About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

FoxNews.com, please define "just barely"

December 24, 2009 4:03 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

As in [emphasis added]:

Congress may be gone for several weeks enjoying a winter holiday, but Republicans have vowed to keep up the pressure on Democrats who succeeded in getting their Senate health insurance overhaul bill passed before Christmas -- if just barely.

Final U.S. Senate vote for passage of health care reform: 60-39.

UPDATED:  Some readers have suggested that the "just barely" above refers to Democrats getting health care legislation passed before Christmas, and not to the margin of the vote. And I think that's a fair point. But I continue to be struck by how so many journalists describe the final health care vote as being so suspenseful, "bitter" and "bruising".

But was it? Every GOP member of the senate opposed the bill and in the end 39 voted against it. i.e. Health care passed with what was approaching a 2/3 majority vote. That doesn't seem so "bruising" to me. Although I assume the GOP is happy the press describes it that way.

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (December 24, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
      11 1
      Let Jim Baker and the George W. Bush campaign take over. That 21 vote margin will instantly be called into question. Then it will turn into a slim lead for the Republicans, at which point the Supreme Court will end the counting and declare that the Republicans have won.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mustardman (December 24, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
      4  
      It's only legit if like 75 senators vote for it. Which would be none of the Bush votes either except maybe the vote for Iraq war based on fake/wrong intelligence and lies.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by StevenD (December 24, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
         
      I am inclined to believe that "just barely" refers to just barely before Christmas, not just barely passed.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (December 24, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
      15  
      I think they meant "just barely before Christmas" - I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Leftym0m79 (December 24, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
        6  
        Must be the holiday cheer, but I think we should give them this one, if just this one time.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by knowledgereigns (December 24, 2009 7:41 pm ET)
        5  
        Yep yep.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (December 25, 2009 2:51 am ET)
        3 1
        I agree. It's vague (and perhaps deliberately so), but it seems more likely it's referring to timing instead of vote margin. This may be the sort of thing where a more objective news source wouldn't get any attention at all for this, but FOX's history leads one to assume the worst. That's an understandable instinct, but this is probably a battle that Boehlert shouldn't pick.

        If he does want to make note of it, he should highlight the vague nature which may lead some people to believe that the vote margin was narrow. What he shouldn't do is cite the final vote as if that's the clear meaning and intent of the words.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 27, 2009 8:18 am ET)
           
        Yeah... I think I'm with you on that also.

        (Holiday cheer putting me in a good mood as well, I guess! LOL)

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Merry Chrismahaunaukwanzica everyone!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (December 24, 2009 7:16 pm ET)
      5 1
      And now, all we have to do is get a comprise bill through both the senate and the house.

      That should be a cake walk, right?



      Ugh, never mind.

      Merry Christmas to all.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (December 24, 2009 11:21 pm ET)
        3  
        Legislative sausage inspection time.
        Hope those green bits were parsley.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by clearstate (December 24, 2009 8:25 pm ET)
         
      I'll give them that what they mean is that the Democrats just go the 60 votes that they needed with no Republican votes. That's what they meant.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by lexalexander (December 25, 2009 1:10 am ET)
         
      Yeah, I thought that the meaning "if just barely [before Christmas]" was clear. Y'all whiffed on this one.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nutroots-suck (December 25, 2009 10:39 am ET)
         
      Don't Dems in Senate have a 20-seat majority? So the 60-39 isn't shocking at all?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Kenneth Newby (December 25, 2009 1:48 pm ET)
         
      With 61% of this country opposed to the reform that the Dems are trying to pass, you have to ask what happened to Representive Government. If this reform is really good for the American people then slow down, educate us, and gain the support of the citizens. What happened to this being debated on C-Span? Oh Yea that was just a campaign promise. The Republicans need to use any means available to them to stop what the Democrats are trying to do, then they all can work on reforming our health care in ways that will be good for everyone.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by aerodog (December 26, 2009 7:39 pm ET)
         
      I'm just frustrated that Senator Nelson (Dem) of Nebraska was able to get challenges to the insurance industry Antitrust Exemptions removed from the bill, and to get a guarantee that all the OTHER states will pay the increased medicaid costs for Nebraska FOREVER!!!!(about 300 million dollars over 10 years). Now the 'reform' is GONE from the bill and we'll all be chipping in to cover Nebraska's share of the cost. I see Community Rating was removed for Sen Landreau (who also got '100 to 300 million dollars' to pay for medicaid cost increases to her state -paid for by you and me), so even though they HAVE to sell you insurance despite preexisting illness, they can charge you twice or more what they charge other subscribers. (I was already able to get THAT deal.) The only thing that's new here is that now I'll be REQUIRED TO BUY insurance, whether I want to or not, whether I can afford to or not. Otherwise, I pay a fine to the govt, like they already do in Massachusetts. (When I was between jobs two years ago, my COBRA policy cost $1560/month. If I hadn't had the money and I lived in Mass., I would have been fined by the state $3400!) Mitt Romney (Repub) signed THAT one into law. That benefits the insurance industry, but how does it benefit ME? Also, my useless Senator Arlen Specter (Dem) just GAVE his vote away when he could have 'traded'/sold it for all the things Pennsylvania could have profited by. USELESS!!!! Couldn't you have held out for something fo US, Arlen??? These others sure did. Why do WE have to pay to buy their votes?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (December 26, 2009 10:54 pm ET)
      1  
      I don't think I've but a handful of comments in the news about how this last vote only had to be a majority vote.

      I fully expected the 60 member coalition to have some vote No! I thought that some might vote Yes on the cloture votes but not vote for the entire bill. They didn't have to vote Yes for it to be approved - for the earlier votes, they needed the full 60 votes, but not this one, but they still got the 60 votes.

      I think that's worthy of mention, but, like I said, virtually no one has.
      Report Abuse