would have been checking the LA Times archives on filibuster topics.
It turns out there was a previous editorial position by the paper on the filibuster, just a couple of years ago, and it was taking just the opposite position when the Democrats were in the minority.
I remember how much you loved it when Trump was president.
— John Galt (@ToddRStokes) August 7, 2021
Not just statistically accurate, but there is direct evidence.
— Kevin O'Connor (@koconnor513) August 7, 2021
It gets even better. That previous hot take was actually written by — the very same Deputy Page Editor, John Healey,
Recommended
Well, since John Healy asked, I feel this need to remind him.
See John, it was YOU who argued to keep the filibuster, during the last Congress. https://t.co/GBC6wCz7Yr pic.twitter.com/lxQ00zVnRZ— Brad Slager – Gold Medal Loser in the Keg Toss (@MartiniShark) August 7, 2021
Do you guys have any editors who don't get paid by the Democrat Party? pic.twitter.com/Bei4XZaerm
— Disappointed In You (@HeyItsJake_H) August 7, 2021
They are a de facto arm of the DNC PR Division. No further evidence is needed.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member