Ignoring GOP opposition, NBC's Reid repeated Republican claim of a "do-nothing" Dem Congress
On the June 29 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News congressional correspondent Chip Reid asserted that after the failure of a June 28 cloture motion on the Senate immigration bill, "[t]he Democratic Congress is a big loser because, more and more, Republicans are accusing them of being a do-nothing Congress." However, in uncritically reporting Republicans' description of the Democratic majority as "do-nothing," Reid ignored the dominant role Senate Republicans played in killing the immigration bill. He also ignored what Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) (who voted for the cloture motion) has described as the party's "strategy of being obstructionist."
A majority of Democrats voted for cloture (33-14) on the immigration bill -- which would have ended debate and permitted a vote on the bill itself -- while a majority of Republicans voted against (12-37), thereby blocking the bill. (Independent Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT) and Bernie Sanders (VT) voted yea and nay, respectively.) In a June 29 article, Washington Post staff writer Jonathan Weisman described the failed cloture vote as "a major blow to Bush, dealt largely by members of his own party." Weisman further reported that Lott warned Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that Republican enemies of the bill "were becoming the uncompromising faces of the Republican Party, a prospect that could set it back for years as the Latino vote grows in power."
Several recent news reports have highlighted a broader pattern of obstruction on the part of Senate Republicans. An April 18 Roll Call article quoted Lott saying, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... For [former Senate Democratic Leader Tom] Daschle (S.D.), it failed. For [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [D-NV], it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." As blogger Steve Benen noted, Roll Call reported on June 26 that Senate "Republicans have played their part to the hilt, objecting to just about every major piece of legislation that Reid has tried to bring up."
From the June 29 edition of MSNBC Live:
CONTESSA BREWER (anchor): Do -- is it the common-sense wisdom there on Capitol Hill that the president lost out most of all?
REID: Probably politically, but I tell you, the list of losers is about as long as my arm. Let's start with all Americans because the border is broken, and this bill wasn't perfect, but it did a lot to -- to heal the border, to tighten the border, and that's not going to be done, and it's expected that illegal immigrants are going to continue to pour across that border. Secondly, all the businesses that said they so desperately needed those guest workers are big losers here, and the economy could be a loser, too. The 12 million illegal immigrants who will continue to live in the shadows, and if they're abused by employers, they can do nothing about it -- they're big losers here. The Democratic Congress is a big loser because, more and more, Republicans are accusing them of being a do-nothing Congress, and they sure would like to have had something that they could say, "Hey, look what we accomplished." But I think you're right -- most people point the finger at the president when they say, "Who was the biggest loser here?" because he put so many eggs in this basket. He had two cabinet secretaries practically live up here in recent months trying to get this thing through. He put a lot of prestige on the line and has nothing but failure to show for it, Contessa.
BREWER: Chip Reid, thank you.
Do all of these "news" people get RNC talking points or is it just some kind of strange kind of osmosis?
similar to gas in a strong wind.
In 1981, when a young editorial writer, Geneva Overholser, was first hired at The Des Moines Register, the paper was closely held by descendants of Gardner Cowles, a family that gave highest priority to publishing a top-notch paper. When she returned as its editor in 1988, after a stint on the editorial board of The New York Times, the Register had become a Gannett property. Stock analysts and the company's thousands of stockholders imposed different priorities. Gannett, of course, is not the only media company at which editors face bottom-line pressures, but it is one of them, and Overholser's rise to become one of the more visible and respected newspaper editors in the nation was not without struggle against such pressures.
She gave up the struggle in February, as did her managing editor, David Westphal. Both resigned, staying only long enough to insure an orderly transition. (She was named in April to be The Washington Post's new ombudsman.) The resignations were widely seen, as The New York Times put it, as "public symbols of a battle between news professionals and business executives that is raging behind closed doors at many of the country's newspapers."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_199505/ai_n8726572
My own local paper tried to push the paper into a secondary business, the primary business being advertisement. Family members of the previous deceased owner sued and won because the will was clear that the newspaper was to be the primary business. Not that it improved the news in the paper.
Publisher's and the bottom line mentality would for obvious reasons be Republican and therefore slant the news or opinion in favor of the Republicans.
Murdoch's method is cheap and easy which is put out opinion instead of objective news.
One can also say that Hearst of the Citizen Kane fame tabloided the news in the early part of the 20th century. Note: Hearst was angry with Orsen Wells about that movie.
Obviously they get the talking points. Didn't you read correspondent Chip's remark? The Democratic Congress (having apparently eliminated all of the Republicans) is a loser because the Republicans told Chip that they are.
Chip's next report; Everybody should vote GOP, because, more and more, the GOP is recommending that we do so. Back to you, other bobblehead.
On my way out to get my dinner, I work evenings, I turned on my local "Conservative” talk radio station for some amusement. Hannity was going on and on about the “do nothing” democrat congress and how they had only passed 39 bills and that half of those were just for naming post offices after son good citizen. Unless I was completely miss led while in school our congress is made of two major parties and a few independents. So since when has this turned into a Democrat congress only? After five minutes I let out a derisive laugh and turned the dial. God, do these people have no shame?
He was alluding to the bragging the Dems did the day after the election ("get ready for a new congressional order, boy").
Didn't happen. Won't happen. The Democrat Party is not what you think it is.
Or...you COULD just keep deluding yourselves.
There is no such thing as a Democrat party there is a DemcratIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party
sold their soul to the almighty dollar, Murdoch's dollar.
the desperation on the right is glaring. Could someone tell me of anything positive the right has acomplished? The only thing the right can do is blast Democrats. They don't have anything else to talk about and baby bush has the "doodie" touch. Everything he has touched has turned to s...!
Please explain to me what the Dems have done??
This is accurate.
They go into Washington to clean up. Then, instead of doing anything, they use just as many earmarks, they are just as corrupt, and they create a $2.9 trillion budget.
The dems are ready for a thrashing in '08.
you have good data to support your rant ????
if you ever hear a giant super loud sucking sound it is all the right wingers pulling their heads out of their buts at the same time. It has been quiet for years around here
Of course they don't need no stinking data, they get their talking points DIRECTLY from Karl
Bills with majority support—raising the minimum wage, ethics reform, a date to remove troops from Iraq, revoking oil subsidies and putting the money into renewable energy, fulfilling the 9/11 commission recommendations on homeland security—get blocked because they can’t garner 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Thank you obstructionist Republicans.
I knew someone would come forward. It is STILL quiet around here
Bud Light presents Real Men of Genius.
Real Men of gen-ius! Today we salute you, Mr. right wing obstructionist legislature.
Mr. right wing obstructionist legislature!
Most politicians try to reach bi-partisan agreements when necessary, but for you, convincing the majority is out of the question. Cut your nose off to spite your face yeah!
You're always the first one to say "It's Clinton's fault!" and when in doubt, whip the nuclear rule out!
No comp-ro-mise allowed here!
Now you're on the defensive. You've lost the Senate, the Congress and still, you still grind that axe in hopes of a target worth striking.
Did someone say Iran!
So crack open an ice cold Bud Light, Oh Self-Appointed right winger. Using procedural rules to prevent success from your fellow country men is clearly more important than doing what's best for the country!
Mr. right wing obstructionist legislature!
so they are worse because they are the same ??
They're probably being briefed on the proper noises even now.
It seems that Republicans can't get their smears straight. Whenever subpeonas are issued and oversight is conducted, they are overreaching. Then the next day they aren't doing anything.
Very good point. They want it both ways, but it doesn't make sense.
REF: Hannity
That should have been "some good citizen"
Well, they didn't impeach Bush, they didn't end the war, they didn't shut Guantanamo, they didn't stop funding Israel, they didn't clamp down on the poison/pharmaceutical industry.
One could call them do-nothing if one was liberal. If one was right-wing, they did a great job funding a war crime and torture chambers and corporate crimes. So it's all a matter of perspective.
They've been in there all of 5 months. And to do the things you listed takes 60 votes. Please take your blinders off.
That defines the republicans as " obstructionalists ".
Which is why they haven't even TRIED to do any of that stuff? Which is why they have openly REFUSED to do any of that stuff? Yeah, I see such a big effort on the behalf of the Dems to fix things. Why don't you take YOUR blinders off and realize that the blue kool-aid is poison, too, and they don't plan or intend to bring Bush and his gang to trial for crimes they themselves are supporting?
When the anti-war protestors went to Capital Hill and demanded an end to the war, the Dems called them "liberals!" in insult and refused to listen to them. You back a right-wing party. Just ask Cindy Sheehan.
Chip Reid is like the rest of the NBC/MSNBC/CNBC talking heads, he follows orders..
Owned and operated by G.E., a war profiteering corporation that operates a synergetic conglomerate, the NBC family is a part of an organization dedicated to making money. The overall business is what is important and the bottom line is the bottom line..
It's not "The Dems" getting nothing done. It's congress getting nothing done, because of either Bush vetoing good things such as embryonic stem cel research funding, or Republicans voting against good bills such as getting the hell out of Iraq.
There was no bill to leave Iraq. The timetables in the Dem funding bill were completely non-binding. So it was really a bill to STAY in Iraq....which is what they offered the second time, too. The Dem Party does not want to leave Iraq, it would upset their AIPAC masters.
The Iraq funding bill that Bush vetoed was binding.
"The huge bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of COMPLETING (my emphasis) the troop pullout by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18332561/
"The legislation requires the troop withdrawal to begin by Oct. 1 of this year, though the goal of completing it by April 2008 is nonbinding."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=awPrzGsSCpp0&refer=us
"In a bold wartime challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/politics/main2730373.shtml
THe bill itself proves my point. Bush could have withdrawn 5000 men in October, but noone else....cause it was non-binding after that point. And it was all dependent on the Iraqi government meeting "benchmarks"....defined by the White House, certified by the White House, who could have said anything it wanted.
The bill was total garbage. It funded the war for another year. It continued the occupation. it gave Bush all the power to define when and how many troops would leave and why. It was a PRO-war bill.
I am with you RedK. At best these bills setup issues for the 08 and later campaigns. Like "See the repubs would not even allow a non binding withdrawl bill" . I was hoping for some real hardball action like letters of impeachment, DOD funding cuts, criminal investigations of secret meetings and progams.
Aye, everyone hoped for more from the Dems, which was a fool's hope given their track record on killing arabs. As far as the Dem plan now for this "war of terror", we hear a lot about US troops staying in Iraq for decades to "combat terror" from the Blue camp. Continued occupation and violence by US forces is their message. Sick how their little toadies suck up to them and blame it all on the Republicans. This is blatantly a bi-partisan killing spree.
When the democrat party was in the minority...they used every legislative tactic to obstruct republican legislation.
Now the republican party, in the minority...is using every legislative tactic to obstruct democrat legislation.
What's the difference? NONE. The blathering about obstructionism is simply selective outrage...by both sides...when the real issue is a broken political system that promotes and supports partisan power mongering.
Ross Perot...without debating his policy provisions...proved our country is ripe for a viable third party. Early on he led in the polls and ended up with about 20% of the vote.
This looming 800 pound gorilla will fracture both major parties...and leave the extreme left and right isolated without the benefit of a major party platform to push their wacky agendas.
A do-nothing congress...suits the hell out of me...until we start electing real statesmen instead of the current crop of pimps that are masquerading as leaders.
There is no such thing as a Democrat Party, it doesnt exist. There is a DemocratIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party
Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote and zero electoral votes, and at what monetary cost? Why would anyone want to follow in those footsteps? A viable third party might take fifty years to gain significance in a national election, if ever. In the meantime they will steal some votes from both major parties, but overall they'll be considered more of a joke than a gorilla.
If you really want to elect leaders and not pimps, then the solution is in the other direction. The reason we have candidates like Bush and Kerry is because the party determines that's the best character to win the election. Bush was a reformed alcoholic with a joke of a military record who failed at businesses and had no exemplary record running Texas. It was all based on personality. The sole reason Kerry was selected is that he had actual military service, in contrast to Bush, who dropped out of the flight program when drug testing came around and then spent his time on a political campaign. A third party is just going to put someone forward based on the same principles, someone who they believe has the best chance to win, not who is best for leading.
So instead of increasing the number of parties, you eliminate them. Take out the electoral college (this is really the most important factor) and the political parties completely, and let people run on their own ideas and merits. That way if you have someone who is a disaster, then everyone can agree to get rid of them, because disapproving of them wouldn't be any reflection of their own party whatsoever. Politicians would be motivated to do what the people want and/or what they think is best, without the pressure from organized parties, because there would be no "strength in numbers" and no partisan base to blindly back them.
Introducing a viable third party won't end the "pimping", it's just expanding the prostitution market. Eliminate the groups that they're playing to, and that's how to end it.
Seems Ms. Pelosi agrees with him:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/30/MNGSCQOVNF1.DTL