One great way to detect bias is evidence of a double standard, such as treating Republicans one way and Democrats another. Note this story in today's Argus Leader. The headline is "Thune alters his stance on spending," and the Argus reports that Thune is spending money like, well, the rest of the Republicans. Excerpt:
In one day, Republican John Thune publicly expressed concern that fellow senators had bloated an emergency spending bill to help pay for war efforts and hurricane relief with funding requests for unrelated projects. Then he turned around and voted against proposals that would have trimmed costs.
Thune, who considers himself a fiscal conservative, remains committed to keeping costs down, said Jessica Ferguson, a Thune spokeswoman.
Senators have not finished working on the bill, she said, adding that they will have a number of chances to vote on amendments before a final vote.
This entire article is trying to make Thune look like a hypocrite. Now, I'll admit that I'm not happy Thune has done this. The biggest problem facing the Republicans is their current affinity for spending and big-government conservatism. Anyways, the problem here is the Argus' one-sided reporting. If the paper wants to scrutinize South Dakota senators, it should be sure to examine both records. I challenge the Argus to look at Johnson's voting pattern on these same spending issues. It's pretty obvious they did not. This amendment was unsuccessful to remove $6 million for sugarcane in Hawaii. Thune voted for the spending cut, while Tim Johnson did not. Senator Johnson voted with Thune on an amendment that would have returned the bill to the President's proposal. Apparently this side of the story doesn't make for a great news story. This is just another specific example of how a Republican Senator is blasted while a Democratic Senator gets a free pass.
HT to Sibby.
UPDATE: Also take note of my earlier post on Porkbusters and how our senators were ranked.
Recent Comments