http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0404/kyl-threatens-filibuster-supreme-court/Kyl is asked by Chris Wallace if he would rule out a filibuster of an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court. Kyl says no, he would not rule it out, although he does not think it will happen. Rawstory converts that exchange into "Republican threatens filibuster ..."
That does not seem like a very raw story. That story is coming with a ton of spin. Spin seemingly designed to increase partisan hostility. Readers can be expected to react to a 'threat' or Republicans "planning a strategy" even though Kyl neither makes a threat or talks about any plan or strategy.
Over at Huffpo, Sam Stein also puts some spin on it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/04/stevens-supreme-court-ret_n_524619.htmlThe title says "GOP willing to filibuster Obama's next Supreme Court Nominee"
That also does not seem factual. What Kyl implied is they "might" whereas Stein's title leads one to believe that they "will". In fact, in his first paragraph, Stein says that Republicans "would" filibuster. (although two lines later he includes the word "if") I think there is a huge difference between "might" and "will". Yet, Stein in his headline and first paragraph makes what MIGHT happen look more like something that WILL happen.
ThinkProgress goes with the same headline as Stein "GOP willing" as if they WILL, not "they will IF ..." The fact that they might filibuster under certain circumstances is not really that controversial. Or it shouldn't be. What if, for example, Obama nominated Jeremiah Wright or Mumia abu Jamal to the Supreme Court? (to pick some ridiculous examples that would presumably never happen, although Obama legally could make such a nomination. The point being that there obviously are potential nominees that Republicans would take every measure to prevent their confirmation.)
However, saying that the "GOP is willing" makes it sound like they will filibuster even if Obama appoints some very well qualified left-leaning moderate. That there is nobody even like Ruth Bader Ginsburg that they would approve. Ginsburg was a name that President Clinton got from the Republican Senator Orrin Hatch - a liberal judge that Hatch would not block. Are we unhappy with her somehow? Was it a disaster to reach across the aisle?
ThinkProgress, however, does include a partial transcript as well as the actual video. They conclude, though, with a paragraph saying that Kyl "threatened" a filibuster of a SCOTUS pick way back in November of 2008. And Kyl did make some harsh statements to a meeting of the Federalist Society in Phoenix (duh, he was playing to his own base) but he also said this
"Kyl said Obama needs to appoint judges that look at the merits of each case and said filibusters were not inevitable, even for more liberal judges if their decisions have a sound legal basis."
http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/othercities/phoenix/stories/2008/11/03/daily77.htmlMeaning that, again, Kyl was threatening to filibuster SOME appointments, but not necessarily all, and he even made that disclaimer to the Federalist Society (although that too might play to their bias as they might think of themselves as "conservatives, but principled" even though in practice they never think that liberal judges make decisions on a 'sound legal basis'.)
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/kyl-threatens-use-filibuster-next-supreme-coCrooks and liars(above) includes a video, of course, but also uses the same slanted phrasing as Raw Story - they say Kyl was "threatening" and that he was "planning" that Republicans "were prepared". They almost seem to be quoting Raw Story or vice versa.
RS "Jon Kyl (R-Az) told Fox News' Chris Wallace that Republicans are prepared to fight a nominee who might stick up for the little guy, a position he called "overly ideological."
C&L "Jon Kyl told Fox News' Chris Wallace that Republicans were prepared a nominee (sic) that was "overly ideological."
In neither case was that exactly what Kyl said. But the statements as presented seem like statements guaranteed to generate partisan rancor. The Republicans "prepared" to fight us. That certainly makes them sound more hostile and more dangerous. It seems to me that Kyl was on TV explaining his point of view - where he is coming from, but the liberal blogosphere is reporting it as Kyl making "threats" and talking about plans that are prepared.
I find that to be curious. Rather than reporting what was actually said, these sites seem to be spinning it, as if they are trying to play us. And it's playing to applause on DU as well. They ring the bell and we apparently salivate or (snarl and howl.)