Here's the headline for article about the Sen. Jim Bunning attempt to single-handedly block the passage of unemployment benefits:
G.O.P Splits on Senator's Move to Block Benefits
But has the GOP really split? In fact, couldn't the argument be made that the real news is that the GOP hasn't split, and that very few GOP voices are complaining about Bunning's increasingly odd behavior? Doesn't claiming that the GOP "splits" give Republicans more credit than they deserve?
Here's the Times' only evidence of the so-called split [emphasis added]:
The effort to end a Senate standoff over unemployment benefits and health coverage for the jobless escalated on Tuesday morning as Senator Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine, became the latest lawmaker, and the first Republican, to try to override the objection of Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky.
Question for NYT: How can the GOP be "split" if only one Republican has publicly opposed Bunning?
It's true that Collins claimed that her effort to thwart Bunning was made "behalf of numerous members of the Republican caucus who have expressed concerns to me." But if the GOP is really 'split,' than those members of the Republican caucus would express their concerns publicly. And where is the GOP leadership on this issue?
Again, why is the Times giving the GOP credit for being divided? If the party were really split, wouldn't there be lots of Republicans opposing Bunning? Not just one single voice from Maine?