Senator Byrd (D) - the author of reconciliation rules - was fundamentally opposed to using reconciliation for healthcare in 1993 and 2009

Let's suppose the Republicans were trying to ramrod major nation-changing legislation through the reconciliation process, a process traditionally reserved for budget matters, and a senior Republican Senator who CREATED the rules governing reconciliation, adamantly opposed this. We all know the media would have a field day with headlines like "Senior Republican Senator and author of rules governing reconciliation process opposes their use to advance the Republicans' right-wing agenda."

But the situation is the exact opposite - and yet not a peep from the media.

Senator Byrd, the most senior member of the Senate and a Democrat, actually AUTHORED the rules governing the reconciliation process - indeed, they're called the Byrd Rules! - and he is adamantly opposed to using the process for passing healthcare bills.

In fact, he singlehandedly stopped Clinton from passing healthcare in 1993 because he insisted that the rules which he authored were not designed for passing major legislative overhauls unrelated to budget matters (and he should know!).

Again last year, he stated "I will not vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body."

"Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction." (See his full statement here.)

Hear much about this in the media? I sure haven't. You'd think this would be a big story? "DEMOCRAT senator who AUTHORED the rules governing reconciliation refuses their use for Obamacare (and refused their use for Clintoncare in 1993!)."

There has been a complete blackout in the mainstream media about this. But then...

Senator Byrd recently wrote a letter to a small West Virginia newspaper - the Charleston Daily - stating that the reconciliation process could be used in a limited way if it helped reduce deficits.

The mainstream meda jumped on the story: The Washington Post headlined its article "Byrd defends use of reconciliation"! and ABC News ran with "Byrd Endorses 'Reconciliation' to Fix Health Reform Bill"!

But Byrd's letter was more nuanced. He reaffirmed his view that "The entire Senate- or House-passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch."

Admittedly, however, he stated in the letter that "A bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation."

But where was the liberal mainstream media's coverage of Byrd's adamant opposition to the use of reconciliation up to this point? They had just decided to ignore him until recently because his views didn't suit their agenda of advancing the Dems' interests?

But in the end, if Byrd were really gung-ho behind the Dem leaders' efforts to use reconciliation, he would have found a better way to advertise his views than a letter to the editor of the Charleston Daily! His nuanced position in the face of intense political pressure from the Dem leadership and White House, and the outlet he chose to air his views, suggests to me he's fundamentally opposed to using reconciliation for major nation-changing legislation. Now that's the story the biased media should be running with.