Media Matters: Where Was WSJ When Repubs Were Blocking Clinton Nominees?

[Hissyspit]

Examples of their editorials in support of Republican obsturctionism of Clinton judicial nominess are at the link:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110001

Where was the WSJ when Republicans were blocking Clinton nominees? On the side of obstruction

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund claimed that he and the Journal editorial page criticized Republican efforts to block former President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees -- more than 60 of whom Republicans denied even votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee -- and that Fund himself wrote an editorial arguing that one particular Clinton nominee, Richard A. Paez, deserved a vote.

But a Media Matters for America search* of Journal editorials revealed no instances of Fund or the editorial board condemning Republican efforts to block Paez. In fact, the newspaper actually criticized then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) for allowing Paez's nomination to go to the full Senate. Several other Journal editorials also explicitly defended the Republicans' right to deny Clinton nominees an up-or-down vote.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews opposite Fund, former Democratic strategist Bob Shrum asserted that, while Fund and the Journal have criticized Senate Democratic filibusters of a handful of Bush judicial nominees, they never "editorialized against this same process under Bill Clinton." Fund responded by stating: "We did. ... I personally wrote the editorial saying Paez deserved a vote. ... I know others wrote others."

- snip -

From the May 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:

SHRUM: I wish, by the way, that John Fund and The Wall Street Journal had editorialized against this same process under Bill Clinton.

FUND: We did. I can give you the dates, Bob. We did.

SHRUM: What John is saying would have more credibility.

FUND: We did.

SHRUM: Because the truth is -- who did you -- who? Who was being filibustered that you editorialized against?

FUND: I personally wrote the editorial saying Judge Paez deserved a vote. I personally wrote that.

SHRUM: And what about all the other Clinton judges that were filibustered?

FUND: I gave you the one I wrote. I know others wrote others.

*Based on a search for "Paez" under "all dates" in The Wall Street Journal on the Factiva database and the Journal's editorial page website, OpinionJournal.com.

— A.S.

[SoCalDem]

1. They were right there complaining about the LIBRUL judges??

Just a guess:)

[Hissyspit]

2. They were doing stuff like this:

-- A November 4, 1997, editorial titled "Above the Law?", which defended the Republicans' right to block Clinton Justice Department nominee Bill Lann Lee (who never received Senate confirmation, instead assuming the position of acting assistant attorney general), suggested a series of "starting points for Chairman Hatch and his colleagues before acceding to the Lee nomination," or any judicial nominations for that matter:
No nominations of any sort will be approved until this Administration starts enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision . No new judges will be approved until the Clinton Administration nominates someone to run the criminal division at Justice, now vacant for two years. Alternatively, no more judicial nominations until Janet Reno appoints an independent counsel to investigate the Clinton fund-raising apparatus, as any normal reading of that statute now so clearly requires.

But that's not what John Fund implies.

[dbt]

3. This belongs on the Greatest page.

This bullshit about the Bad Old Democrats blocking Dear Leader's appointments needs to be called out right now. The issue is simple enough for most Murkins to pick up on it, and there's a larger question that needs to be asked now:

If the GOP will lie about something this small, what ELSE are they lying about?

[Vogon_Glory]

4. Didn't This Used To Be Grounds For FIRING Journalists?

Well, well, well, the WSJ's editors have been caught bending the truth. Not that I find it the slightest bit surprising, but what I do find interesting (and disgusting) is that the WSJ's op-ed writers were caught telling tall tales about their OWN actions.

Perhaps I'm naive, but didn't this used to be grounds for firing journalists? While clearly not an offense such as plagiarism, but didn't undermining the integrity of the editorial page and, by extension, the rest of the publication, call for the publisher to call in the editor or writer and ask him or her to resign and clear out their desks?

Of course, whatever standards many Democrats have today and even some old-school conservatives once had, clearly today's so-called "conservatives" have more elastic ethical standards.