Well yes, they could indeed say that--and reporters will type it into stories. As the article elaborates: "Republicans, however, have made clear that they will portray Mr. Obama and Democrats as trying to use a hardball tactic to win passage of the healthcare legislation." That was followed by a quote from Republican Rep. John Boehner, who lambasted the administration's "job-killing policies."

Read further, though, and you come to this: "The mere mention of reconciliation infuriates many Republicans, even though they occasionally used the tactic when they were in the majority."

Wait--what was that last part again? Republicans are infuriated by a tactic they used when they were in power? Isn't that hypocrisy a little more important than boilerplate GOP complaints?

This article has a familiar feel. In fact, the problem here was the problem with another Times article eight months ago, written by Robert Pear--a co-author of today's piece.  As I pointed out then, Pear called reconciliation "obscure" and "high-risk," before adding, almost as an aside: "The fast-track procedures have been used 19 times since 1980 to pass major legislation, including much of President Ronald Reagan’s domestic policy agenda in 1981, welfare overhaul in 1996 and President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003."

There was little protest from the corporate media to passing tax cuts for the wealthy using reconciliation. Healthcare reform, for some reason, is treated differently.

With solid majorities in both houses of Congress, Democrats are tempted to use their political muscle to speed passage of health care legislation with minimal concessions to the Republican minority.

That approach may be the only way they can fulfill President Obama's campaign promises, but it carries high risks as well.

In the budget blueprint for the coming year, Democrats may resort to an obscure procedure known as reconciliation to clear the way for Senate passage of a comprehensive health bill with a 51-vote majority, rather than the 60 votes that would otherwise be needed.

"Muscle," "high risk"-- you get the picture. Until you read, many paragraphs later:

House Democrats say the Republican protests are overheated. The fast-track procedures have been used 19 times since 1980 to pass major legislation, including much of President Ronald Reagan’s domestic policy agenda in 1981, welfare overhaul in 1996 and President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

Well, hold on. Pear says reconciliation is "obscure" and "high risk." Then later he says it's been used 19 times in the past three decades to pass major legislation. How can both be true?

It's hard to recall corporate media worrying much over the divisive, obscure tactics used to pass the Bush tax cuts or welfare reform.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama said he would "fight hard" for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Now, Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, healthcare and numerous other matters.

It's hard to see the logic here; if Obama goes back on his campaign promise, that's a rather serious problem. (Pear's language--that he "risks agitating liberal groups"--is a rather odd way to describe a decision to deny basic rights to a class of people.)

No, the real problem--a familiar one for the media--is that if Obama keeps his campaign promise, he might alienate conservative Republicans by taking a position they disagree with. Isn't that what opposing political parties do? In the corporate media, Democrats are expected to trim their sails in order to please Republicans. It's hard to recall a Republican president facing similar warnings from the press.