Letters to the Editor
-
Alternative Explanation
I'll bet you could easily find reporters who actually think legislation requires 60 votes to pass the Senate.
-
@GG Fix your sig typo
Lest people find a joke in there, somewhere. 8')
-
It's not sloth but bias..
It's precisely because Beltway reporters slothfully refer to the "60-votes required to pass," rather than making clear that Republicans are engaged in a filibuster to obstruct legislation, that such a misleading picture has been created.
That is not sloth, it's bias.
Even in your article you note that the press reported on Democratic efforts along the same line as being "obstructionist".
That they do not use the same term in respect to Republican obstructionism is clear bias.
-
Reid's role
Kane:
Reid has been accused, by Republicans and Democrats alike, of filing these so-called cloture motions to cut off debate very, very quickly, rather than letting the Senate continue to work its will through debate and amendments. This is a "record" that Reid and Republicans both should take "credit" for.
There is a bit of truth to this. Recall how Reid asked for unanimous consent on Monday for all votes regarding amendments to the Senate Judiciary Committee FISA bill to require 60 votes. It was only Senator Dodd's refusal to consent that prevented it happening.
I think that would fit into the behavior Kane is describing. I have not watched enough of the Senate, however, to know whether this is indeed the case and Reid is filing (or allowing to be filed) cloture motions earlier in the process than previous Senate Majority Leaders have done. In fact, this point would warrant further research on the part of those who wish to start a move to replace Reid as Majority Leader. If he has played a role in the increased number of cloture motions and in the rapidity with which they have been filed, it would be very easy to argue from that point that he has actively enabled the Bush/Republican agenda rather than promoting the Democratic agenda.
-
Procedural hurdles
Those are the magic words that reporters have consistently used to avoid the "f" word.
I actually sent some e-mails out a few weeks ago on the topic.
I wrote to AP:
Reid Threatens War Money By ANNE FLAHERTY
The story referred to in the subject line contains a sentence which is severely misleading although unfortunately quite common.
Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.
The “procedural hurdles” referred to in the article is in fact the announcement by Republicans of their intent to filibuster the bill. The fact that the Democrats in the Senate never in fact require the Republicans to filibuster is unfortunate. The fact that the AP routinely obscures this fact in its reporting is unconscionable. A little honesty on the subject would go a long way toward educating the public on what actually goes on in the Senate.
-
Want to see a whole lot of bad reporting in one place
try this:
http://www.google.co.vi/search?hl=en&q=+ANNE+FLAHERTY+procedural
-
even worse
http://news.google.co.vi/news?hl=en&q=+ANNE+FLAHERTY+procedural&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
-
Great writing as always, Glenn.
I've been in a "proxy" argument of sorts on this topic with someone on my LiveJournal friends list. It's always great to have additional clarification of the type at which you excel.
I'm also really excited to have finally caught one of your posts when there are only a handful of comments on it, so I get to be near the top. Whee!
-
I Agree In Principle But...
I agree that characterizing Republican obstructionism as a "liberal" complaint is disingenuous. However, the truth is that Harry Reid is definitely complicit in this. He bends over backwards and forwards to appease the Republican minority, something he does not do for his Democratic colleagues and something, certainly, the Republicans never did when they were in power. Harry Reid is a milqutoast loser. He needs to get some balls and tell the Republicans, if you want to filibuster a bill, get out there a filibuster. Make them take that spotlight. Instead, he dutifully passes the White House versions of bills and gets nothing in return. He is up for re-election in 2010 and I would like to see another Democrat, a real Democrat, challenge him for his Senate seat.
-
"molding" legislation
That's the term that Mitch McConnell persisted in using last night on The NewsHour. I don't know exactly how many times he used "molding" to describe the "effects" of the senate's over-use of (the threat of the) filibuster, but if it had been a drinking game, I'd still be hung-over.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/mcconnell_12-19.html
-
Up or Down?
I am moved to recall the mind-numbing repetition in the media, such a short time ago, of the mantra about those whiny minority Democrats refusing to allow an "up or down vote" on, say, a racist, unqualified, or batsh*t crazy judge. At the time, the filibuster was routinely treated as a desperate attempt by powerless losers to "obstruct" the Will of the People, for which the Republicans bravely stood.
Fast forward to today, and not only is the filibuster second only to motherhood and apple pie, but as Glenn points out, it has been exalted out of existence altogether. Now we are told by the all-knowing media that, yes Virginia, everyone knows it takes 60 votes to get anything passed, as it has ever been. And the "Nuclear Option" is what we're planning for Iran.
Nauseating, but unsurprising.
OT, but becoming more and more ridiculous, is the required mention of "despite the recent decline in violence," that precedes each and every mention of the still unfolding, and ever more rapidly, collapse of Iraq. It seems that no disaster, from the invasions in the north to the chaos in the south, is enough to drop this meme.
Obviously, that liberal bias of reality requires more "balance."
-
@ Glenn, M$M and Dems
Glenn, your prolific ability to keep writing articles where my response is, “why didn’t I think of that,” continues to amaze me.
This sloth/bias by the M$M has had major consequences. The fact that the vast majority of Americans who have been polled about congress seem to blame Repugs and Dems equally, shows the impact. Of course the Dems could have and should have countered this by developing a mantra that it was the threatened Repug filibuster that was the culprit. As Glenn so wisely pointed out, the Dems could have let the filibuster happen and the public would have been much more aware and the M$M would not have been able to hushup the Repugs game so easily.
The Dems wanted to pass legislation and show that the voters were right in giving them the majority and they had in the back of their minds what happened when Clinton and the Repugs challenged each other and government started shutting down. I wonder how many Dems now wished they had let the Repugs filibuster on an issue other than the war and expose their obstruction tactics and then be able to refer to that every time the Repugs tried to use the filibuster. Doing it on the war early on would probably not have worked because of support the troops or you are not a patriot.
So now I guess the netroots have to go to work and help Glenn get the M$M to take a look at another malfeasance in their reporting.