I suspect that the reason the NRA may be taking a low profile is that the filibuster has been useful in stopping a number of bills the NRA opposed (like the AWB) which would have passed on a simple majority vote.
It's one thing for a lay observer not to grasp the fundamental distinction between a legislative filibuster-intended to stall a specific bill wending its way through Congress-and the tactics being used by Chuck Schumer et. al. to stall President Bush's judicial nominees, and by extension, completely negate the U.S. Senate's traditional "advise and consent" function.
However, when I pick up the Sunday edition of the NYT and see an op-ed penned by Ian Duncan Smith-who presumably, should know better-decrying the very notion of this minor legislative reform using the same skewed and inaccurate interpretation, it really makes you start to wonder what's wrong with the way our news media frames issues.
It's one thing for a lay observer not to grasp the fundamental distinction between a legislative filibuster-intended to stall a specific bill wending its way through Congress-and the tactics being used by Chuck Schumer et. al. to stall President Bush's judicial nominees, and by extension, completely negate the U.S. Senate's traditional "advise and consent" function.
However, when I pick up the Sunday edition of the NYT and see an op-ed penned by Ian Duncan Smith-who presumably, should know better-decrying the very notion of this minor legislative reform using the same skewed and inaccurate interpretation, it really makes you start to wonder what's wrong with the way our news media frames issues.